Oil Budget Doc Production 11-24-10 - Batch 20 - FINAL

002940
Environment and Public Works Committee Hearing

August 4,2010
Follow-Up Questions for Written Submission
Questions for Westerholm
Questions from:Senator Barbara Boxer
1. Director Westerholm, your testimony states that NOAA has a Scientific Team that "provides
a broad array of scientific services to the response, including recommendations to the
[Federal On-Scene Coordinator] on the appropriate use of dispersants" in gulf oil spill
response activities. Could you please describe the types of recommendations that NOAA
has made on the use of dispersants in the gulf, and any tests that NOAA relied on for
those recommendations?
2. Director Westerholm, you have testified that "[t]he use of dispersants is an environmental
trade-off between impacts within the water column, on the sea surface (bird, mammals,
and turtles in slicks) and on the shore." You have also testified that "the effects of
dispersants and dispersed oil below the surface on wildlife such as diving birds, marine
mammals, and sea turtles are unknown." How does NOAA assess the tradeoffs if the
effects on wildlife and fish in the water column are unknown?
3. Director Westerholm, the National Academy of Sciences in 2005 said that "a particular
concern [with the use of dispersants] stems from potential synergistic effects of exposure
to dissolved components in combination with chemically dispersed oil droplets." The
NAS recommended that federal agencies and other stakeholders "develop and fund a
series of focused toxicity studies to determine the mechanisms of both acute and
sublethal toxicity to key organisms from exposure to dispersed oil." Has NOAA .
conducted or found that others have performed acute and sublethal toxicity tests
involving dispersants and dispersant-oil mixtures on key organisms in the gulf?
4. Director Westerholm, the National Incident Command released a report titled: "BP
Deepwater Horizon Oil Budget: What Happened To the Oil?" I'd like you to clarify some
numbers in this report. Of the estimated 4.9 million barrels of oil spilled, does the report
find that 24% of the oil was naturally or chemically dispersed into the water column, and
that an additional 26% of the oil remains in the water column? How much oil in any form
remains in the water column?
5. Director Westerholm, I have another question on the NIC report. The report states: "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 ... Until it is biodegraded, naturally or chemically dispersed oil, even in dilute
amounts, can be toxic to vulnerable species ... " Could the oil still in the water column be
toxic to fish and wildlife in the gulf?
Senator Bernard Sanders

1. You mentioned there are no data on toxicity of dispersed oil to deep-sea biota at any life
stage. How were initial test results on Gulf of Mexico dispersants obtained? In other words,
002941
were these tests conducted at the wellhead so that depth, pressure, and temperature variables
were accurate?
Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand

'Water Samples and Biodegradation of Dispersants
According to data obtained from Unified Command, application of Corexit 9527, which contains a
potentially hazardous ingredient, 2-butoxyethanol, was stopped on May 22nd. Though application
was stopped, water sampling results posted on EPA's website and collected along the shoreline of the
Gulf Coast indicate the presence of 2-butoxyethanol on July 8th, 47 days after the last known
application.
.
QUESTION: Has NOAA investigated the potential source the 2-butoxyethanol? Is there evidence to
correlate the presence of 2-butoxyethanol with the application of Corexit 9527? If so, does this mean
that this dispersant is more persistent in the environment than initially expected? If not, what other
sources may account for the presence of2-butoxyethanol in the samples?
Dispersant effectiveness on fresh versus weathered oil
Throughout the response, federal authorities have proposed that oil takes about 3 hours to travel from
the subsurface to surface. On at the surface, federal authorities have said that it take about 5 hours for
oil to weather.
QUESTION: A number of BP's exemptions for surface/subsurface use seemed to rely on the
identification of oil plumes a day to a week in advance. As a result, exemption request were
submitted anywhere from a day to a week in advance. If the time windows proposed by federal
authorizations for oil weatherization are correct, it appears that dispersants were applied to weathered
oil where the effectiveness had drastically decreased. What have we learned about the effectiveness
of dispersants at breaking up weathered oil?
Senator James M. Inhofe

1. From your vantage point, is it fair to say that federal agencies took into account potential
damages from dispersants and came to the conclusion that any negative effects from their use
would more than likely outweigh those of oil spewing into the Gulf?
2. Judging from the current reports that dispersants have been successful in the Gulf, with no
discernable concomitant environmental damage, would you support a moratorium on the use
of dispersants for further study should we need them again in the near future?
3. A recent St. Petersburg Times article reported that members of the University of South
Florida scientific community as well as an oceanographer from the University of Southern
Mississippi questioned certain NOAA data and claimed that when they presented their
findings they were "lambasted", "basically called inept idiots" and attempts were made to
discredit them. Can you speak to the scientific nature of the USF and USM findings and can
you address the claims of NOAA's reaction to their findings?
4. Has NOAA seen any evidence of dispersants bioaccumulation in any species in the Gulf?
002954
BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Budget:

What Happened To the Oil?
The National Incident Command (NIC) assembled a number of interagency ex;pert 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
released. Led by Energy Secretary Steven Chu and United States
calculated the flow rate and total
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 of the 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%) ofthe total oil naturally
evaporated or dissolved, and just less than one quarter (24%) was dispersed (either naturally or as a
result of operations) as microscopic droplets into 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 .
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.
'
Deepwiater Horizon Oil Budget

Based on estimated release of 4.9m barrels of oil
Unified
Command
Re:>!)onse
Residual includes oil

that is on or just below
the surface as light
sheen and weathered
tar balls, has washed
Operations
ashore or been
collected from the
shore, or is buried in
sand and sediments.
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.
002955
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.
002956
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
Suntey (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 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 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 Bpts 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
002957
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 shorelines, fish and wildlife, and ecosystems has decreased since the capping
of the BP wellhead, federal scientists remain extremely concerned about the impact of the spill to the
Gulf ecosystem. Fully understanding the impacts of this spill on wildlife, habitats, and natural resources
in the Gulf region will take time and continued monitoring and research.
002958
Deepwater HorizonlBP Oil Budget:

What happened to the oil?
Acknowledgements
Authors
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:
LT(jg) Charity Drew (USCG) - Original Excel spreadsheet and application inspiration
David Mack and Jeff Allen (USGS) - Application development and engineering
Rebecca Uribe (USGS) - Graphic design
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
J ames 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.
002962
Environment and Public Works Committee Hearing.

August 4, 2010
Questions for Westerbolm
I. Director Westerholm, your testimony states that NOAA has a Scientific Team that "provides
2. Director Westerholm, you have testified that n[t]he use of dispersants is an environmental
and turtles in slicks) and on the shore. " You have also testified that "the effects of
mammals, and sea turtles are unknown." How does NOAA assess the tradeoffs if the
.sublethal toxicity to key organisms from exposure to dispersed oil." Has NOAA
4. Director Westerholm, the National Incident Command released a report titled: nBP

1. You mentioned there are no data on toxicity of dispersed oil to deep-sea biota at any life
002963
were these tests conducted at the wellhead so that depth, pressure, and temperature variables .
were accurate?

Water Samples and Biodegradation of Dispersants
Gulf Coast indicate the presence of 2-butoxyethanol on July 8th, 47 days after the last known
application.
QUESTION: Has NOAA investigated the potential source the 2-butoxyethanol? Is there evidence to
correlate the presence of 2-butoxyethanol with the application of Corexit 9527? If so, does this mean
sources may account (or the presence of2-butoxyethanol in the samples?
oil to weather.

discernable concomitant environmental damage, would you support a moratorium on the use
3. A recent St. Petersburg Times article reported that members of the University of South
findings they were "lambasted", "basically called inept idiots" and attempts were made to
discredit them. Can you speak to the scientific nature of the USF and USM findings and can
002999
Environment and Public Works Committee Hearing

August 4,2010
Questions for Westerholm
1. Director Westerholm, your testimony states that NOAA has a Scientific Team that "provides
2. Director Westerholm, you have testified that "[t]he use of dispersants is an environmental
and turtles in slicks) and on the shore." You have also testified that "the effects of
mammals, and sea turtles are unknown.'; How does NOAA assess the tradeoffs if the
sublethal toxicity to key organisms from exposure to dispersed oil." Has NOAA
4. Director Westerholm, the National Incident Command released a report titled: "BP

I. You mentioned there are no data on toxicity of dispersed oil to deep-sea biota at any life
003000
were these tests conducted at the wellhead so that depth, pressure, and temperature variables
were accurate?

Water Samples and Biodegradation of Dispersants
Gulf Coast indicate the presence of2-butoxyethanol on July 8th, 47 days after the last known
application.
QUESTION: Has NOAA investigated the potential source the 2-butoxyethanol? Is there evidence' to
correlate the presence of 2-butoxyethanorwith the application of Corexit 9527? If so, does this mean
sources may account for the presence of2-butoxyethanol in the samples?
oil to weather.

discemable concomitant envir~nmental damage, would you support a moratorium on the use
3. A recent St. Petersburg Times article reported that members of toe University of South
findings they were "lambasted", "basical1y called inept idiots" and attempts were made to
discredit them. Can you speak to the scientific nature ofthe USF and USM findings and can
003078
te: Access to BP high res film? Re: follow up question -- urgent
Subject: Re: Access to BP high res film? Re: follow up question -- urgent
From: Jason Rolfe <Jason.Rolfe@noaa.gov>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 201011:27:38 -0400To: "Gilson, Shannon" <SGilson@doc.gov>, "Westerholm, Dave"
<Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>, "Dieveney, Beth" <Beth.Dieveney@noaa.gov>,
"'dwh.staff@noaa.govlll <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>, "Spring, Margaret"
<Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>, "Kenney, Justin" <Justin.kenney@noaa.gov>, "Medina,
Monica" <Monica.Medina@noaa.gov>, "Conner, William" <William.Conner@noaa.gov>,
"Kennedy, David" <David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>, "Parsons, Roger"
<Roger.L.Parsons@noaa.gov>, "Lehr, Bill" <BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov>, Mark W Miller
<Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
All, I spoke with the Flow Rate Technical Group lead here at the NIC. She confirmed that
there is DOE representation on the FRTG. She said that DOE reps (as well as all FRTG
members) have access to the NOAA FTP site where all the BP/flow rate videos are stored.
Thank you,
Jason
Gilson, Shannon wrote:
Marcia mcnutt and david hayes
dir~cted them to us.
--------------------------------------------------~------------- I
From: Dave.Westerholm <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>
To: Dieveney, Beth
Cc: Gilson, Shannon; 'dwh.staff@noaa.gov' <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>; Spring, Margaret; Kenney, Justin;
Medina, Monica; Conner, William; Kennedy, David; Parsons, Roger; Rolfe, Jason; Lehr, Bill
Sent: Tue Jun 08 20:34:41 2010
Subject: Re: Access to BP high res film? Re: follow up question -- urgent
II
!
;
Beth,
As it was given to the FRTG of the NIC let's go back through the NIC.
Roger/Jason, can you guys determine the process for getting to DOE and pass this
request to the appropriate people.
I thought DOE had someone on the solutions group but I don't know who that is
Bill Lehr, you were cc'd as you were part of the FRTG.
vIr
Dave
Beth Dieveney wrote:
Dave and Bill-
Do we have / can we share access to the high res film that was shared with the
FRTG?
Beth
of2
10/1/20103:29 PM
003079
te: Access to BP high res film? Re: follow up question -- urgent
From: Gilson, Shannon <SGilson@doc.gov>

To: 'dwh.staff@noaa.gov' <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>; Spring, Margaret
<Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>; Ke'nney, Justin <Justin.kenney@noaa.gov>;
Medina, Monica <Monica.Medina@noaa.gov>
Sent: Tue Jun 08 19:43:092010
Subject: FW: follow up question -- urgent
See below. DOE needs access to video below ASAP. Who can help here?
I
I
I
From: Leistikow, Dan [mailto:Dan. Leistikow@hg.doe.govj

Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 20107:39 PM
To: Gilson, Shannon
Cc: Croft, Cammie
Subject: FW: follow up question -- urgent
Shannon -We need to get access to the High Resolution video of the BOP that
was given to the Flow Rate Technical Group ... CNN has already run the footage
(probably leaked from someone).
.
Cammie Croft (cc'ed) is the point of contact here who needs to get access to the
video electronically somehow and will know the technical ins and outs of how to
do that. Whoever is responding should send it to her and CC me
II'
I
I
II
II !.
I
I
: of2
!
l
10/1/20103:29 PM
003089
imding for professors
Subject: funding lor professors

From: Bill Lehr <BilI.Lehr@noaa.gov>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 13:50:22 -0700
To: William Conner <Willlam.Conner@noaa.gov>, Dave Westerholm

<Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>, "Mark Miller Mark W Miller" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
Dear Management Folks,
A couple of my professors from the FRTG Plume Team are looking for funding to do
an experiment related to the flow estimate. Any ideas or suggestions within NOAA?
Bill Lehr
fl
10/1/2010 3:30 PM
003090
te: fimding for professors
Subject: Re: funding for professors.

From: "Dave.Westerholm" <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:03:06 -0400
To: BilI.Lehr@noaa.gov
CC: William Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>, "Mark Miller Mark W Miller"
<Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
.
Bill,
What are the parameters for the experiment and how much?
And how would you translate the future value to NOAA? And should our role change
in the future with respect to determining flow rate?
I know this is more questions than answers but it might frame whether we should
pursue something like this;
. Dave
Bill Lehr wrote:

Dear Management Folks,
A couple of my professors from the FRTG Plume Team are looking for funding to do
an experiment related to the flow estimate. Any ideas or suggestions within
NOAA?
Bill Lehr
of 1
10/1/20103:30 PM
003129
:Fwd: RE: an mUortunate incident]
. Subject: [Fwd: RE: an unfortunate incident]

From: "william.conner" <William.Conner@noaa.gov>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 07:52:41 -0400
To: Dave Westerholm <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>
Probably too late for you to see this before the call, but here it is. I don't know anything
beyond this.
------ Original Message -------.::
Subject:RE: an unfortunate incident
Date:Fri, 11 Jun 201002:01:16 -0400
From:Marcia K McNutt <mcnutl@usgs.gov>
To:wereley@purdue.edu, pedro.espina@nist.gov, Bill. Lehr@noaa.gov,
rileyj@u.washington.edu, lasheras@ucsd.edu, Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov,
aaliseda@u.washington.edu,
, pdy@clarkson.edu,
antonio.possolo@nist.gov, William.Conner@noaa.gov
The point with'the posting of the stats paper is that we (Bill and I) told 001 that we did NOT want it made public.
We did not have to give a reason. It is kind of you, Steve, to offer an out, but it is the principle here. When we
are aU together we can talk about new ways that I think we need to operate to make sure this doesn't happen
again.
Marcia
From: Wereley, Steven T. <wereley@purdue.edu> [mailto:Wereley, Steven T. <wereley@purdue.edu>]

Sent: Thursday, June 10, 20109:52 PM
. To: "Espina, Pedro I." <pedro.espina@nist.gov>; "'bill.lehr@noaa.govlll <bilLlehr@noaa.gov>;
"'mcnutt@usgs.gov'" <mcnutt@usgs.gov>; "'rile'l,j@u.washington.edu'" <rile'l,j@u.washington.edu>;
IIIlasheras@ucsd.edu'" <Iasheras@ucsd.edu>; IIIJane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov'" <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>;
"'aaliseda@u.washington.edu" <aaliseda@u.washington.edu>; "
<
"'pdy@clarkson.edu'" <pdy@clarkson.edu>; "Possolo, Antonio"
<antonio.oossolo@nist.gov>; "'William.Conner@noaa.gov'" <William.Conner@noaa.gov>
Subject: RE: an unfortunate incident
l
Hi all.
First, I don't see the issue with the posting of the stats paper. We plan to post all our
individual reports anyway. Anyone could rebuild the table with our names on it from our
individual reports. Bill has done an excellent job so far and I don't think he should resign.
Second, to throw another idea in the hopper, I would suggest Chicago for a meeting
location. It's located at the centroid of all our positions, minimizing travel time for all. We
could convene at an airport hotel, say the Hilton directly across from the arrivals area. Of
course there are others that would be more budget oriented. A board room with wifi is all
we'd need to whack this report out. Of course it also minimizes my travel time--but that's
purely coincidence ... :-)
Best,
on
10/1/20103:31 PM
003130
Fwd: RE: an unfortunate incident]
Steve Wereley, Professor of Mechanical Engineering

Birck Nanotechnology Center, Room 2019, 1205 West State Street
Purdue University
West Lafayette, IN 47907
p~one: 765/494-5624, fax: 765/494-0539
web page: http://engineering.purdue.edu/-wereley
From: Espina, Pedro I. [pedro.espina@nist.gov]
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 20109:26 PM
To: 'biILlehr@noaa.gov'; 'mcnutt@usgs.gov'; 'rileyj@u.washington.edu';
'Iasheras@ucsd.edu'; 'Jane. Lubchenco@noaa.gov'; 'aaliseda@u.washington.edu'; Wereley,
Steven T.;
; '
; Possolo, Antonio;
'William.Conner@noaa.gov'
Subject: Re: an unfortunate incident
Dear Colleagues,
What happen today, without a doubt, is unfortunate. I hope that you agree with me that Bill
Lehr has demonstrated exceptional leadership in these past weeks and he has earned my
trust. Dr. McNutt is a woman of science and I believe that she understands that science is a
process that cannot be rushed. Howeyer, I am sure that she is under a level of pressure
that I cannot begin to comprehend. I call on you to try to view what has happen as one of
those things that happen when irreconcilable differences meet.
I think that we owe the people that have placed their trust in our professional skills to see
this process through. I for one, think that Bill Lehr is the man that should lead us in this
imperfect process. I hopethat you agre~ with me.
e
On other news, both, Bill and I have been authorized to make arrangements for the team to
meet in person at either NIST, Gaithersburg, MD or at NOAA, WA. Bill is now weighing the
options keeping in mind that you have previous commitments. I look forward to finally
meeting you on Sunday.
Thank you, Pedro
----- Original Message ----From: Bill Lehr < Bill. Lehr@noaa.gov>

To: Marcia K McNutt < mcnutl@usgs.gov>; James J Riley < rileyj@u.washington.edu>;
Juan Lasheras < lasheras@ucsd.edu>; Jane Lubchenco < Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>;
Alberto Aliseda < aaliseda@u.washington.edu>; Wereley@purdue.edu <
Wereley@purdue.edu>; ira leifer
Poojitha Yapa <
>; Possolo, Antonio; Espina, Pedro I.; James J Riley <
rileyi@u.washington.edu>; William Conner < William.Conner@no
Sent: Thu Jun 1020:18:272010
Subject: professional conduct
of3
1011I201O 3:31 PM
003131
Fwd: RE: an mUortunate incident]
Dear Dr. McNutt,

One of my experts has pOinted out to me that the press statement link
for the Plume Team, instead of going to the statement we had all
carefully agreed upon, went to the internal report by Dr. Possolo that
mentioned individual names. We had agreed that document was for internal
use only and that Dr. Possolo would prepare another analysis that did
not refer by name to the expert.
I hope this was an unintentional mistake upon the part of DOL If so,
" please remove it and put the correct link there immediately.
If not, I believe that we as government officials have betrayed the
trust these gentlemen placed in us when we said that internal discussion
of the group would be kept confidential so that a free exchange of ideas
cou"ld be held. If such is the case, then I do not believe I can remain
effective as the Leader of the Plume Team since the experts cannot rely
on promises that I make to them. You may wish to find an alternative
Team Lead.
Regards,
Bill Lehr
Senior Scientist
NOAA/ORR
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
of3
1011/20103:31 PM
003134
tE: need quick help with Q on Oil Budget NRDA
Subject: RE: need quick help with Q 01;) Oil Budget NRDA
From: "Robert.Haddad" <Robert.Haddad@noaa.gov>
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 10:44:51 -0400
To: 'Jennifer Austin' <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>, Tony.Penn@noaa.gov, 'Mark W Miller'
<Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, '_HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>
cc: 'Dave Westerholm' <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>
Jennifer:
The oil budget will not immediately impact BP's liability with regards to
NRDA. This is because the under 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 bbl~ 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: 240.328.9085
www.darrp.noaa.gov
www.response.restoration.noaa.gov
-----Original Message----From: Jennifer Austin [mailto:Jennifer.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 Oil Budget NRDA
Hi Bob and Tony and DWH Staff,
Quick question for you, related to the the oil budget report going out
this morning, we're pulling together Q&A for Dr. for her briefing with
Gibbs this afternoon, Can you answer this question? Thanks, Jen
1.
What impact, if any, will this report have in determining BP's financial
liability for this spill? *
Jennifer Austin
NOAA Communications & External Affairs
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
www.acebook.com/noaa.lubchenco
of 1
10/1/2010 3:31 PM
003135
~:
need quick help with Q on Oil Budget NRDA
Subject: RE: need quick help with Q on Oil Budget NRDA

From: "Robert.Haddad ll <Robert.Haddad@noaa.gov>
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 10:44:51 -0400
To: 'Jennifer Austin' <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>, Tony.Penn@noaa.gov, 'Mark W Miller'
<Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, '_HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>
CC: 'Dave Westerholm' <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>
Jennifer:
NRDA.This is because the under OPA, the Natural Resource injuries have to
because X bbls of oil were released, the NRD liability is Y.
Office: 301.713.4248x110
Cell: 240.328.9085
www.darrp.noaa.gov
Staff
1.
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202~302-9047 (cell)
of I
1011/20103:31 PM
003136
~e:
need quick belp with Q on Oil Budget NRDA
. Subject: Re: need quick help with Q on Oil Budget NRDA

From: Steve Block ,<Steve. Block@Noaa.gov>
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 10:50:09 -0400
To: "Robert.Haddad" <Robert.Haddad@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>
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:
NRDA.
This is because the under OPA, the Natural Resource injuries have to
.I be documented by the trustees and the causal linkage between the spilled oil
I ecosystem impacts that are related to either the
or to response
actions arising as a result of the spill.
In other words, we can' t say
I
!
II
I
Robert Haddad, Ph. D.

Chief, Assessment& Restoration Division
i NOAA/Office of Response&
Restoration
Office: 301.713.4248xll0
Cell: 240.328.9085
l www. darrp. noaa. gov
! -----Original
Message----From: Jennifer Austin [mailto:Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov]

! Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 10:19 AM
To: Robert Haddad; Tony.Penn@noaa.gov;MarkWMiller;_HQDeepWaterHorizon
Staff
1 Subject: need quick help with Q on Oil Budget NRDA
i
Hi Bob and Tony and DWH
! this morning, we're pulling together Q&A for Dr. for her briefing with
; Gibbs this afternoon, Can you answer this ques,tion? Thanks,Jen
j
! 1. *
i liabil
for this spill? *
!
11
I!
,
j
i
~
IOIl/20lO 3:31 PM
003137
~e:
Subject: Re: need quick help with Q on Oil Budget NRDA

From: Steve Block <Steve.Block@Noaa.gov>
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 10:50:09 -0400
To: "Robert.Haddad" <Robert.Haddad@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
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 governme,nt can fine BP up to
$4,300 per barrel of oil released into the Gulf.--Steve
Jennifer:
NRDA. This is because the under OPA, the Natural Resource injuries have to
~I because X bbls of oil were releas,ed, the NRD liability is Y.
I Is
Ii
this helpful? Bob

I NOAA/Office of Response& Restoration
j Office: 301. 713.4248x110
; Cell: 240.328.9085
www. darrp. noaa. gov
I!
i
I
I

Staff
II
I
I
j Quick question for you, related to the the oil budget report going out
i this morning, we're pulling together Q&A for Dr. for her briefing with
I, Gibbs
this afternoon, Can you answer this question? Thanks, Jen
'-
I1 1 *
I What
I liability
, if any, will this report have in determining BP's financial

for this spill? *
I
of 1
10/1/20103:31 PM
003138
lli: need quick help with Q on Oil Budget NRDA
Subject: RE: nesd 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>
<Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, '_HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff' <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>, 'Dave
Westerhohn' <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;
. even if 50% of the oil that was released evaporated.
Bob
Office: 301.713.4248xll0
Cell: 240.328.9085
www.darrp.noaa.gov
-----Original Message----From: Steve Block [mailto:Steve.Block@Noaa.gov]
To: Robert.Haddad
Cc: 'Jennifer Austin'; Tony.Penn@noaa.gov; 'Mark W Miller'; '_HQ Deep Water
Horizon Staff'; 'Dave Westerholm'
The estimated barrels of oil released into the Gulf may, however,
impact BP's liability of a civil fine under the Clean Water Act. Under
a clause added to the CWA following the Exxon Valdez spill, the federal
government can fine BP up to $4,300 per barrel of oil released into the
Gulf.--Steve
Jennifer:
I,
! The
oil budget will not immediately impact BP's liability with regards to
i NROA. 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
l
from the NRD claim) will be based directly on those measured
! ecosystem impacts that are related to either the spill or to response
! actions
as a result of the spill. In other words, we can't say
; because X bbls of oil were
the NRD liability is Y.
I
I
;, Is this helpful? Bob

.I
i Robert Haddad, Ph. D.
.
Assessment& Restoration Division
: NOAA/Office of Response& Restoration
i Office: 30l.713.4248xll0
Cell: 240.328.9085
of2
10/1/20103:31 PM
003139
ffi: need quick help with Q on Oil Budget NRDA
www.darrp.noaa.gov
To: Robert Haddad; Tony.Penn@noaa.gov; Mark W Miller; _HQ Deep Water
Horizon
Staff
1. *
liability for this
? *
1011/20103:31 PM
003140
tE: need quick help with Q on Oil BudgetNRDA

From: "Robert. Haddad" <Robert.Haddad@noaa.gov>
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 10:59:29 -0400
<Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, '_HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>, 'Dave
It has nothing to do with the oil budget.
Just so that's clear, if 100 bbls
of oil are released, the per bbl penalty would be assessed on all 100 bblsi
even if 50% of the oil that was released evaporated.
Bob
Office: 301.713.4248xll0
Cell: 240.328.9085
www.darrp.noaa.gov
To: Robert.Haddad
Cc: 'Jennifer Austin'; Tony.Penn@noaa.gov; 'Mark W Miller';
'_HQ Deep Water
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
Gulf.--Steve
i Jennifer:
1 NRDA. This is because the under OPA, the Natural Resource injuries have
to
be documented by the trustees and the causal linkage between the
lIed
oil
! ecosys'tem 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.
1
f
i
I,
!, Is
i!
this helpful? Bob
Restoration Division
NOAA/Office of Response& Restoration
I Office: 301.713.4248x110
Cell: 240.328.9085
I
of2
.,,
I
I
1 Chief, Assessment&
1
~
I
1011/20103:31 PM
003141
ill: need quick help with Q on Oil Budget NRDA
www.darrp.noaa.gov
--~--Original Message----From: Jennifer Austin [mailto:Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov]
l To: Robert Haddad; Tony.Penn@noaa.gov; Mark W Miller; _HQ Deep Water
Horizon
I Staff
I Subject: need quick help with Q on Oil Budget NRDA

1. *
What impact, .if any, will this report have in determining BF's financial
10/1/20103:31 PM
003142
:Fwd: Re: Input Request - Weekly 82 Deputies Committee Briefing ...
Subject: [Fwd: Re: Input Request - Weekly S2 Deputies Committee Briefing Memo]
From: "Mark.W.Miller" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
.
Date: Thu, 22 Jul2010 12:31:19 -0400
To: _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>, Bill Conner
<William. Conner@noaa.gov>
Just a quick note to AS Kayyem.
Mark
------ Original Message -----Subject:Re: Input Request - Weekly S2 Deputies Committee Briefing Memo
Date:Thu, 22 Jul2010 11:51:24 -0400
From:Mark.W.Milier <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
To:Kayyem, Juliette <Juliette.KaYvem@dhs.gov>
CC:Grawe, William <William.R.Grawe@uscg.dhs.gov>, Sturm, Francis
<Francis.J.Sturm@uscg.dhs.gov>
References:<9CBEDCABAE9CBD47B529D3BF9BBD376A02E5A56C@ZAU1 UG0304.DHSNET.DS1.DHS>
Juliette,
I am preparing some material for Dr. Lubchenco that covers the details
which she will brief later today but the overview is that the pie chart
is part of a document that NOAA is preparing that uses the Oil Budget
tool to initialize our oil models for an updated long term view of oil
movement in the Gulf. The data for the pie chart was taken directly from
the Oil Budget for July 15 (day well shut in) and used the Low Flow
scenario. The other oil budget numbers in the brief were from July 22
and were for the High flow scenario. .
Mark
Kayyem, Juliette wrote:
> Is there resolution on the potus materials? I heard about it here at naco
>
> ----- Original Message
> From: Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
> To: Bernstein, Kristi LCDR
> Cc: Schallip, Michele LT <Michele.L.Schallip@uscg.mil>; Ormes, David; Campbell, Elizabetr
> Sent: Thu Jul 22 11:05:47 2010
> Subject: Re: Input Request - Weekly S2 Deputies Committee Briefing Memo
>
> v)
Sub Surface Oil Modeling Update (IASG/Mark Miller and Mr. Rolfe)
>
> 1. The NIC chartered Joint Analysis Group (JAG) report from June 23rd
> confirmed the existence of a previously discovered cloud of diffuse oil
> at depths of 3,300 to 4,600 feet near the wellhead. Preliminary
> findings indicate that total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) concentrations
> at these depths are in concentrations of about 1-2 parts per million
> (ppm). Between that depth and the surface mix layer, which is defined as
> 450 feet below the surface, concentrations fell to levels that were not
> readily discernible from background levels. The tests detection limit
> is about 0.8 ppm. Analysis also shows that this cloud is most
> concentrated near the source of the leak and decreases with distance
> from the wellhead. Beyond six miles from the wellhead, concentrations of
> this cloud drop to levels that qre not detectable.
>
> 2. A second report from the JAG is in final stages of review and is
of2
1011/20103:32 PM
003143
:Fwd: Re: Input Request - Weekly S2 Deputies Committee Briefing ...
> expected to be released shortly. The report will contain fluorometric
'> data versus distance from the well head which provide useful insight to
> the potential spatial variation of the cloud.
>
>
>
> Bernstein, Kristi LCDR wrote:
>
NIC/IASG, Good Morning,
I respectfully wish to remind you that your input is due to me by 1200 today.
Mr. Jenkins/Ms. Pension/CAPT Fish: Thank you for your timely input.
V/R,
LCDR Kristi Bernstein
.
Kristi Bernstein
Lieutenant Commander, U.S. Coast Guard
Admin & Coordination Staff
Deputy Commandant for Operations
(202)372-2006
Kristi.L.Bernstein@uscg.mil
"FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PRIVACY SENSITIVE"

This email mayor may not contain Privacy Act Information.
Any misuse or unauthorized disclosure may result in both civil and criminal penalties.
-----Original Message----From: Bernstein, Kristi LCDR

Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 10:09 AM
To: Schallip, Michele LTi Ormes, Davidi Campbell, Elizabeth CDRi Novotny, Jeffrey CAPTi
Cc: Megan, Michael CAPT; Moland, Mark CDRi Wiedenhoeft, Paul CAPTi HQS-PF-fldr-NIC HQ Sj
Subject: Input Request - Weekly S2 Deputies Committee Briefing Memo
Good Morning NIC and CG-545 leadership,
The attached Briefing Memo/Talking Points are for the DHS Deputy Secretary (S2) in prep,
Respectfully request concise talking points be populated under the specific issues undel
If you have recently been relieved of your duties related to Deepwater Horizon, please j
Thank you for your assistance and please let me know if you have any questions.
VIR,
LCDR Bernstein
Kristi Bernstein
Lieutenant Commander, U.S. Coast Guard
Admin & Coordination Staff
Deputy Commandant for Operations
(202)372-2006
Kristi.L.Bernstein@uscg.mil
"FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PRIVACY SENSITIVE"

This email mayor may not contain Privacy Act Information.
Any misuse or unauthorized disclosure may result in both civil and criminal penalties.
f2
10/1/20103:32 PM
003146
~wd:
Re: Oil Budget Tool gets high praise - ACTION by 3:30PM today
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget
High Flow Scenario (60,000 barrels/day) - Through July 21 (Day 93) c.;:. Prm
Cumulative Romam!ll9
Low Flow Scenario (35,000 barrels/day) - Through July 21 (Day i3} v...;;
P~t
Cumu:abvC Rcmammg
DeepwaterHorizon_briefing 7-22-10.docx
Con t en t -Type.
application/vnd.openxmlformatsff' d
t
d
.
Id
0 Ice ocumen .wor processlngm. ocument
Content-Encoding: base64
DeepwaterHorizon_briefing_schematic2.png
DeepwaterHorizon_briefing_schematic2.png IContent-Type:
of4
image/png
10/1120103:32 PM
003147
;wd: Re: Oil Budget Tool gets bigh praise - ACTION by 3:30PM today
IContent-Encoding: base64
.1
-DeepwaterHorizon_brieftng_schematic.docx---------------------------
"
Co t t-T
.
application/vnd.openxmlformatsDeepwaterHorizon_briefing_schematic.docx
n en ype.
officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Content-Encoding: base64
of4
10/1120103:32 PM
003148
Deepwater Horizon MC2S2 GulfIncident Oil Budget
Synopsis: In collaboration with the USCG, NOAA, and NIST, the USGS has developed a Web
application, known as Deepwater Horizon MC252 GulfIncident Oil Budget, that allows
comprehensive tracking and graphical display of the daily and cumulative oil budget in the
Gulf.
Since the April 20,2010, blowout and explosion on the Deepwater Horizon offshore oildrilling rig, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has been actively involved with the National
Incident Command Center, helping to inform decisions in response to the ensuing oil spilL
The USGS is collaborating with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), and the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) to provide scientific and technical expertise to aid the oil spill management and
recovery effort. In particular, USGS science staff participate in a Flow Rate Technical Group
established and led by the USGS Director, Dr. Marcia McNutt, to calculate the discharge rates
and calculate an overall mass balance of oil given different mitigation and cleanup methods.
The USGS developed a Web application, known as Deepwater Horizon MC252 GulfIncident
Oil Budget, to track the discharged oil and results of subsequent processes that affect oil
volumes in the Gulf. Secure Web architecture and a rapid application development process,
instituted for other Web-based applications used by USGS scientists, was used to construct
the Oil Budget application, synthesizing information collected and maintained by the USCG.
The application offers a basic user interface for daily data entry and reporting, allowing
rapid visualization of oil volumes in the Gulf.
USGS, NOAA, NIST, and USCG scientists and logistics personnel collaborate to ensure that
the oil tracking application supports absolute data integrity, comprehensive data entry and
management, and simple Web access, eliminating the need for speCialized software. The
application allows:
National Incident Command personnel to input daily variables;

Scientific support staff to edit the computing program for the Oil Budget Model as
. improved information becomes available;
Dynamic creation of graphs showing modeled low flow rate/maximum removal and
high flow rate/minimum removal scenarios;
Incorporation of succinct descriptions, including assumptions and factors used for
calculations such as amount of oil burned, skimmed, or remained unaffected, in the
online application and printed reports; and
Generation of executive summaries, showing the most up-to-date calculated daily
and cumulative values.
The USGS team continues to provide technical support and introduce incremental
improvements to the Oil Budget tool as new information becomes available and desired
capabilities are identified. Based on the rapid response to this incident, the USGS is poised
to apply extensive scientific and technical expertise to benefit other environmental
emergencies.
003149
Daily actions by
incident command
personnel
Assumption and
Periodic update by
authorized personnel factor review by
NOAA
Data and the oil

budget model
--
Input Daily Values
~Update rates,
estimates.
assumptions. and
other supporting
figures
::;
r.::::
I-
\~W"W~I-
'--
executive
summary and
reports on lin
\,wmp-~i-
Data inputs - rates.

estimates.
assumptions. and
supporting figures
I
,...-
-~
"Oil Budget
Moder'
CalcJlation
based on Oil
Budget Formula
... ~
>
Scientific Review of.

data inputs.
calculations. and'
assumptions
distribution
Technical Support (single, secure Web application)
Scientific Support
003150
Jackground Infonnation on Pie Chart and Oil Budget Tool
Subject: Background Information on Pie Chart and Oil Budget Tool

. From: "Mark.W.Miller" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul2010 15:49:35 -0400
To: Jane Lubchenco <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>, _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>, Bill Conner
<William. Con ner@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
!Remaining
ILow Flow July 15

480,000
IHigh Flow July 22
16%
1,470,000
28%
16%
!Direct Recovery
820,000
27%
823,000
!Natural Dispersion
400,000
13%
826,000
IEvaporated
670,000
22%
1,346,000
.
..
120,000
2%
100,000
3%
iBurned
260,000
8%
266,000
IChemically Dispersed
340,000 11%
344,000
iSkimmed
5%
.. 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.
.
-. DeepwaterHorizon_briefing_schematic2.png-----------------------------
10/1/20103:33 PM
003151
~ackground
Infonnation on Pie Chart and Oil Budget Tool
Deepwatef" Horizon MC2S2 Gulf Incident Oil Budget
High Flow Scenario (60,OOO barrels/day) - Through July 21 (Day 93) ~
Print
Cumalat"llo Di$oo$~ of Oil
Low Flow Scenario (35.000 barrels/day) Through July 21 {Day 93} '".::., P-".,t
CumuiatIVO DislloSltlon of Oil
Curnu!at:w Rotr.air.mg
'" ., .. -
-~~.,.",,-
"
"Content-Type:
image/png
DeepwaterHonzon briefing schematlc2.png C
E
d"
b
64
.
ontent- nco 109: ase
of2
1011/2010 3:33 PM
003152
Fwd: USGS Oil Budget Tool Write-up]
Subject: [Fwd: USGS Oil Budget Tool Write-up]

From: Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul2010 17:25:32 -0400
To: Jane Lubchenco <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>, _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff
<dwh.staff@noaa.gov>, William Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>
Dr. Lubchenco,
Here is the write-up on Oil Budget tool and example output that USGS and I put together.
Mark
Subject: USGS Oil Budget Tool Write-up

From: Stephen E Hammond <sehammon@usgs.gov>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul2010 16:45:06 -0400
TQ: "Grawe, William" <William.R.Grawe@uscg.mil>
CC: "Sturm, Francis" <Francis.J.Sturm@uscg.mil>, "Brown, Baron CDR" <Baron.K.Brown@uscg.mil>,
"O'Brien, Sean CDR" <Sean.K.O'Brien@uscg.mil>, Mark Miller - NOAA <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>,
"Offutt, Todd CDR" <Todd.J.Offutt@uscg.mil>, Stephen E Hammond <sehammon@usgs.gov>
Bill,
It was close but we made it. Here is the one page summary of the oil budget tool and a pdf of the tool's
output. Thanks for your help and guidance today.
Stephen E. Hammond
US Geological Survey
Chief Emergency Operations Office,
National Geospatial Program
Reston, VA
703-648-5033 (w)
c)
703-648- 5792 (fax)
!I~~------------------------!'-c-o-n-te-n-t--T-y-p-e-:----m--es-s-a-g-~-rt-C-8-22-1
USGS Oil Budget Tool Write-up.eml II C

.
7b't
. ontent-Encodmg: I
:
I
Deepwater Horizon Oil Budget background 20100721 .pdf
Deepwater Horizon Oil Budget background 20100721.pdf
Content-Type:
application/pdf
E'
b
64
Content- ncodmg: ase
-DeepwaterHorizon oil bugettool briefing 7-22-10 Flnal.doc---
! Content-Type:
application/msword
IDeepwaterHorizon oil buget tool briefing 7-22-10 Flnal;doc, C
.
b
64
i
. ' ontent-Encodmg: ase
ofl
10/1/2010 3:33 PM
003153

High Flow Scenario (60,000 barrels/day) Through July 21 (Day 93)
All units in barreis. See end notes for assumptions.
Inland Heloov'erv

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/22/201001 :39 PM 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 Administration.
003154
High Flow Scenario (60,000 barrels/day) - Through July 21 (Day 93)
Cumulative Remaining
1,750,000
1,500,000
1,250,000
-en~
1,000,000
10..
ca
.a
750,000
500,000
250,000
May-2010
-
Expected Value -
Jun-201
Jul-2010
Upper/Lower Confidence Bounds

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.govon 07/22/201001 :39 PM MDT.
See end notes section of the report for reference material on report elements.
003155

L,ow Flow Scenario (35,000 barrels/day) - Through July 21 (Day 93)
* All units in barrels. See end notes for assumptions.
Inland Recovery

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/22/2010 01 :39 PM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geologica! Survey in cooperation with the Nationai
003156
Low Flow Scenario (35,000 barrels/day) - Through July 21 (Day 93)
700,000
650,000
600,000
550,000
500,000
-...
...
tJ)
450,000
Q)
400,000
as
350,000
.Q
300,000
250;000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
30-Apr
-
15-May
Expected Value -
30-May
14-Jun
29-Jun
14-Jul
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Buoget

Report generated by mark.w.milier@noaa.gov on 07/22/201001 :39 PM MDT.
003157
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-2S2 - 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 model and
correspond to the cumulative values in the table. See the footnotes (available in the Web application by
clicking on the labels in the table) for further information on the individual calculations and further
reference material.
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.

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.govon 07/22/201001 :39 PM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Nationai
003158
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 RITT and Top Hat
Calculated amount of subsurface dispersion
-Ca1culated amount of evaporation and dissolution
Recovered via RITT and Top Hat

RITT and Top Hat are mechanical devices that British Petroleum (BP) has used to recover oil from the
spill flow. Values for the amount recovered 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.
Chemically Dispersed
Chemical oil dispersion is the result of a scientific calculation based on the amount of chemical
dispersant applied and recorded daily and acting on both surface and subsurface oil. The following
assumptions and factors apply:
-Droplets smaller than 100 micron are considered dispersed

-No natural surface dispersion assumed
-International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation (ITOPF) "planning purpose" 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 .
. Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget
Report generated by mark,w,mi!ier@noaa.gov on 07/22/201001 :39 PM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geologicai Survey in cooperation with the National
003159
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 assl.lmed
-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"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
Evaporated or Dissolved
Evaporation and dissolution occur haturally with oil on the suiiace. This element in the report is the
re~ult
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 is calculated differently for "fresh" 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:
-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.

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/22/2010 01 :39 PM MDT.
App!ication operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Nationa!
'
003160
Note: Refer to the section on Evaporated and Dissolved Oil in the Mass Balance Formulas document
for a full discussion of the scientific methodology used in this calculation.
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 incident (e.g., severing the riser).
-Discharge rates use flow limits from FRTG Plume Team PIV measurements.
-Chosen because same measurement method used pre- and post-riser cut.
-Other estimation 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 lvtAA 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.

See end notes section of the report tor reference material on report elements.
003161
Deepwater Horizon MC252 GulfIncident Oil Budget

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:

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 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 vel}' 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.
Backoround: 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
Budge.t, 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.
003162
~e:
pie chart
Subject: Re: pie chart

From: Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 16:44:48 -0400 '
To: Jane Lubchenco <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>
CC: M?lrk W Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, William Conner
<William.Conner@noaa.gov>, Scott Smullen <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>, David Kennedy
<David. Ken nedy@noaa.gov>, "Irobinson@noaa.gov" <Larry. Robinson 1@noaa.gov>, Dave
Westerholm <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>, Margaret Spring
<Margaret. Spring@noaa.gov>, Caitlyn Kennedy <caitlyn. kennedy@noaa.gov>
Hi Dr Lubchenco,
, Attached is a draft document to describe the oil budget calculator. This was
drafted in the Communications Office and reviewed by Bill Conner. Please let us
know what comments you have.
The numbers and figure will be updated with the latest numbers when they are
available.
After we hear from you, Mark
suggested in point 1.
c~n
share with his colleagues at the NIC, ?s you
Jane Lubchenco wrote:
Mark, Bill, Scott and Jen,
Thanks for your willingness to move quickly on this. A few thoughts/suggestions:
!i
1. It would be good to id a few key folks from other agencies to work on this
early on so they are not blindsided.
12.
I think it's likely that the 'new', rate will not be outside the bounds of the
so it might be useful to prepare two pie charts: one at the low
flow rate (35,000) and the other at the high rate (60,000).
I current range,
I,
I 3.
It's my understanding that 'Remaining' simply means 'left over after

! subtracting the other categories from the total', (i.e., at the surface, on
l beaches,
in tar balls or biodegraded, removed from beaches, etc.) as opposed to
'remaining at the surface and on beaches' (which is what most folks will think).
It will be important to clarify this.
4. In the text, it will be useful to bin the categories:
a. removed by response efforts at the surface (burning + skimming + recovered)
b. subsurface (dispersed naturally and chemically)
c. evaporated
d. remaining (specify what this is)
5. Other questions folks will ask: what fraction of oil released made it to
surface?
Thanks!
Jane
of2
10/1/20103:34 PM
003163
te: pie chart
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
l Content-Type:
application/msword
: Oil Budget description 7.28 v3.doc C
E
.
b 64
. ontent- ncodmg: ase
of2
101112010 3:34 PM
003164
DRAFT 7.28
Prepared By: Caitlyn Kennedy, Jen Austin
Reviewed By: Bill Conner
Deepwater HorizonlBP Oil Budget Calculator
The National Incident Conimand 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,
Deepwater Horizon Oil Budget
Chemically
Dispersed
11%
Burned
8
% 3%
Dispersion
13%
.
I
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.J-5million barrels of oil had been released from the
Deepwater HorizonIBP wellhead .. (*When announced later this week (t), new FRTG
flow rate / total escape will adjust this and the percentages in the oil budget.)
As shown in the pie graph (Figure 1), aggressive response efforts have been successful in
recovering a significant portion of the spilled oil. %% percent of the oil was captured
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.
003165
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;6'00 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 diameter of a human hair).
We know that naturally occurring bacteria have consumed and biodegraded a significant
amount of the oil. Bacteria that break down the dispersed and weathered surface oil are
naturally abundant in the Gulf of Mexico in large 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 sheelJ 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 submerged 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 and continued monitoring and research.
003166
;.wd: Re: pie chart
Subject: Fwd: Re: pie chart

From: David.Kennedy@noaa.gov
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 16:54:25 -0400
To: dwh.staff@noaa.gov
fyi

Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 16:44:48 -0400
CC: Mark W Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, William Conner
<David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>, "Irobinson@noaa.gov" <Larry.Robinson1@noaa.gov>, Dave
<Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>, Caitlyn Kennedy <caitlyn.kennedy@noaa.gov>
Hi Dr Lubchenco,
Attached is a draft document to describe the oil budget calculator. This was
drafted in the Communications Office and reviewed by Bill Conner. Please let us
know what comments you have.
available.
After we hear from you, Mark can share with his colleagues at the NIC, as you
II Mark,
Bill, Scott and Jen,
Thanks for your willingness to move quickly on this. A few thoughts/suggestions:
1 1 . It would be good to id a few key folks from other agencies to work on this
II early
I
12.
on so they are not blindsided.
I think it's likely that the 'new' rate will not be outside the bounds of the
range, so it might be useful to prepare two pie charts: one at the low
flow rate (35,000) and the other at the high rate (60,000).
! current
! 3.
It's my understanding that 'Remaining' simply means 'left over after

the other categories from the total', (Le., at the surface, on
tar balls or biodegraded, removed from beaches, etc.) as opposed to
'remaining at the surface and on beaches' (which is what most folks will think).
! It will be important to clarify this.
! subtracting
! beaches, in
!
!
!, 4.
In the text, it will be useful to bin the categories:
1 a. removed by response efforts at the surface (burning + skimming + recovere'd)
!! b.
subsurface (dispersed naturally and chemically)
f2
10/1/2010 3:34 PM
003167
~wd:
Re:pie chart
evaporated
remaining (specify what this is)
Other questions folks will ask: what fraction of oil released made it to
surface?
Thanks!
Jane
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
Oil Budgetdescription7.28v3.doc---------------------------.-----~~--
. -----,,-,,--_._- ------""---- -- --,,-- ._.".....
---------_.;.::.:."-=--
========::.:.=-.-=.-.--==~-'-'-"--..;;...;;.--"====="-'-'-"=
Content-Type:
application/msword
Oil Budget description 7.28 v3.doc C
E
d"
b
64
. ontent- nco mg: ase
I
of2
1011/20103:34 PM
003168
DRAFT 7.28

The National Incident Command has assembled the best scientific minds in the

Oiemically
Dispersed
11%
Burned
8%
3%
Dispersion
13%
Figure 1: Oil Budget Calculator- Shows what has happened to the oil.
estimates that as of July 15 between.3-5million barrels of oil had been released from the
Deepwater HorizonIBP wellhead. (*Whenannouncedlater this week (t), new FRTG
003169
column. The volatile components of oil evaporate, while the components that are riot
during the Deepwater Horizon incident. A different evaporation rate is used for fresh and
the oil was dispersed by the application of nearly 50,OOObarreis of chemical dispersants.
through natural seeps regularly so that the bacteria there are accustomed to breaking it .
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.
003170
lE: pie chart
Subject: RE: pie chart

From: Jane Lubchenco <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 05:16:37 -0400
To: Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>
<Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>, Caitlyn Kennedy <caitlyn.kennedy@noaa.gov>,
"'margaret.spring@noaa.gov'" <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>, Amrit Mehra
<Amrit.Mehra@noaa.gov>, "dwh.staff@noaa.gov" <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>
This is a great start. Many thanks for pulling this together quickly. r've
added a summary paragraph at the end and changed one sentence so it does not
imply something that is scientifically inaccurate. We will also need to add an
appendix that spells out the bases for the calculations. I think it should go to
the interagency team that has been working on these calculations.
An please run
it by the relevant folks in our science box.
The FRTT is trying to finalize a flow rate number by COB Friday. We are
being asked to have this ready to announce Saturday, but itis fine to have the
document go through expedited interagency review without the final numbers, then
slot the final numbers in on Friday.
Bill and Mark, can you tell me who are the other. people in other agencies
(as well as ours) who are the team who have been working on this . . Are you
envisioning them as 'authors' of this interagency report? Let me know if you
need anything to move ahead.
Many thanks,
Jane
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 4:45 PM
To: Jane Lubchenco
Cc: Mark W Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; David Kennedy;
lrobinson@noaa.govi Dave Westerholm; Margaret Spring; Caitlyn Kennedy
Hi Dr Lubchenco,
drafted in the Communications Office and reviewed by Bill Conner.
Please let us know what comments you have.
available.
I
I
II
C t t D
. t,Oil Budget description 7
on en . escrlp Ion: 28 v3 JL.doc
IOil Budget description 7 28 v3 ,JL.doc IContent-Type:

'2
applicationimsword
101 l/20 10 3:34 PM
003171
lli: pie chart
of2
1011/2010 3:34 PM
003172
DRAFT 7.28

government and independent scientific community to produce an estimate ofjust how
!
Deepwater Horizon
! Chemically
Oil Budget
! Dispersed
,
11%
3%
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 / total escape will adjust this and the percentages in the oil budget.) .
003173
%% percent ofthe oil has dispersed naturally into the water column, and %% percent of
the oil was dispersed by the application of nearly 50;000 barrels of chemical dispersants.
Natural dispersion occurs as a result of the oil coming out ofthe broken riser pipe at high
.(less than] 00 microns - the diameter of a human hair).
through natural seeps regularly~ so that tile eaeteria there are aeeHstornea to i:JreakiFlg it
EiewR. While there is more analysis to .be done to quantifY the exact rate of
light sheen or weathered tar balls, has been biodegraded, or has already come ashore on
beaches.
D~ su~marv, burning, s](imming andrecov~rv _efforts have remove~ rough Iv 113, ofthe _ .____ , _---{ Form~tted: Highlight
oil. Around a guarter of the total has been naTUrallv evaporated and another guarter
dispersed into GulfwateFs.Theremaining amount,'l'oughlvl!6 is on the surface,intar
balls, on beaches, removed from beaches or has been biodegraded. 1..
nm
____ m
______
lmderstanding the impacts of this spill on wildlife, habitats, and natural resources in the
_. _.' Comment [J1]: These fractions were derived

from the earlier cit budget tool and will i>cCd lobe
,a<ljusted. when we havetbefinalnumbers.
003174
lli: pie chart

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 201005:16:37 -0400
<David .Kennedy@noaa.gov>, "Irobinson@noaa.gov" <Larry. Robinson 1@noaa.gov>, Dave
Westerholm <Dave. Westerholm@noaa.gov>, Margaret Spring
<Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>, Caitlyn Kennedy <caitlyn.kennedy@noaa.gov>,
tIImargaret.spring@noaa.gov'" <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>, Amrit Mehra'
<Amrit. Mehra@noaa.gov>, "dwh .staff@noaa.gov"<dwh.staff@noaa.gov>
This is a great start. Many thanks for pulling this together quickly. I've
imply something that is scientifically inaccurate. We will also need to add an
appendix that spells out the bases for the calculations. I think it should. go to
the interagency team that has been working on these calculations.
An please run
it by the relevant folks in our science box.
being asked to have this ready to announce Saturday, but it is fine to have the
document go through expedited interagency review without the final numbers, then
slot the final numbers in on Friday.
Bill and Mark, can you tell me who are the other people in other agencies
(as well as ours) who are the team who have been working on this. Are you
envisioning them as 'authors' of this interagency report? Let me know if you
need anything to move ahead.
Many thanks,
Jane
-----Original Message----From: Jennifer Austin [mailto:Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov)
To: Jane Lubchenco
lrobinson@noaa.gov; Dave Westerholm; Margaret Spring; Caitlyn Kennedy
Hi Dr Lubchenco,
available.
After we hear from you, Mark can share with his colleagues at the NrC, as you
I
jOil Budget description 728 v3 JL.doc
t t D
. t" . Oil Budget description 7
on en - escrlp Ion: 28 v3 JL.doc
Content-Type:
application/msword
of2
10/112010 3:35 PM
003175
ill: pie chart
L_ _ _
of2
10/1/2010 3:35 PM
003176
DRAFT 7.28
Prepared By: Caitlyn Kennedy. Jen Austin
Dee~water
HorizonlBP Oil Budget Calculator

Chemically
Dispersed
11%
8%
3%
Deepwater HorizonIBP wellhead. (*When'announced later this week (t), new FRTG
flow rate I total escape willadjustthis and the percentages in the oil budget.)
recovering a significant portion of the spilled oil. %% percent ofthe oil was captured
003177
volatile dissolve into the water column or form residues such as tar bans. The
%% percent ofthe oil has dispersed naturally into the water column, and %% percent of
the oil was dispersed by the application of nearly SO,OOO barrels of chemical dispersants.
amount ofthe oil. Bacteria that break down the dispersed and weathered surface oil are
through natural seeps regularly~ so that t!:le baeteria tfleFe are aeel:lstomeEi to breakiRg it
I&wfl. While there is more analysis to be done to quantify the exact rate of
These estimates leave about %% percent of the oiL This oil is either at the surface as
beaches.
1n summarv. buming. skimming and recovery efforts have rempved rOlliilllv 113 of the
oil. Arotind aguarter6fthetotal has been natllraIl'l evaporated andanotherquiuter
dispersed intQ Gulf waters. The remaining amount; roughly l/6 is on the surface.. in tar
balls, on beaches, removed from beaches or has been biodegraded.
Lmm .. uw.m uu
.., .. , .. -{ Formatted: Highlight
.'
eomment [31]: These fracticms were derived

from the C3rlier oil bo~ tool and willnee<l to be
a4justed when we have the final numbers.
003178
tE: pie chart
. Subject: RE: pie chart

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 201005:21:32 -0400
<Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>'; Caitlyn Kennedy <caitlyn.kennedy@noaa.gov>
p.s., it's ok if the document is slightly longer than 2 pages.
To: Jane Lubchenco '
Cc: Mark W Miller; William Conneri Scott Smullen; David Kennedy;
lrobinson@noaa.gov; Dave Westerholmi Margaret Spring; Caitlyn Kennedy
Hi Dr Lubchenco,
available.
I!
Mark, B1.1l, Scott and Jen,
Thanks for your willingness to move quickly on this. A few

. thoughts/suggestions:
I!,
I 1.
It would be good to id a few key folks from other agencies to work

on
this
1
\ 2. I think it's likely that the 'new' rate will not be outside the
of the current range, so it might be useful to prepare two pie
i charts: one at the low flow rate (35,000) and the other at the high
irate (60,000).
i bounds
!
i 3.
It's my understanding that 'Remaining' simply means 'left over

I after subtracting the other categories from the total', (i.e., at the
i surface, on beaches, in tar balls or biodegraded, removed from
I beaches, etc.) as opposed to 'remaining at the surface and 6n beaches'
i (which is what most folks will think). It will be important to clarify
i this .
I!
!
.j
14. In the text, it will be useful to bin the categories:

1
i a. removed by response efforts at the surface (burning + skimming +

1 recovered)
of2
1011/2010 3:35 PM
003179
ill: pie chart

c, evaporated
5. Other questions folks will ask: what fraction of oil released made
it to surface?
Thanks!
I
I
Jane
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell) www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco
.of2
10/1/2010 3:35 PM
003180
~e:
pie chart

Date: Thu, 29 Jul2010 05:52:51 -0400
To: Jane Lubchenco <Jarie.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>
CC: Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>, William Conner
<David. Kerinedy@noaa.gov>, "Irobinson@noaa.gov" <Larry. Robinson 1@noaa.gov>, Dave
Westerholm <Dave. Westerholm@noaa.gov>, Margaret Spring
<Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>, CaitlynKennedy <caitlyn.kennedy@noaa.gov>, Arnrit Mehra
<Amrit. Mehra@noaa.gov>, "dwh .staff@noaa.gov" <dwh .staff@noaa.gov>
Dr. Lubchenco,
For the Oil Budget tool I would include:
For USGS - I would like to check with Steve Hammond (NIC IASG) to see who USGS thinks
should be identified for this document. A short list should probably include Dr. McNutt, Mark
Sogge, Steve Hammond (NIC IASG), Sky Bristol (led the development team), and Tim Kern.
For NIST - Antonio Possolo (NIST did the uncertainty analysis that created the upper and
lower confidence bounds)
For NOAA - Bill Lehr. I also included below the team he pulled together to review the
calculations)
Mark
of2
Team.!i!tember
a f f i l ia tion
RonilIGoodman
U. ;;of !!;!Gl. 19 ary
~Al~Allan
SpilTec
Jamesji]p ayne
P ayneJ~Env.
Tomll2lCOolbatg h
Exxon:;rM>b i l
Ed [i)(S)e rton
l!;lSU
Jtan:~;Ia!sh
eras
LI:SD
AlbertJVenosa
EPA
[l;]Mlr~Fing as
En'.illGl.nad a ( re t)
AliJIKh e l i fa
Env.1!.Gl.nad a
Rober~Jones
N:)A
p a tlrrambert
Env: :.~Gl.nad a
P er~.Daling
SNI'EF
10/1/20103:35 PM
003181
le: pie chart
David iltSh e r
]sCD
p'e1er[;Jcarrag her
BP
M. c he l:!,;lBouf ad e 1 .
Temple[;U.

added a summary paragraph at the end and changed one sentence so' it does not
imply something that is scientifically inaccurate. We will also need to add
an appendix that spells out the bases for the calculations. I think it
should go to the interagency team that has been working on these
calculations.
An please run it by the relevant folks in our science box.
being asked to have this ready to announce Saturday, but it is fine to have
the document go through expedited interagency review without the final
numbers, then slot the final numbers in on Friday.
Bill and Mark, can you tell me who are the other people in other
agencies (as well as ours) who are the team who have been working on this.
Are you envisioning them as 'authors' of this interagency report? Let me
know if you need anything to move ahead.
Many thanks,
Jane
I
i
Hi Dr Lubchenco,
The numbers and figure will be updated with the .latest numbers when they are
available.
of2
i
i
I!

To: Jane Lubchenco
lrobinson@noaa.qovi Dave Westerholm; Margaret Spring; Caitlyn Kennedy
.
After we hear from you, Mark can share with his colleagues at the NIC, as
you suggested in point 1.
!
I
I
I
I
!
1011/20103:35 PM
003182
te: pie chart

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 05:52:51 -0400
cc: Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>, William Conner
<David. Kennedy@noaa.gov>, "Irobinson@noaa.gov" <Larry. Robinson 1@noaa.gov>, Dave
<Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>, Caitlyn Kennedy <caitlyn.kennedy@noaa.gov>, Amrit Mehra
<Amrit.Mehra@noaa.gov>, "dwh.staff@noaa.gov" <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>
Dr. Lubchenco,
For USGS - I would like to check with Steve Hammond (NIC IASG) to see who USGS thinks
the development team), and Tim Kern.
Sogge, Steve Hammond (NIC IASG) , Sky Bristol (led
.
.
calculations)
Mark
Team~rember
af filiation
Ron1tGood man
U. ~of:;calg ary
ImAl[!lJ>llan
SpilTee
James~P
P aynelEnv.
ayne
TomJrCbolbatg h
ExxoniMlb t 1
Ed [!l]Gler1on
~lSU
J1.6nl:Iash eras
USD
J>lbeT"~Venosa
EPA
~~r\AfFing as
J>l i;:Kh e 1 if a
Env.l!!.Qmada
Rober~Jones
N:M
P ati~Iambert
Env. 'fi:canada
of2
I En"liJtcanad a ( re t)
er~;;naling
SNfEF
10/1/20103:35 PM
003183
k pie chart
Da\d.d ;]U;;h e r
Em
P eter[;carrag her
BP
M.~he
ll!;1Bour ad el
Temple~U.

imp~y something that is scientifically inaccurate.
We will also need to add
an appendix that spells out the bases for the calculations. I think it
should go to the interagency team that has been working on these
calculations.
An please run it by the relevant folks in our science box.
being asked to have this ready to announce Saturday, but it is fine to have
the document go through expedited interagency review without the final
numbers, then slot .the final numbers in on Friday.
Bill and Mark, can you tell me who are the other people in other
agencies (as well as ours) who are the team who have been working on this.
Are you envisioning them as 'authors' of this interagency report?
me
know if you need anything to move ahead.
Many thanks I
Jane
To: Jane Lubchenco
Cc: Mark W Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; David KennedYi
lrobinson@noaa.qovi Dave Westerholmi MargaretSpringi Caitlyn Kennedy
Hi Dr Lubchenco,
Attached is a draft document to describe the
budget calculator. This was
available.
After we hear from you, Mark can share with his colleagues at the NIC, as
you suggested in point 1.
of2
10/1/20103:35 PM
003184
lE: pie chart

From: Jane Lubchenco <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gO\l>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul2010 07:54:52 -0400
To: Mark Miller <Mark. W.Miller@noaa.gov>
cc: Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa,gov>, William Conner <William.Conner@noaa,gov>, Scott Smullen <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>, David Kennedy
<Oavid.Kennedy@noaa.90\1>, "Irobinson@noaa,gov" <Larry. Robinson 1@noaa.gov>, Dave Westerholm <Dave. Westerhol m@noaa.gov>, Margaret Spring
<Margaret.Spring@noaa,gov>, Caitlyn Kennedy <ca~lyn,kennedy@noaa.gov>, Arnrit Mehra <Arnrit.Mehra@noaa.gov>, "dwh.staff@noaa,gov"
<dwh,staff@noaa.gov>
Hi, Mark,
All 01 these folks sound just right. The challenge will be having them reply rapidly so we can work through any issues anyone raises then get this into interagency clearance asap. I'm
assuming thatthe earlier discussions and development of tools and flow rate have enabled most of the issues to be raised, but we want to be sure! Am happy to discuss any of this
right after the 8:00 if need be.
Thanks
Jane
From: Mark Miller [mailto:mark.w.miller@noaa.gov]

Sent: Thursday, July 29, 20105:53 AM
To: Jane l.ubchenco

0:: :lenniler Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; David Kennedy; lrebinson@noaa.gov; Oave westerholm; Margaret Spring; Caitlyn Kennedy; Amrit Mehra; dwh.staff@noaa.gov
SUbject: Re: pie chart
Dr. Lubchenco,
For USGS - I would like to check with Steve Hammond (N1C IASG) to see who USGS thinks should be identified for this document. A short list should probably include Dr.
McNun, Mark Sogge, Steve Hammond (NIC lAW), Sky Bristol (led the development team), and Tim Kern,
For NISI - Antonio Possolo (NIST did the uncertainty analysis that created the upper and lower confidence bounds)
For NOAA - Bill Lehr. I also included below the team he pulled together to review the calculations}
Mark
.,f filiation
Ron=;C:ood rna n
~A1;::All"f'I
J<5m.M;;:P ayn<>
Spl1T$C
P .byn.~Env.
Exxon=l()b i1
EdJ.::GiOrton
UCSD
AlboriXv()no~o
SF'
Env. ~Clnbd
til
S~TEF
]So;)
SP

This is iii
start. Many thanks for pulling this tog:e:ther quickly_
I've added a
at the end and changed one sentence sc
The
is trying to finalize a flow rate number by COB Friday, We are being asked to
ready to announce Saturday, but it is f
8i:'1 and Mark, can you tell me who are the other people in other agencies {as well as ours} who are the team who have been working on tt
Many thanks,
Jane
-----Original
From: Jennifer
Sent:
Scott Smullen; David Kennedy; lrobinson@noaa.gov; Dave Westerholm; Margaret Spring; Caitlyn Kennedy
Hi Dr Lubchenco,
Attached is a draft document to describe the oil budget calculator. This was drafted in the Communications Office and reviewed by Bill Conner
The numbers and figure will be updated with the lates't numbers when they are available.
After we hear from you, Mark can share with his colleagues at the NIC, as you suggested in point 1.
of2
10/1/20103:35 PM
003185
~:
of2
pie chart
10/1/20103:35 PM
003186
tE: pie chart

From: Jane lubchenco <Jane.lubchenCQ@noaa.gov>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul2010 07:54:52 0400
To: Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
CC: Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>, William Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>, Scott Smullen <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>, David Kennedy
<David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>, "Irobinson@noaa.gov" <larry.Robinson1@noaa.gov>, Dave Westerholm <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>. Margaret Spring
<Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>, CaHlyn Kennedy <caitlyn.kennedy@noaa.goV>,AmritMehra <Amrit.Mehra@noaa.gov>. "dwh.staff@noaa.gov'
<dwh.staff@noaa.gov>
Hi/Mark l
All of these folks sound Just right. The challenge will be having them reply rapidly so we can work through any issues anyone raises then get this into interagency clearance asap. I'm
assuming that the earlier discussions and development of toots and flow rale have enabled most of the issues to be raised, but we want to be sure! Am happy to discuss any of this
Thanks
Jane
From: Mark Miller [mailto:mark.w.mlller@OOIla.gov]
sent: ThlJl'Sday, July 29, 2010 5:53 AM

To: Jane Lubchenco
Ccl Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; David Kennedy; Irobinson@OOIlil.gov; Dave Westerholm; Margaret Spring; (aillyn Kennedy; Amrit Mahra; dwh.staff@OOIla.gov
Dr. Lubchenco,
Forthe Oil Budget tool I would include:
For USGS I would like to check with Steve Hammond (NlC [ASG) to see who USGS thinks should be identified for this document. A short list should probably include Dr.
McNutt, Mark Sogge, Steve Hammond (NlC [ASG), Sky BristOl (led the development team), and Tim Kern.
For NIST - Antonio Possolo (NIST did the uncertainty analysis that created the upper and lower confidence bounds)
For NOAA - Bill Lehr. I also included below the team he pulled together to review.the calculations)
Mark
~t
fil.ieuon
Ron;:Goodmon
~1J.;;All" n
Spi ITec
Jamos~P 4yno
p "yn~~h;;nv,
~ISU
U:SD
EP A
A1 i S:;Kh
10
1l f a
]SCI)
SP
Jane Lubchenco WTote:

This is a great start. Many thanks for pulling this together q1l1ckly. I've added a summary paragraph at the end and changed one sentence sc
The FR'I'! is trying to finalize a flow rate number by coa Friday. We are being asked to have this ready to announce Saturday, but it is f
Bill and Mark., can you tell me who are the other people in other agencies (as well as ours) who are the team who have been working on tt
Many thanks,
Jane
-----Original Message----From: Jennifer Austin !~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sent; Wednesday, July

To! Jane Lubchenco
CC; Mark Vi Miller; William conner; Scott smullen; David Kennedy;
k9...Q.;'1l~~~';nOfJ.~!...'lQY;
Dave Weste:rholm; Margaret Spring; Caitlyn Kennedy
Hi Dr Lubchenco,
Attached is a dr"aft document to describe the oil budget calculator. This was drafted in the Communications Office and reviewed by Bill Conner
Please let us know what comments you have,
The numbers and figure will be updated with the latest numbers when they are available.
A.fter we hear from you, Mark can share with his colleagues at the NIC. as you sU9Qested in point 1.
of2
10/1/20103:35 PM
003187
tE: pie chart
of2
1011/20103:35 PM
003188
te: pie chart
Subject Re: pie chart

From: Margaret Spring <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul2010 11:27:03 -0400
To; "'Jane. Lubchenco@noaa.gov''' <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>, "'Mark. W.Miller@noaa.gov''' <Mark. W. Miller@noaa.gov>

CC: "'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov''' <Jennifer.Auslin@noaa.gov>, mwilliam.conner@noaa.gov''' <William.Conner@noaa.gov>, "'Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov'''
<Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>, "'David. Kennedy@noaa.gov''' <David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>, ....Larry.Robinsonl@noaa.gov''' <Larry. Robinson l@noaa.gov>,
"'Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov''' <Dave.Westemolm@noaa.gov>. "'Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov'''<Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>.
'"caitlyn.kennedy@noaa.gov''' <caitlyn.kennedy@noaa.gov>. "'Amrit.Mehra@noaa.gov'" <Amrit.Mehra@noaa.gov>, "'dwh.staff@noaa.gov'''
<dwh .staff@noaa.gov>
Hi. jusl got a call - plan is slightly ehan;in; " sat is too late. They would like to see Wwe can get the pie chart diagram rUl al60I< and finished IOday to share. If the text is slower in clearing
ltat is 01<. but they said Carol Browner and Thad Allen woUd make any calIS necessary to get c~aranoes done ASAP.
$0;
(1) How long would it take 10 construct the pie chart at 6OK? Can we do ttat ASAP?
(2) When are you sendin; text aroUld? When you do tI'IaI we can activate high level attention for quick clearance ij whe know who needs to clear.
Thx
Fl'\Jm: Jane Lubchenco <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>

To: Mark Miller <mark.w.mlller@noaa.gov>
.Cc:: Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>; William Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>; Scott Smullen <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>; David Kennedy <David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>;
lrobinson@noaa.gov <Lany.Robinsonl@noaa.gov>; Dave Westerholm <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>; Margaret Spring <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>; caitlyn Kennedy
<<:aitlyn.kennedy@noaa.gov>;AmritMehra <Amrit.Mehra@noaa.gov>; dwh.staff@noaa.gov <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>
Sent: Thu Jul 29 07:54:52 2010

Hi, Mark,
All of these folks sound just right. The challenge will be having them reply rapidly so we can work through any issues anyone raises then get this into interagency clearance asap. I'm
assuming that the earlier discussions and development of 100 Is and flow rate have enabled most of the issues to be raised, but we want to be surel Am happy to discuss any of this
Thanks
'ane
From: Mark Miller [maillo:mark.w.mlller@noaa.gov]
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 5:53 AM

To: Jane Lubchenco
Cc: Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; David Kennedy; lrobinson@noaa.gov; Dave Westerholm; Margaret Spring; caitlyn Kennedy; Amrit Mehra; dwh.staff@noaa.gov
.
Dr. Lubchenco,
For the Oil Budget tool J would include:
For USGS 1 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 Kem.
For NIST - Antonio Possolo (NIST did the uncertainty analysis that created the upper and lower confidence bounds)
For NOAA - Bill Lehr. 1also included below the team he pulled together to review the calculations)
Mark
ld filiation
Ron ltGood ma n
Spi 1 To;; c
P a yo . . . l::e:nv.
:e:xxonl;MJb i 1
Edl:Clr)rtDn
-=JSU
Jwn~LI!;sh$:ros
ltSO
EP A
Al i ~Kh ", 1 it"
SlNTEF
ISO)
BP
KChol=Soufl!ldf101

This is a great start. Many thanks for pulling this together quickly. I've added a summary paragraph at the end and changed one sentence sc
The "RTf is trying to finalize a flow rate number by COB Friday. We are being asked to have this ready to announce Saturday, but it is t
of2
10/1/2010 3:36 PM
003189
te: pie chart
Bill and Mark, can you tell me who are the other people in other agencies (as well as ours) who are the team who have been working on tt
Many thanks,
Jane
-----Original Message----From: Jennifer Austin (mailto:Jennifer~Austin@noaa.aovl
To: Jane Lubchenco
Cc: Mark W Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen: David Kennedy;

Subject: RIO: pie chart
lrobinson@noaa~90v;
Dave Westerholnu Margaret Sprinql Caitlyn Kennedy
Hi Dr Lubchenco,
Attached is a draft document to describe the oil budget calculator. This was drafted in the Communications Office and reviewed by Bill Connel
After we hear from you, Mark can share with his colleagues at the NIC, as you sU9Qested in point 1.
of2
101II2010 3:36 PM
003190
te: pie chart

Date: Thu, 29 Jul2010 11:27:03 -0400
To: "'Jane.LubchenCQ@noaa.gov''' <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>, "'Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov'''<Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
cc: "Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov''' <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>, '"William.conner@noaa.gov''' <William.Conner@noaa.gov>, "'Scott.Smui'len@noaa.gov'''
<Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>, "'David.Kennedy@noaa.gov''' <David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>, "'Larry.Robinson1@noaa.goll"<larry.Robinson1@noaa.gov>,
"'Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov''' <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>, '''Margaret.Spring@noaa.goll'' <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>,
"'caitlyn.kennedy@noaa.gov''' <caitlyn.kennedy@noaa.gov>, '"Amnt.Mehra@noaa.gov''' <Amnt.Mehra@noaa.gov>, "'dwh.staff@noaa.gov'''
Hi. jLSt got a call plan is slightly changing - sat is too late. TIley would like to see if we can get the pie chart d'.agram n.n at 60K arY,j finished today to share. If the text is slower in clearing
thai is OK. but they said Carol Browner and Thad Allen woL.id make any calls necessary to get clrarances done ASAP.
So:
(1) How long would ~ take 10 construct the pie Chart at eot<? Can we do that ASAP?
(2) \l\lhen are you sending text around' \l\lhen you dO that we can activate high level attention for qtJek clearance if whe know wto needs to clear.
Thx
From: Jane LubchellCll <Jane.Lubchenco@ncaa.gov>.

To; Mark Miller <mat1<.w.miller@noaa.gov>
. Cc: Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@ncaa.gov>; William Conner <Wllliam.Conner@noaa.gov>; Scott Smullen <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>; David Kennedy <David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>;
Irobinson@noaa.gov<Lany.Robinsonl@ncaa.gov>; Dave Westerholm <Dave.Westerholm@ncaa.gov>; MargaretSprtng <Margaret.Sprtng@ncaa.gov>; caltlyn Kennedy
<caillyn.kennedy@noaa.gov>;AmritMehra <Amrit.Mehra@noaa.gov>;dwh.staff@noaa.gov<dwh.staff'@noaa.gov>
Sent: Thu Jul 29 07:54:52 2010
Hi, Mark,
All of these folks sound just right. The challenge will be having them reply rapidly so we can work through any issues anyone raises then get this into interagency clearance asap. J'm
assuming that the earlier discussions and development of tools and flow rate have enabled most olthe issues to be raised, butwe want to be sure! Am happy to discuss an\, of this
Thanks
Jane
From: Mark Miller [mallto:mark.w.mlller@ncaa.gov]
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 20105:53 AM

To: Jane LubchellCll
Cc: Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; David Kennedy; lrobinsonnoaa.gov; Dave Westerholm; Margaret Spring; caitlyn Kennedy; Amrit Mehra; dwh.staff@ncaa.gov
Dr. Lubchenco.
For the Oil Budget tool 1 would include:
For USGS - I would like to check with Steve Hammond (NIC IASG) to see who USGS thinks should be identified for this document. A short list should probably include Dr.
McNutt. Mark Sogge. Steve Hammond (NIC IASG). Sky Bristol (led the development team). and Tim Kern.
For NIST - Antonio Possolo (NIST did the uncertainty analySis that created the upper and lower confidence bounds)
For NOAA Bill Lehr. I also included below the team he pulled together to review the calculations)
Mark
~f
filiation
SpilToC'
Exxonl(t()b II
Edj:~rton
l:ISU
U:SD
EP.
Al i ::Kh ~ 11 f "
Rob9r~Jon.,-,t;
SlNTF
IS<D
BP

This is a
T~e
of2
start. Many thanks for pulling this t0gether quickly. I've added a summary paragraph at the end and changed one sentence sc
is trying to finalize a flow rate number by COB friday. We are being asked to have this ready to announce Saturday, but it is 1
1011/20103:36 PM
003191
~e:
pie chart
Bill and. Mark, can YO\,1 tell me who are the other people in other agencies (as well as ours) who are the team who have l:>een working on tl:
Many thanks,
Jane
-----Original
From: Jennifer
[mailto:Jennifer .Austin@noaa.qovl
To: Jane Lubchenco
Cc: Mark WMiller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; David Kennedy; lrobinson@noaa.gov; Dave Westerholm; Margaret Spring; Caitlyn Kennedy
Hi Dr
LubchEmco~
Attached is a draft docUltlent to describe the oil budget calculator. This was drafted in the Communications Office and r."iawed by Bill Conner
The numbers and fi9ure will be updated with the latest numbers when they are available.
After we hear from you, Mark can share with his colleaques at the NIC, as you suggested in point 1.
of2
10/1/2010 3:36 PM
003192
~e:
pie chart
$ubject: Re: pie chart

. From: Scott Smullen <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul2010 11:35:27 -0400
To: Margaret Spring <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>
CC: '"Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov" <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>, "'Mark. W. Miller@noaa.gov" <Mark. W. Miller@noaa.gov>, '''Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov''
<Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>, "'william.conner@noaa.gov" <William.Conner@noaa.gov>, '''David.Kennedy@noaa.gov'' <David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>,
"'Larry. Robinson1@noaa.gov" <Larry. Robinson1@noaa.gov>, "'Dave. Westerholm@noaa.gov" <Daw. Westerholm@noaa.gov>,
'''caitlyn.kennedy@noaa.gov'' <caitlyn. kennedy@noaa.gov>, "'Amrit.Mehra@noaa.gol/" <Amri!. Mehra@noaa.gov>, "'dwh.staff@noaa.gov"
Based on our discussions with Dr. L this moming, Mark is working with us on modifications to text of 2-pgr and clarifying descriptions in the pie chart. We
are still more than an hour 8Mlay.
Margaret Spring wrote:
Hi. just got a call- plan is slightly charging sat is 100 lale. Thity would like to see ~ we can get the pie chart diagram IU'1 at SOK and fll'1ished today to share. If the text is slower in
clearing that is OK, but they said CarOl Browner and Thad Allen would make any calls necessary to get clrarances dOne ASAP.
$0;
(1)
(2)
How lOng would ~ take to construct the pie chart at 60K? Can we do thai ASAP?
When are you sending text around? When you do that we can activate high level attertion for quick clearance Wwhe know who needs to clear.
From: Jane Lubchen(X) <Jane Lubchenco@!!Qas.QOV?

To: Mark Miller <mark"w.miller@noaa,gop
Cc: Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Aus!in@noaa.QOp: William Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>; Scott Smullen <Scptt.Smullen@noaa.QOV>; David Kennedy
.:;;C!i!vip.~ne:dv@nooa,goy>; !!llbinson@OOi!lIAl9~ .$.lJI~; Dave Westerholm ~~~ Margaret Spring
<Margarl!\,Spring@noai!.gov>; Caitlyn Kennedy <ca;tlvn,kennedy@!!Qaa,gov>; Amrit Mehra <Amrit.Mehra@nQaa.gov>; Qlyh.stafl'@noaa,QOv <dwh,staff@nQaa.oov>
Sent: Thu Jul 2907:54:52 2010
Hi, Mark,
All 01 these folks
sound just right. The chaitenge will be having them reply rapidly 50 we can work through any issues anyone raises then et this into interagency clearance
asap. I'm assuming that the earlier discussions and development of tools and flow rate have enabled most of the issues to be raised, but we wantlo be sure! Am happy to
discuss any of this right after the 8:00 if need be.
Thanks
Jane
From: Mark Miller (milil.tQ;Jlli).rk,-"''',mj~Qaa..g,QY.J

To: Jane Lubchel'lCO
Cc: Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; David Kennedy; l!llblnson@npaa.oov; Dave Westerholm; Margaret Spring; Caitlyn Kennedy; Amnt Mehra; Qlyh,staff@noaa,goy
Dr. Lubchenco,
For the Oil Budget tool J would include:
For USGS I would like to check with Steve Hammond (N1C JASG) to see who USGS thinks should be identified for this document. A short list should probably
include Dr. McNutt, Mark Sogge, Steve Hammond (N1C IASG), Sky Bristol (led the development team), and Tim Kern.
For NlST - Antonio Possolo (N1ST did the uncenainty analysis that created the upper and lower confidence bounds)
For NOAA Bm Lehr. I also included below the team he pulled together to review the calculations)
Mark
affiliat.i.on
U. ~ot;:;a, log a ry
1:Al~Al14n
Spi JTo c
Jamo:::t:p "yn~
Exxon~M;b i 1
LCSll
EP A
Ali~Khvllf~
Env ..=-0 no d"
SNrEF
lSCO
P utrt:;C:lrrag hOJc
SP
10/1/2010 3:36 PM
003193
~e:
pie chart
!ich.1J;sou14dol

Th1's is a great start. Many thanks for pulling this together quickly. I've added a swornary paragraph at the end' and changed one" sencete
The FRTT is trying to finalize a flow rate number by COB Friday. We are being aSKed to have this
to announce SaturdaYt but it i:
team who have been working n
Bill and Mark, can you tell me who are the other people in other agenCies (as well as ours) who are
Nany thanks,
Jane
-----Orig1nal Message----From: Jennifer Austin [mail to: Jenni fer ~Austin@noaa. cov]
To: Jane Lubchenco
ee: Mark W Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; David Kennedy; lrobinson@noaa.gov; Dave Westerholm: Margaret Spring; Caitlyn Kennedy
Subject; Re: pie chart
Hi Dr Lubchenco,
i
j
Attached is a draft document to describe the oil, budget calculator. This was drafted in the Communications Office and reviewed by B1ll
nl
II After
we hear from you, Mark can share with his colleagues at the NIC, as you suqgested in point 1.
I
I
Scott Smu!len
Deputy Director
202-~82-1097 0 I 202-494-6515 c
of2
10/1120103:36 PM
003194
te: pie chart

From: Scott Smullen <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul2010 11:35:27 -0400

CC: "'Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov''' <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>, "'Mark.WMiller@noaa.gov''' <Mark.WMiller@noaa.gov>, "'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov'''
<Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>, '"william.conner@noaa.gov''' <William.Conner@noaa.gov>. '"Oavid.Kennedy@noaa.gov''' <Oavid.Kennedy@noaa.gov>,
'''Larry. Robinson 1@noaa.gov''' <Larry. Robinson 1@noaa.gov>, "'Dave. Westerholm@noaa.gov''' <Dave. Westerholm@noaa.gov>,
"caitlyn.kennedy@noaa.gov''' <caitlyn.kennedy@noaa.gov>, "'Amrit.Mehra@noaa.gov''' <Amrit.Mehra@noaa.gov>, '"dwh.staff@noaa.gov'''
<dwh.slaff@noaa.gov>
Based on our discussions with Dr. L this moming, Mark is working with us on modifications lolext of 2-pgr and darifying descriptions in Ihe pie chart. We
are still more than an hour away.
Hi. just got a call - plan is slightly changing - sat is too late. 'They would flke' to see if we can get the pie chart diagram nst at 60K and finished today to share. If the text is slower in
clearing that is OK bUt they said Carol Browner and Thad Allen would make any calls necessary to get clrarances done ASAP.
So:
(1) How long wotJd it take to construct the pie chart et 6OK? Can we do that ASAP?
(2) When are you sending text arO\.l1d? When you do that we can activate high le\lel attettion for quick clearance if whe knOw who needs to dear.
From: Jane lulx:henco ~<L9Q2.

To: Mark Miller <mark.w.miller@nQaa goy>
Cc: Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.QOv>:WilliamConner <WiII!am~~.&IQ2; Scott Smullen <Scott.Smull~ David Kennedy
~nnedy@noaa.goy>; lrobinson@hoaa.goy <lany.Rob!nsonl~; Dave Westerholm .sDave.Westerholm@noaa..QOV;?; Margaret Spring
<Marga~.Spring@n~; caltlyn Kennedy <caitlyn,kennedy@noaa,gov>; Amrit Mehra ~ttJiw.@.@...r1Qi<!.QOv>; ~ff@noaa.gov .stI~gov>
Sent: ThY Jul 2907:54:522010
SUbject: RE: pie chart
Hi. Mark,
All of these folks sound just right. The challenge wi!! be having them reply rapidly so we can work through any issues anyone raises then getthis into interagency clearance
asap. I'm assuming thattne earlier discussions and development of tools and flow rate have enabled most oftne issues to be raised. but we wanno be sure! Am happy to
discuss any of this right after the 8:00 if need be.
Thanks
Jane
From: Mark Miller [Ill!!ijt<b1!lil.!KJ&".!!lJ.lle.r:@Q.Q;l.a,9Ql!]

To: Jane lulx:henco
Cc: jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Davia Kennedy; lroblnson@noaa.gov; Dave Westerholm; Margaret Spring; caitlyn Kennedy; Amrit Mehra; dwh.staff@noaa.gov
Subjeo::t: Re: pie chart
Dr. Lubchenco,
For USGS - I would like to check with Steve Hammond (NIC lASG) to see who USGS thinks should be identified for this document. A short list should probably
include Dr. McNutt, Mark Sogge, Steve Hammond (NIC lASG). Sky Bristol (led the development team), and Tim Kern.
For NISf - Antonio Possolo (NISf did the uncertainty analysis that created the upper and lower confidence bounds)
For NOAA - Bill Lehr. I also included below the team he pulled together to review the calculations)
Mark
ll!tiliation
Ron~Good m" n
u. :':.ot ::::0, 19 4t'y

Spil T>J C
P aynq;:env
EP A
II
t:::;L:!mb() t't
Env.
;::'ca Mid e
SNTEF
JS(J)
8P
f2
10/1120103:36 PM
003195
te: pie chart
Mch~l1:!aoutod&l
This is a great start. Many thanks for pulling this together quickly. I've added a summary paraqraph at the end and changed one sentenCe
The FlITT is trying to finalize a flow rate nu:ml>er by COS Friday. We are being asked to have this ready to announce Saturday, but itr' i:
Bill and Mark, can you tell me who are the other people in other agencies (as well as ours) who are the team who have been working n
Many thanks,
Jane
-----Orig1n01 Messaqe----From: Jennifer Austin {mail to: Jef'.nifer .Austin@noaa.gov]

To: Jane Lubcllenco
Cc: Mark W Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; David Kennedy; lrobinson@noaa.gov; Dave Westernolm; Margaret Spring; Ceit1yn Kennedy
Hi Dr Lube-henco t
Attached is a draft document to describe the oil budget calculator. This was drafted in the Communications Office and reviewed by Bill
The numbers and figure will be updated with the latest numl:>ers when they are available.
After we hear from you J Mark can share with his colleagues at the NIC 1 as you suqqested in point 1.
Scott Smullen
Deputy Director
NOAh Communications & External Affairs
202-462-1091 0 I 202-494-6515 c
of2
1011/20103:36 PM
003196
te: pie chart

From: Margaret Spring <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov> .
Date: Thu, 29 Jul2010 11:43:33 -0400
To; "'Scott.SmuUen@noaa.gov''' <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>, '"Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov''' <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>
.
CC: "'Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov''' <Jane . Lubchenco@noaa.gov>, "'Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov''' <Mark.W.MiUer@noaa.gov>, "'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.goV'''
<JenniferAustin@noaa.gov>, "'wiIliam.conner@noaa.gov''' <William.Conner@noaa.gov>, "'David.Kennedy@noaa.gov''' <David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>,
'''Larry. Robinson1@noaa.gov''' <Larry. Robinson 1@noaa.gov>, "'Dave. Westerholm@noaa.gov''' <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>.
"'caillyn.kennedy@noaa.gov''' <caillyn.kennedy@noaa.gov>, '"Amril.Mehra@noaa.gov''' <Amril.Mehra@noaa.gov>, "'dwh.staff@noaa.gov'''
<dwh.staff@noaa.gov>.
Tharks. The main question has to do w~h how long it wOUld be to get a pie chart that is n.... at the 60k flow rate.
Mark?
From: Saltt Smullen <Scott.smullen@noaa.gov>

Ce: 'Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov' <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>; 'Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov' < Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>; 'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov' <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>;
'william.conner@noaa.gov' <Wllliam.Conner@noaa.gov>; 'David.Kennedy@noaa.gov' <David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>; 'Larry.Robinsonl@noaa.gov' <Larry.Robinsonl@noaa.gov>;
'Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov' <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>; 'caitlyn.kennecly@noaa.gov' <caltlyn.kennedy@noaa.gov>; 'Amrit.Mehra@noaa.gov<Amrit.Mehra@noaa.gov>;
'dwh.staff@noaa.gov <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>
Sent: Thu Jul 29 11:35:27 2010
Based on our discussions with Dr. L this morning, Mark is working with us on modifications 10 lext of 2-pgr and clarifying deSCriptions in the pie chart. We
are still more than an h()ur away.
Hi, just got a cali - plan is slightly changing. sat is too late. They woufd like to see Wwe can get the pie chart diagram IU'l at 60K and finished today to share. II the text is slower in
dearing that is OK but they said Carol Browner and Thad Allen would make any calIS necessary to get Clrarances done ASAP.
So:
(1) How lOng wOlAd ~ take to construct the pie chart at 6OK? Can we do that ASAP?
(2) When are you sending text aroLl1d? When you do that we can activate high level atterlion for quick clearance if whe Know who needs to deer.
From: Jane Lubchenco SllIne.lubcbeoco@noaa goy>

To: Mark Miller <mark w mHler@ooaa goy>
Ce: Jennifer Austin <Jennifllr.Aus:io@!)Oaa.goy>; William Conner <William.Coooer@~; Scott Smullen <Scott Smullen@!)OaB.gQ2; Davie! Kennedy
<Dayld.Kenoedy@no;;B,goy>; Irobinson@nQaa.goy <Lany.Robinsonl@no;ja.goy>; Dave Westerholm <Dave Westerholm@no;;8.90V>; Margaret Spring
~ret.Sorino@noaa,goy>; Caitlyn Kennedy SQI.~; Amrit Mehra <Amdt.Meh@@noaa.goy>; Q.'l'~~~lb9.Q2
Sent: Thu Jul 2907:54:52 2010
Hi. Mark,
All of these folks sound just right. The challenge will be having them reply rapidly so we can work through any issu'es anyone raises then get this into interagency clearance
asap. I'm assuming that the earlier discussions and development 01 tools and flow rate have enabled most of the issues to be raised, but we want to be sure! Am happy to
discuss any 01 this right afterthe 8:00 if need be.
Thanks
Jane
From: Mark Miller [mailto:mark.w.miller@llQil<L9Q:i]

To: Jane Lubchenco
Ce: Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; David Kennedy; Irobinson@!)Oaa.goy: Dave Westerholm; Margaret Spring; Caitlyn Kennedy; Amrit Mehra; dwh.S1aff@no;;a.goy
Dr. Lubchenco,
Forthe Oil Budget tool I would include:
For USGS - I would like to check with Steve Hammond (NYC lASG) to see who USGS thinks should be identified ror this document. A short list should probably
include Dr. McNutt, Mark Sogge, Steve Hammond (NYC IASG), Sky Bristol (led the development team), and Tim Kern.
For NIST - Antonio Possolo (NYSI did the uncertainty analysis that created the upper and lower confidence bounds)
For NOAA - Bill Lehr, I also included below the team he pulled together to review the calculations)
Mark
aftiliation
Ron;;'C;oQd rna 0
U. ;':0::::0, 19 II ry
SpllTbC
iom;:Cbolbau;r h
Exxon';:r-ob
j,
d~rton
u:so
A
of2
10/1/20103:36 PM
003197
?e: pie chart
Robort;;;Jono:r
smEF
P.riO-Alin;
ISCI:>
",.
Pewr-O!Irro9 h.r
5P
Mch.l~Bou1a<:l .. l
This is a great start. Many thanks for pulling this together quickly. I've added a summary paragraph at the end and changed one sentenbe
The FRTT is trying to finalize a flow rate number by COB Friday. We are being asked to have this ready to announce Saturday, but i~ i:
Bill and MarK, can you tell me who are the other people in other agencies (as well as ours) who are the team who have been working bn
Many thanks,
Jane
-----Ori9inal Message----From; Jennifer Austin [mailto:Jennifer.Austin@noaa.qov)

To: Jane Lubchenco
Cc: Mark W'Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; David Kennedy; lrobinson@noaa.c:ov; Dave Westerholmi Margaret Spring; Caitlyn Kennedy

Hi Dr Lubchenco,
After we hear from you, Mark can share with his colleaques at the NIC t as you suggested in point 1.
ci>m
I
Scott Smullen
Deputy Director
202-492-1097
: of2
202-494-6515 c
10/112010 3:36 PM
003198
~e:
pie chart

From: Margaret Spring <MargareI.Spring@noaa,gov>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 11 :43:33 -0400
To: "'Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov''' <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>, '''Margaret. Spring@noaa.gov''' <Margaret. Spring@noaa.gov>
CC: "'Jane,LubchenCQ@noaa.gov''' <Jane.LubchenCQ@noaa.gov>, "'Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov''' <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, "'Jennifer.Austin@noaa,gov'''
<Jennifer,Austin@noaa,gov>, "'william. conner@noaa,gov''' <William, Conner@noaa,goV>,'"David,Kennedy@noaa,gov''' <David, Kennedy@noaa,gov>,
"'Larry,Robinson1@noaa.gov''' <Larry.Robinson1@noaa.gov>, "'Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov''' <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>,
"'caitlyn.kennedy@noaa.gov''' <caitlyn.kennedy@noaa.gov>, "'Amrit,Mehra@noaa.gov'''.<Amrit.Mahra@noaa,gov>, "'dwh.staff@noaa.gov'''
Tharl<s. The main question has to dO with row lOng it would be to get a pie chart that is r~ at the 60k flow rate.
Mark?
From: Scott Smullen <ScottSmullen@noaa,gov>

Cc: 'Jane.Lu~noaa.gov' <Jane.Ll.Ibchenoo@noaa.gov>; 'Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov' <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>; 'JenniferAustln@noaa.gov' <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>;
'william.cxmner@noaa.gov' <William.Conner@noaa.gov>; 'David.Kennedy@noaa.gov' <David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>; 'Lany.Robinsonl@noaa.gov' <: Lany.Robinsonl@noaa.gov>;
'Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov' <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>; 'caitlyn.kennedy@noaa.gov' <caillyn.kennedy@noaa.gov>; 'Amnt.Mehra@noaa.gov <Amrit.Mehra@noaa.gov>;
'dwh.staff@noaa.gov' <dwh.stall@noaa.gov>
Sent: Tho Jui 29 11:35::/.72010
Based on our discussions with Dr. L this morning, Mark is working with us on modifications to text of 2-pgr and clarifying descriptions in the pie chart. We
are still more than an hour away.
Hi, just got a call - plan is slightly changing - sat is too late. They would like to see if we can get the pie chart diagram run at SOK and finished tOday to share. If the tE!l<t is slower in
clearing that is OK, ru they said Carol Browner and Thad Allen would make ahy calls necessary to get clrarances done ASAP.
So:
(1) How lOng wol.id ~ take to constru:t the pie chart at 6OK? Can we do that ASAP?
(2) When are you sending teXl ar~? When you do that we can activate high level allertion for quick clearance Wwhe know who need~ to clear.
From: Jane Ll.Ibchenco ~
To: Mark Miller <mark.w.miller@ooa3 goy>

0:: Jennifer Austin <Jeoojfer,Austin@ooaa,goy,a; William Conner <William Conner@noa;;.gQ2; Scott Smullen ~~.a.gQ2; David Kennedy
<:Dayld.Kennedv@ooaa,goy>; lrobinson@noaa,goy <Larrv.RobjnSQnl@noaa,gov>; Dave Westerholm ~ave.Westemolm@ooaa.gov>; Margaret Spring
<Margaret.Spring@noaa,ooy>; Caitlyn Kennedy <caitlyn kennedY.@~; Amnt Mehra se,mnt.Meh!:il@noajl,Q9.'l?; dJ!I.h,.s.\iiI.tf.@l)Q;jjl~9Q.\( slJ(f~1f@uo.i\.aAlQ.'Q:.
Sent: Thu Jul 29 07:54:52 2010
Hi, Mark,
All of these folks sound just right. The challenge will be having them reply rapidly sO we can work through any issues anyone raises then get this into interagency clearance
asap. I'm assuming that the earlier discussions and development of tools and flow rate have enabled most of the issues to be raised, but We wantlo be sure! Am happy to
discuss any of this right after the 8:00 if need be,
Thanks
Jane
From: Mark Miller J:.rMtlt~m;m",w.mill~Q..QQl!J
To: Jane Lubchenco

Cc: Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; David Kennedy; Irobiosoo@!lOila,QOY; Dave Westerholm; Margaret Spring; Caitlyn Kennedy; Amnt Mehra; dY!Il,staff@!lOilil,QQV
Dr. Lubchenco,
For USGS - I would like to check with Steve Hammond (NlC IASG) to see who USGS thinks should be idontiflCd for this document. A short list should probably
include Dr. McNutt. Mark Sagge. Steve Hammond (NlC lAW), Sky Bristol (led the development team), and Tim Kern.
For NlST - Antonio PossolC) (NlST did the uncertainty analysis that created the upper and lower confidence bounds)
For NOAA - Bill Lehr. I also included below the tcam he pulled together to review the calculations)
Mark
T>ltBm;:'M.lmbur
a!fll1.4ti.on
SpllTcoc
=0
Albvr~vt)lnoa",
of2
EP A
IOIl/2010 3:36 PM
003199
te: pie chart
Env. ~can~db
Env. J;C,nod a
SNI'EF
)Sa>
BP
Templ~t:u.
I
'
This is a great start. Many thanks for pulling this together quickly, I've added a summary paragraph at the end and changed one sente~e
The FRTT is trying to finalize a flow r.te number by COB Friday, We are being asked to have this ready to announce Saturday, but it! i,
Sill and Mark, can you tell me who are the other people in other agencies (as well as ours) who are the team who have been working t>n
Many thanks
Jane
-----Origin.l Message----From: Jennifer Austin [mailto:Jennifer.Austin@noaa~govl

Sent: Wednesday. July 26, 2010 4:45 PM
To: Jane Lubchenco
Cc: Mark W Miller: William CQnner; Scott smullen; David Kennedy; lrobinson@noaa.aov; Dave Westerholm; Margaret Sprinq; Caitlyn Kennedy
Hi Dr Lubchenco,
Attached is draft document to describe the oil budget calculator. This was drafted in the Communications Office and reviewed by Bill
The numbers and figure will be updated with the latest numbers when they are available,
After we hear from you, Mark can share with his colleagues at the NIC, as you suggested in pOint L
Scott Smul';'en
Deputy Director
202-482-1097 0 I 202-494-6515 c
of2
1011/20103:36 PM
003200
.W: oil budget? .
Subject: FW: oil budget?

From: John Gray <John.Gray@noaa.gov>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:36:24 -0400
To: "'dwh.staff@noaa,gov <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>
CC: Amanda Hallberg Greenwell <Amanda.Hallberg@noaa.gov>, Michael Jarvis
<Michael.Jarvis@noaa.gov>
lll
I would like to speak to someone about possibility of briefing Markey's staff on the topic she mentions in the
e-mail below
From: Unruh-Cohen, Ana [mailto:Ana.UnruhCOhen@mail.house.gov]
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 12:20 PM

To: John Gray; Amanda Hallberg Greenwell
Subject: oil budget?
John and Amanda - Admiral Allen mentioned yesterday in his conference call that NOAA was working on an Hoil
budget" of where all the oil went. Is there any chance we could get a briefing on it sometime next week?
Ana
Ana Unruh Cohen, Ph. D.
Deputy Staff Director
Select Committee on Energy Independence
& Global Warming
B243 Longworth House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-4012
ana, unruhcohen@mail.house.gov
www.qlobalwarminq.house.gov
of 1
1011/20103:36 PM
003201
'ie Chari: Doc - NIC Update
Subject: Pie Chart Doc - NIC Update

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:47:35 -0400
To: Jen Pizza <Jen.Pizza@noaa.gov>, David Kennedy <David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>, Dave
Westerholm <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>, Bill Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>,
Scott Smullen <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>, Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>,
_HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>
Dr. Lubchenco,
I apologize for the lateness of this update - my conversations with USGS, NIC CoS,
.and Juliette Kayyem's CoS took much longer that I expected. CAPT Gautier gave
complete okay for us to use the Oil Budget tool report in our document. Bill Grawe
raised the same issue that Jennifer and Scott mentioned that we need to understand
that the tool report combines some of the removals differently that we present in
the pie chart (we separate the the evaporation and dispersion entries while the
report lumps them as "evaporation and biodegradation". I think we have addressed
that in our text. The question came up on why we are displaying the same
information differently. After some length of time I think I convinced them (USGS
and Bill Grawe) that we needed to separate the numbers that way so we could
discuss what oil is sub-surface and that biodegradation is a big factor in the
"remaining" category.
Steve Hammond (USGS on IASG) believes that only Dr. McNutt, Mark Sogge and he need
to see the document for USGS. He sent out an email giving them a heads up that it
would be coming out today. Bill Lehr is also all set for his review.
Just got off the phone where Scott and Jennifer did their magic to move toward a
final inhouse draft.
Mark
of1
10/1/20103:36 PM
003202
'ie Chart Doc - NIC Update
Subject: Pie Chart Doc -.NIC Update

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:47:35 -0400
To: Jen Pizza <Jen.Pizza@noaa.gov>, David Kennedy <David.Kennecly@noaa.gov>, Dave
Westerholm <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>, Bill Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>,
Scott Smullen <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>,Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>,
Dr. Lubchenco,
I apologize for the lateness of this update - my conversations with USGS, NIC CoS,
and Juliette Kayyem's CoS took much longer that I expected. CAPT Gautier gave
complete okay for us to use the Oil Budget tool report in our document. Bill Grawe
raised the same issue that Jennifer and Scott mentioned that we need to understand
that the tool report combines some of the removals differently that we present in
the pie chart (we separate the the evaporation and dispersion entries while the
report lumps them as "evaporation and biodegradation". I think we have addressed
that in our text. The question came up on why we are displaying the same
information differently. After some length of time I think I convinced them (USGS
and Bill Grawe) that we needed to separate the numbers that way so we could
discuss what oil is sub-surface and that biodegradation is a big factor in the
"remaining" category.
Steve Hammond (USGS on IASG).believes that only Dr. McNutt, Mark Sogge and he need
to see the document for USGS. He sent out an email giving them a heads up that it
would be coming out today. Bill Lehr is also all set for his review.
Just got off the phone where Scott and Jennifer did their magic to move toward a
final inhouse draft.
Mark
of 1
10/1/2010 3:36 PM
003203
udget tool calculator explanation, latest
Subject: budget tool calculator explanation, latest

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:54:27 -0400
To: Mark W Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, William Conner
<William.Conner@noaa.gov>. Scott Smullen <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>, Dave
Westerholm <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>, David Kennedy <David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>,
CC: Margaret Spring <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>, Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov
Hi,
Attached is the updated oil budget calculator two-pager, incorporating edits from
this morning.
The pie char~ uses 60,000 barrels/day flow rate, numbers from July 26
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 spare with the authors listed in his earlier email For USGS - I would like to check with Steve Hammond (NIC IASG) to see who USGS
thinks should be identified for this document. A short list should probably
include Dr. McNutt, Mark Sogge, Steve Hammond (NIC IASG), Sky Bristol (led the
development team), and Tim Kern.
For NIST - Antonio Possolo (NIST did the uncertainty analysis that created the
upper and lower confidence bounds)
For NOAA - Bill Lehr.
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
Content-Type:
app lication/msword
E
d'
b
64
Oil Budget description 7.2S'v3.doc C
I
ontent- nco mg: ase
- DeepwaterHorizonOilBudget Appendix
II
ofl
Content-Type:
application/pdf
DeepwaterHofizonOllBudget Appendix A.pdf! C
E
d'
b
64
I ontent- nco mg: ase
.
I
I
I
10/1/20103:36 PM
003204
DRAFT 7.28

much oil has been skimmed. burned, contained, evaporated and dispersed. They have

Chemically
I Dispersed
I 11%
I
!
!
i
I
I
8%
Natural
Dispersion
3%
13%
I
I
!
Deepwater HorizonIBP wellhead. (*Whenannouncedlater this week (t), new FRTG
003205
%%
It is estimated that
percent of the oil quickly evaporated or dissolved into the water
the oil was dispersed by the application of nearly 5'6;OOO''barrels of chemical dispersants.
pressures into the water column, which caused some of it to spray. off in small droplets
down. While there is more analysis to be done to quantifY the exact rate of
beaches.
003206

All units in barrels. See end notes for assumptions.
Inland Recovery

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/27/2010 09:27 AM MDT.
003207
1,750,000
1,500,000
1,250,000
UJ
CI)
""-
1,000,000
co
.Q
750,000
500,000
250,000
0
May~201
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Jul-2010

Report generated by mark.w.miiler@noaa.gov on 07/27/2010 09:27 AM MDT.
003208

Inland Recovery

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07127/2010 09:27 AM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and p'rovided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
003209
700,000
650,000
600,000
550,000
500,000
450,000
.; 400,000
....
m'
.c
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
o
May-2010
-
Expected Value -
Jun-201
JuJ-2010
Upper/Lower Confidence Sou

Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geo!ogical Survey in cooperation with the National
003210
Reference Notes

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

The Cumulative Disposition of OilliBarrel Graph" provides a representation of the total amount of oil
clicking on the labels in the table) for further information 'on the individual calculations and further
reference material.
Discharged
Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG) for the Deepwater Horizon inCident. Discharge rates are adjusted
tlie scientific methodology used in this caJculation.
Background
improved estimate is based on more and better data that is available after the riser cut -- data which
helps increase the scientific confidence in the accuracy of the estimate. As the Government continues.
Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/27/201009:27 AM MDT.
003211
change. In particular, because the upper numper is less certain, it is important to plan for the upper

spill flow. Values for the amount recovered by the vessels Helix Producer, Discoverer Enterprise and
the Q4000 are reported by BP, entered daily by National Incident Command personnel, and used in the
calculation of remaining oil. Cumulative totals are a sum of all daily values entered.
Dispersed Natu rally


Removal" scenario to result in a larger amount of oil "removed. II See background documentation for
more information.
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
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gu!f Incident Oil Budget

003212
Evaporation is calculated differently for "fresh" 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
-Measured amount removed via RIIT and Top Hat
-Calculated amount of subsurface dispersion

The amount available for recovery, both daily and cumulative, is simply the remaining oil after removing
. -Measured amount removed via RIIT and Top Hat
-Calculated amount of evaporation and dissolution
Skimmed
Removal scenarios.
-The skimmed oil estimate is very rough
this calculation.
Burned
cumulative totals.
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oi! Budget
Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/2712010 09:27 AM MDT.
003213
~Different
rates for non-emulsified and emulsified oil
Note: Refer to the section on Buming Losses in the Mass Balance Formulas document for a discussion
-International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation (ITOPF) "planning purpose ll dosage of 20:1 used
Dispersant Used
Oil Remaining
Volume of oil remaining after other known volume totals are removed from the total discharged.

003214
>udget tool calculator explanation, latest
Subject: budget tool calculator explanation, latest

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:54:27 -0400
<William.Conner@noaa.gov>, Scott Smullen <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>, Dave
Hi,
Attached is the updated oil budget calculator two-pager, incorporating edits from
this morning.
The pie chart uses 60,000 barrels/day flow rate, numbers from July 26 daily oil
budget report. The latest of htese reports would be attached as an appendix to
'explain calculations in further detail.
Mark will share with the authors listed in his earlier email For USGS - I would like to check with Steve Hammond (NIC IA8G) to see who USGS
'include Dr. McNutt, Mark 80gge, S~eve Hammond (NIC IASG), Sky Bristol (led the
For NIST - Antonio Possolo (NIST did the uncertainty analysis that created the
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
Content-Type:
application/msword
IOil Budget description 7.28 v3.doc C

E
d'
b
64
!
ontent- nco mg: ase
1
DeepwaterHorizonOilBudget Appendix
Content-Type:
application/pdf
'b
64
DeepwaterHorizonOilBudget Appendix A.pdf C
ontent-Encodmg: ase
of 1
1011120103:37 PM
003215
DRAFT 7.28

Chemically
Dispersed
11%
I
I
I
I
I
Dispersion I
8%
3%
13%
I
estimates that as of July 15 between 3-"5 million barrels of oil had been released from the
003216
the oil was dispersed by the application of nearly 50;OOOba:rrels of chemical dispersants.
amount of the oil. Bacteria that break down the dispersed and weathered surface oil are .
These estimates leave about%% percent of the oil. This oil is either at the surface as
beaches.
003217
mUSGS
$"'C'~C {'" a. ct4.llgJl)(I wark!

Inland Recovery

Application opera,ted by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
003218
1,750,000
1,500,000
1,250,000
-...en 1,000,000
CD
...J
.c
750,000
500,000
250,000
May-2010
-
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
JuJ-2010

Report generated by mark.w.milier@noaa.gov on 07/;27/2010 09:27 AM MDT.
003219

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

003220
1- Expected Value -

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/27/201009:27 AM MDT .
. See end notes section of the report for reference material on report elements.
003221
Reference Notes

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

reference material.
Discharged
-Chosen because same measurement method used
pre~
and
post~riser
cut.

Background
improved estimate is based on more and better data that is available after the riser cut
~~
data which
003222
change. In particular, Because the upper number is less certain, it is important to plan for the upper

Dispersed Naturally
Natural
oil dispersion is estimated using the methods described in this annotation and background

Removal" scenario to result in a larger amount of oil "removed." See background documentation for
more information.
. discussion of the scientific methodology used in this calculation.
result of a scientific calculation using the
m~thods
described in this annotation and background


.
003223
for the ~umulative total over time. Different factors are used to represent the difference in this rate. The

-Measured amount removed via FUTT and Top Hat
Skimmed
Removal scenarios.
this calculation.
Burned
cumulative totals.
Oceanic and AtmospheriC Administration.
003224
-No natural surface dispersion
assumed-~
-International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation (lTOPF) "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 atter other known volume totals are removed from the total discharged.

003225
~e:
budget tool calculator explanation, latest
Subject: Re: budget tool calculator explanation, latest

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:56:41 -0400'
Sorry! I attached the wrong document.
Jennifer
Austin wrote:
!
.
Please use this version dated 7.29.
IHi,
II
I!.
Attached is the updated oil budget calculator two-pager, incorporating edits

from this morning.
"
. The pie chart uses 60,000 barrels/day flow rate, numbers from July 26 daily oil
'Mark will share with the authors listed in his earlier email -
For USGS - I would like t.O check with Steve Hammond (NIC IASG) to see who USGS "I
I development team), and Tim Kern.
I,"
I For
NIST - Antonio Possolo (NIST did the uncertainty analysis that created the
II,
I For NOAA - Bill Lehr.
II
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
i
Oil
I
J
ofl
Budget description 7 29 v 3.doc

I
Content-Type:
application/msword
E
d"
b
64
Content- nco mg: ase
1011120103:38 PM
003226
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 determine where the oil has gone. The numbers are based on best estimates of how much
oil was released and how this oil is moving and degrading.

Based on 60,000 barrels/day flow rate
""Remaining oil is
either at the surface
as light sheen or
weathered tar balls,
has been
. biodegraded, or has
already come ashore
on beaches.
i
!
I,
!
I
I
I
kimmed
3%
. I
I
I,
The Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG), assembled by the National Incident Command, estimates that
as of July 15 between 3-5 million barrels of oil had been released from the Deepwater HorizonIBP
wellhead. (*When announced, new FRTG flow rate I total escape will adjust this and the percentages in
the oil budget.)
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 of the oil.
003227
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 isused
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;000harrels 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 diameter of a human hair).
We know that naturally occurring bacteria have consumed and biodegraded a significant amount of the
oil. Bacteria that break down the dispersed and weathered surface oil are naturally abundant in the Gulf
of Mexico in large 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, %% 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 113 of the
oiL Around a quarter of the total has been naturally evaporated and another quarter dispersed into Gulf
waters. The remaining amount, roughly 1/6 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
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, 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 GulfIncident Budget Tool Report from July 26, for detailed
explanation of calculation methods.
Note on degree of confidence in calculations: This analysis is based on direct measurements where
possible and the best available scientific estimates where measurements were not possible. The
numbers for direct recovery and burns were measured directly and reported ifl daily operational reports.
The rest of the numbers were based on previous scientific analyses, best available information and a
broad range of scientific expertise. These numbers will continue to be refined based on additional
information and further analysis.
003228
te: budget tool calculator explanation, latest

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:56:41 -0400
CC: Margaret Spring <Margaret.Spril1g@noaa.gov>, Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov
Jennifer Austin wrote:
II
H'~,
! Attached is the updated oil budget calculator two-pager, incorporating edits

from this morning.
The pie chart uses 60,000 barrels/day flow rate, numbers from July 26 daily oil
I
I
Mark will share with the authors
list~d
in his earlier email -
" For USGS - I would like to check with Steve Hammond (NIC IASG) to see who USGS
I thinks
should be identified for this document. A short list should probably
For NIST - Antonio Pas solo (NIST did the uncertainty analysis that created the
! upper and . lower confidence bounds)
I
I
I
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
~~~~=-~~~~~~~~~~~-,--~~~~--~----~~--~----~~I
Content-Type:
application/msword 1I
Oil Budget description 7 29 v 3.doc C
E
d'
b
64
,ontent- nco mg: ase
of 1
10/1/20103:40 PM
003229
DRAFT 7.29
Deepwater HorizonIBP Oil Budget Calculator

*Remaining all is
as light sheen or
has been
biodegraded, or has
already come ashore
on beaches.
mmed
3%
wellhead. (*When announced, new FRTO flow rate / 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
.
003230
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.
dispersed by the application of nearly 50;000 barrels of chemical dispersants. Natural dispersion occurs
as a result of the oil coming out ofthe broken riser pipe at high pressures into the water column, which
caused some. of it to spray off in small droplets (less than 100 microns - the diameter of a human hair).
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'
beaches.
oil. Around a quarter of the total has been naturally evaporated and another quarter dispersed into Gulf
of this spill on wildlife, habitats, and natural resources in the Gulfregion will take time and continued
See Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Gulf Incident Budget Tool Report from July 26, for detailed
numbers for direct recovery and burns were measured directly and reported in daily operational reports.
003231
~:
Subject: RE: budget tool calculator explanation, latest

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 13:28:16 -0400
To: Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>, Mark W Miller
<Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, William Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>, Scott Smullen
<Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>, Dave Westerholm <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>, David
Kennedy <David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>, _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff
cc: Margaret Spring <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>
I've made corrections to the summary paragraph so that the fractions mirror what
is in the pie chart. Because this is an interagency document, I've modified one
of the NOAA references toward the end. If authors are not in agreement with -that
statement, we can simply remove it .
.We will need to add:
A brief description of the process used to do the calculations and the names of
the individuals involved plus reviewers, as per the FRTG doc.
We need to get this to the authors ASAP even if we don't have the full list
yet. This is urgent.
thanks
To: Mark W Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm; David Kennedy;
_HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff
Cc: Margaret Spring; Jane.lubchenco@noaa.gov

Hi,
Attached is the updated oil budget calculator two-pager, incorporating
edits from this morning.
The pie chart uses 60,000 barrels/day flow rate, numbers from July 26
The latest of htese reports would be
I attached as an appendix to explain calculations in further detail.
! daily oil budget report.
ILet us know immediately if you have comments.

!j Mark
will share with the authors listed in his earlier email -
II For
I
I
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 ~nclude Dr. McNutt, Mark Sogge, Steve Hammond (NIC
IASG), Sky Bristol (led the development team), and Tim Kern.
For NIST - Antonio Possolo (NIST did the uncertainty analysis that
created the upper and lower confidence bounds)
'I
!i For
II
j'
II
i
!"
~
!f
t
NOAA - Bill Lehr.
of2
10/1/2010 3:41 PM
003232
ill: budget tool calculator explanation, latest
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047. (cell) www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco
Oil Budget description 7

. t'
Con ten t- 0 escrlp Ion: 29 v 3 JL.doc
Oil Budget description 729 v 3 JL.doc Content-Type:
Content-Encoding:
! of2
application/msword
base64
1011120103:41 PM
003233
DRAFT 7.29
Calculat()r to detennine where the oil has gone. The numbers are based on best estimates of how much

I
J
I
I
*Remaining oil is
as fight sheen or
",I
has been
I
t . biodegraded, or has
already come ashore
on beaches.
kimmed
3%
wellhead. (*When announced, new FRTG flow rate / 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'
003234
, 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,
dispersed by the application of nearly 50,000 barrels of chemical dispersants. Natural dispersion occurs
caused some of it to spray off in small droplets (less than 100 microns - the diameter of a human hair).
of Mexico in large part because of the warm water there, the favorable nutrient and'oxygen levels, and
the fact that oil enters the Gulf of Mexico through natural seeps regularly .. While there is more analysis
beaches.
In summary, burning, skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead have removed roughly 1I~ of
the oil. Around a quarter of the total has been naturally evaporated and another quarter dispersed into
Gulf waters. The remaining amount, roughly 1I~ is on the surface, in tar balls, on beaches~ removed
, from beaches or has been biodegraded.
Even though the threat to shorelines has decreased since the capping of the BP wellhead, federal
scientistsNOl'LA 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 AppendixA: Deepwater Horizon GulfIncident Budget Tool Report from July26, for detailed
003235
:.E: budget tool calculator explanation, latest

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 13:28:16 -0400
To: Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>, Mark W Miller
<Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, William Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>, Scott Smullen
<Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>, Dave Westerholm <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>, David
Kennedy <David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>, _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff
cc: Margaret Spring <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>
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:
yet. This is urgent.
thanks
-----Original Message----,From: Jennifer Austin [mailto:Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov)
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 12=57 PM
To: Mark W Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm; David Kennedy;
HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff
Subject: Re: -budget tool calculator explanation, latest
! H'1,
iAttached is the updated oil budget calculator two-pager, incorporating

I daily
The pie chart uses 60,000
oil budget report.
barrels/day flow rate, numbers from July 26

. attached as an appendix to explain calculations in further detail.

Mark will share with the authors listed in his earlier email For USGS - I would like to check with Steve Hammond (NIC IASG) to see
should probably include Dr. McNutt, Mark Sogge, Steve Hammond (NIC
of2
1011/20103:41 PM
003236
:.E: budget tool calculator explanation, latest
Jennifer Austin
Oil Bud"get description 7

. t'
Con t en t -Descrlp Ion: 29 v 3 ..1L.doc
. Oil Budget description 7 29 v 3 JL.doc Content-Type:

Content-Encoding:
"2
application/msword
base64
..
IO/Il2010 3:41 PM
003237
DRAFT 7.29
Calculator to determine where the oil has gone. The numbers are based on best estimates of how much.

Based on 60;000 barrels/day flow rate
"'Remaining oil is
as light sheen or
has been
biodegraded, or has
already come ashore
on beaches.
I
t
mmed
3%
I
II
i
wellhead. (*When announced, new FRTG flow rate I total escape will adjustthis and the percentages in
the oil budget.)
003238
dispersed by the application of nearly 50,OaO barrels of chemical dispersants. Natural dispersion occurs
oil. Bacteria that break dovvn the dispersed and weathered surface oil are naturally abundant in the Gulf
beaches.
I.
In summary, burning, skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead have removed roughly 1I~ of
the oil. Around a quarter of the total has been naturally evaporated ~d another quarter dispersed into
Gulf waters. The remaining amount, rougblyllMt is on the surface, in tar balls, on beaches, removed
from beaches or has been biodegraded.
scientistsNOl\: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
003239
Subject: Re: budget tool calculator exp,lanation, latest

From: "Mark.W.Millerll <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:01 :50 -0400'
_HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>, Margaret Spring
<Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>
I had a few small edits - all our dissolution, evaporation, and natural dispersion estimates
, are based on previous anaiyzes 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 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.
will need to add:
! Wenames
A brief description of the process used to do the calculations and the
of the individuals involved plus reviewers, as per the FRTG doc.
We need to get this to the authors ASAP even if we don't have the full
list yet. ,This is urgent.
thanks
To: Mark W Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm; David
Kennedy; _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff
Subject:, Re: budget tool calculator explanation, latest
I. Hi,
j
II

. ! The
Ii
II
of2
pie chart uses 60,000 barrels/day flow rate, numbers from July 26
daily oil budget report. The latest of htese reports would be
attached as an appendix to explain calculations in further detail.
10/1/2010 3:42 PM
003240

Jennifer Austin
Content-Type:
application/msword
Oil Budget description 7 29 v 3 JL MM.doc C
.
b
64
ontent-Encodmg: ase
of2
1011/20103:42 PM
003241
DRAFT 7.29

"Remaining oil is
as light sheen or
weathered tar balis,
has been
biodegraded. or has
already come ashore
on beache~.
L........
as of July 15 between 3-5 million barrels of oil had been released from the Deepwater HorizonfBP
the oil budget.)
As shown in the pie graph (Figure I), aggressive response efforts have been successful in recovering a
significant portion of the spilled oil. %% percent oftheoil was captured directly from the wellhead by
003242
column or form residues such as tar balls. The evaporation rate estimate is based on previous analysis of
similar oi I from the Gul(seiefltifie peseaFeA afte oesef\"a-tiofls C8fl9t1et:ed 91:1Fiflg tAe Deepwater HOfizoR
~. A different evaporation rate is used for fresh and weathered oil to provide the most accurate
number.
dispersed by the application of nearly 50.()()() barrels of chemical dispersants. Natural dispersion occurs
asa 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 natural seeps regularly,. While there is more analysis
cn;tde oil from this well is biodegrading quickly.
the surface as light sheen or weathered tar balis, has been biodegraded, or has already come ashore on
beaches.
In summary, burning, skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead have removed roughly 113:1: of
the oil. Around quarter of the total has been naturally evaporated and another quarter dispersed into
Gulf waters. The remaining amount, J:oughlyl/~ is on the surface, in tar balls, on beaches, removed
NOAA. continues to track the movement ofthe remaining oil and will issue daily surface oil trajectories
"for as long as 1necessary:~()AA_respo.n~_ers_~.e _\Vo!.~j!lK\Vitil th e_TJ:r!lf!.~~_C.Oll1}~laIlci t() "de.ve.t~p __
scientistsNGAA 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
See Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Gulflncident Budget Tool Report from July 26, for detailed
Note on degree of confidence in calculations: Tll.is anal)sisThe Oil Budget calculations i:rare 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
--------1
==t
[JK1!:::' trajectoriesprol:>abl~
lastpart()f~::U=? c>wcwamron>move
003243
available information and a broad range of scientific expertise. These numbers will continue to be
refined based on additional information and further a.na1ysis.
003244
~e:
Subject: Re: budget tool calculator.explanation, latest

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:01:50 -0400
_HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>, Margaret Spring
are based on previous analyzes on similar Gulf oil not DWH oil. Also I was wondering if we
week.
Mark
I've made corrections to the summary paragraph so that the fractions mirror
modified one of the NOAA references toward the end.
If authors are not in
names of the individuals involved plus reviewers, as per the FRTG doc.
list yet.
This is urgent.
thanks
To: Mark W Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholmi David
Kennedy;
Hi,
The pie chart uses 60 1 000 barrels/day flow rate, numbers from
26
attached as an appendix to
calculations in further detail.
of2
lO/1l2010 3:43 PM
003245
Let us know immediately if you h'ave comments.

Jennifer Austin
Content-Type:
application/msword
Oil Budget description 729 v 3 JL MM.doc C
E
d'
b
64
ontent- nco mg: ase
of2
10/1/2010 3:43 PM
003246
DRAFT 7.29
The National Incident Command has assembied the best scientific minds in the government and

':Remaining oil is
a~ light sheen or
weathered tar ballS,
has been
biodegraded. or has
already come ashore
on beaches.
: Oil Budget Calculator- Shows what has happened to the oil.

the oil budget.)
As shown in the pie graph (Figure 1), aggressive response efforts have been successful tn recovering a
003247
volatile components of oil evaporate, while the components that are not volati Ie dissolve into the water
column or form residues such as tar balls. The evaporation rate estimate is based on previous analysis of
similar oil from the Gulf.scientific researeJ:i aRE! oesefvations cendHcted 61:lriflg tJ:ie DeefllVal:ef Horil!Ofl
~. A different evaporation rate is used for fresh and weathered oil to provide the most accurate
number.
%% percent ofthe oil has dispersed naturally into the water column, and %% percent of the oil was
dispersed by the application of nearly 50~O(jOt>aftets of chemical dispersants. Natural dispersion occurs
of Mexico in large part because of the warm water there, the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, arid
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
beaches.
In summaiy, burning, skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead have removed roughly 1IJ1 of
the oil. Around a quarter of the total has been naturally evaporated and another quarter dispersed into
Gulf waters. The remaining amount, roughly l/~ is on the surface, in tar balls, on beaches, removed
for as long as lnec~_'t'!QM_~t?~Q9_I}~t?~~_~t?_~()_rI~!~g.~~~!:Uh~_!-J!!!ft.t?~_~_q~}l~~~~~ _~~_~~.I.oI> _________ .
. monitoring strategies for tar balls and near shore submerged oil.
scientistsNGM remains- extremely concerned about the impact to the Gulf ecosystem. Fully
understanding the impacts of thiS spill on wildlife, habitats, and natural resources in the Gulfregion will
See Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Guifincident Budget Tool Report from July 26, for detailed
Note on degree of confidence in calculations: TJ:iis af1alysisThe Oil Budget calculations -hrare 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
Comment [lKl]: With trajectories probably

ending early next wed< do \W want to remove the
last part ofthe~.?
003248
available infonnation and a broad range of scientific expertise. These numbers will continue to be
refined based on additional infonnation and fi.u1her analysis.
003249
~e:

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:26:52 -0400
To: "'Mark. W. Miller@noaa.gov'" <Mark. W. Miller@noaa.gov>, "'Jane. Lubchenco@noaa.govlll
<Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>
CC: "'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.govlll <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>,
"'william.conner@noaa.gov'" <William.Conner@noaa.gov>, IIIScott.Smullen@noaa.gov'"
<Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>, "'Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov'"
<Dave. Westerholm@noaa.gov>, "'David. Kennedy@noaa.gov'"
<David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>, "'dwh.staff@noaa.gov''' <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>,
"'Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov''' <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>
Did you send to Marcia McNutt? Also when did you say we needed clearance by?
OECC wants to make calls to ensure we get the right level of attention and speed.
Give me the list of authors and any help you might need.
Am getting hourly calls!
Thx.
From: Mark.W.Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>

Cc: Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>; William Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>; Scott
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>; MargaretSpring
Sent: Thu Jul 29 14:01:502010
week.
Mark
! I've
made corrections to the summary paragraph so that the fractions mirror

is in the pie chart. Because this is an interagency document, I've
I what
i
II
nee~
We will
to add:
, names of the individuals involved plus reviewers, as per the FRTG doc.
list yet. This is urgent.
of2
IO/l/20IO 3:43 PM
003250
te: budget 1901 calculator explanation, latest
thanks
To: Mark W Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholmi David
Kennedy; HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff
Cc: Margaret Spring; Jane.lubchenco@noaa.qov
Hi,
edi t-s from this morning.
I
I
should probably include Dr. McNutt, Mark Sogge, Steve Hammond (NrC
I
I
I
j
II
I
i
I.
Jennifer Austin
I,
of2
10/]/20103:43 PM
003251
~e:
Subject: Re: budget tool . calculator explanation, latest

Date: Thu, 29 Jul2010 14:26:52 -0400
To: It'Mark. W.Miller@noaa.gov'" <Mark. W. Miller@noaa.gov>, IIIJane. Lubchenco@noaa.gov'"
<Jane. Lubchenco@noaa.gov>
CC: IItJennifer.Austin@noaa.govlll <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>,
IItwilliam.conner@noaa.gov'" <William.Conner@noaa.gov>, IIIScott.Smullen@noaa.gov'"
<Scott. Smu lIen@noaa.gov>, III Dave. Westerholm@noaa.gov'"
<Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>, "'David.Kennedy@noaa.gov'"
<David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>, "'dwh.staff@noaa.gov''' <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>,
"'Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov'" <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>
"Did you send to Marcia McNutt? Also when did you say we needed clearance by?
Thx.
From: Mark.W.Milier <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>

Smullen <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>; Dave Westerholm <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>i David Kennedy
<David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>; _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>; Margaret Spring
Sent: Thu Jul29 14:01:502010
I had a few small edits all our dissolution, evaporation, and natural dispersion estimates
week.
Mark
!! I've
!
made corrections to the summary paragraph so that the fractions mirror


names of the individuals involved plus reviewers, as per the FRTG doc.
!
list yet.
This is urgent.
i,.
!,
I
of2
10/1/20103:43 PM
003252
thanks
Kennedy; HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff
Hi,
attached as an appendix to explain calcu~ations in further detail.
Mark will share with the authors listed in his earlier email -
I
I
II
I
Ii
For USGS - I would like to check with Steve Hammond (NIC IASG) to see
IASG) , Sky Bristol (led the development team), and Tim Kern.
I
Jennifer Austin
_ NOAA Communications & External Affairs
1202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell) www.facebook.~om/noaa.lubchenco
Ii:
I
!
of2
10/112010 3:43 PM
003253
ebr's feedback
Subject: Lehr's feedback

.
Date: Thu, 29 Jul2010 15:01:49 -0400 .
To: Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>, Scott Smullen
<Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>, Bill Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>, Dave Westerholm
<Dave:Westerholm@noaa.gov>
, Content-Type:
application/msword
E
d"
b
64
Oil Budget description 7 29 (rev) Lehr.doc C
.
ontent- nco mg: ase
of 1
1011/20103:43 PM
003254
DRAFT 7.29
Oil, a complex mixture of hydrocarbon molecules, begins to change its properties as soon as it is
released into the environment. Cleanup of oil is generally designed to enhance or add to natural
removal mechanisms. The National Incident Command has assembled leading experts in spilled
oil behavior to produce an estimate of just how much oil has been skimmed, burned, contained,
evaporated and dispersed. They have developed a tool, called the Oil Budget Calculator, that
graphically displays the likely fate of the Deepwater HorizonIBP oil.

I
I'
!
.i
*Remaining oil is
as light sheen or
hasbeen
biodegraded, or has
already come ashore
on beaches.
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
the oil budget.)
003255
Based upon scientific analysis of samples of the spilled oil, a large fraction of this relatively light
crude oil quickly evaporated or dissolved into the water column. Much of the remaining surface
oil formed water-in-oil emulsions, giving the reddish color as seen in images of the floating oil.
dispersed by the application of nearly SQ;OOOl1arrels of chemical dispersants. Natural dispersion occurs
as a result of the oil coming out of the broken riser pipe at high turbulence 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).
beaches.
waters. The remaining amount, roughly 116 is on the surface, in tar balls, on beaches, removed from
of this spill onwildlife, habitats, and natural resources in the Gulf region will take time and continued
.
.
003256
infonnation and further analysis.
003258
using the. term "natural" dispersion, rather than "physical" dispersion in our report.
Steve has suggested a switch, but again it will cause confusion until we can make the
change consistently in all documents.
re-adding John Gray, Amanda, and Kris to this email list so they also have the latest, and
Parita, because Shannon is traveling.
Dave.Westerholm wrote:
> I know the desire is to lump into bigger categories and I'm fine if it
> goes forward but I just would add that the ultimate fate of the oil is
> different in each case. As Dr. Lubchenco points out, dispersion puts
> it into the water column (until it is biodegraded). Burning removes
> 98%+ of the oil from the system and transforms it into energy (heat).
> In r~covery almost all of the oil can be used similar to the origin.l
> product and in skimming most the product is classified as waste and
> must be disposed of properly. In some cases it can be used in an
> incineration waste stream and in others it must go to an approved
> landfill.
> Because we are ultimately trying to show "what happens" to the oil I
> think there still may be value in looking at these pieces differently.
> The same thing could be said for the remaining oil, where at lease the
> recovered oily debris/sand/sorbent booms, etc. were (or will be)
> disposed in a landfill vs. left in place as unrecoverable.
> vir
> Dave
>
> Jane Lubchenco wrote:
I think it would be fine to lump 'burned, skimmed and recovered' but
not include 'chemically dispersed'.

The rationale is that although
they are all federal responses, they have different outcomes.
In the
first three, the oil has been removed from the system; for chemically
dispersed, it's still out there or is being degraded.
Jane
*From:* Margaret Spring [mailto:margaret.spring@noaa.gov]

*Sent:* Friday, July 30, 2010 11:23 AM
*To:* 'Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov'; 'Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov'

*Cc:* 'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov'; 'Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov';
'william.conner@noaa.gov'; 'Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov';
'Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov'; 'David.Kennedy@noaa.gov';
'dwh.staff@noaa.gov'; 'Sgilson@doc.gov'
*Subject:* Re: buget tool calculator explanation, latest
Hi, question from WH - would like Jane and Mark's opinion, particularly:
"For the pie chart- I think it would make more sense to include
chemically dispersed, burned, skimmed, and direct recovery from well
head (cumulatively 30%) as one slice labeled as "Federal response
efforts U - instead of four separate slices as represented below. Then
have a second graph that breaks those four down communicating what
percent each of these represented in the overall federal
collection/mitigation efforts they were responsible for. i.e Direct
recovery was responsible for 53% of the oil collected/mitigated by
the federal govt, skimming is 10%, burning 17%, chemical dispersant
20%. Thoughts? Doable?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------92
003259
*From*: Mark Miller <mark.w.miller@noaa.gov>

*To*: Margaret Spring <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>
*Cc*: 'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov' <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>:
'Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov' <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>:
'william.conner@noaa.gov' <William.Conner@noaa.gov>:
'Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov' <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>;
'Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov' <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>:
'David.Kennedy@noaa.gov' <David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>:
'dwh.staff@noaa.gov' <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>: 'Sgilson@doc.gov'
<Sgilson@doc.gov>
*Sent*: Thu Jul 29 19:53:07 2010
*Subject*: Re: budget tool calculator explanation, latest
Margaret,
We have asked for and received comments/response from
Mark Sogge, Steven Hammond, and Marcia McNutt,
(representing USGS
development team) ahd Bill Lehr (representing the calculation team)
In addition
Steve Murawski
I would like to send to NIC and OR&R operations people when the WH
clearance begins.
Mark
PIs confirm to me which authors have signed off so I can report
----- Original Message ---- From: Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>
<mailto:Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>
<mailto:Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>
Cc: Mark.W.Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
<mailto:Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>: William Conner
<William.Conner@noaa.gov> <mailto:William.Conner@noaa.gov>; Scott
Smullen <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov> <mailto:Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>;
Dave Westerholm <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>
<mailto:Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>; David Kennedy
<David.Kennedy@noaa.gov> <mailto:David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>; HQ Deep
Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov> <mailto:dwh.staff@noaa.gov>;
Margaret Spring <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>
<mailto:Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>; Gilson, Shannon <SGilson@doc.gov>
<mailto:SGilson@doc.gov>
.
Sent: Thu Jul 29 19:29:21 2010
Hi All,
Attached is the latest version. Those who saw it earlier should note
an additional line explaining subsurface oil that Steve suggested
adding following the explanation of dispersed oil. Mark and I
reviewed and reconciled the edits. This should be final from a NOAA perspective.
Authors and science contributors are acknowledged in Appendix B.
Also attached is the report from the budget calculator from July 28,
which will serve as Appendix A.
Margaret will move through inter-agency and WH clearance.
Mark will inform others at the NIC.
I've added Shannon to this distribution list, so she can give a heads
up to WH communications and be in touch with Heather and others about
93
003260
release plans as necessary.
Any further comments, let me know, Jen
Th~nks,
Mark. It's
that all of the authors are comfortable
with
descriptions of the people involved is fine. Please plug the

numbers
the document.
I've corrected a couple of typos. This looks good to me and the
that are in the pie chart into the text and finalize it and send
it to
everyone copied here. Margaret will start it through interagency
clearance.
I greatly appreciate everyone working so quickly on this.
Jane
*From:* Mark.W.Miller [mailto:Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov]
*Sent:* Thursday, July 29, 2010
*To:* Jane Lubchenco
4~08
PM
*Cc:* Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave

Westerholm;
David Kennedy; _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff; Margaret Spring
*Subject:* Re: budget tool calculator explanation, latest
Dr. Lubchenco,
Here is the latest version that includes comments from you, me,
Marcia
and Bill Lehr.
From the standpoint of the document review we have Mark

still
. outstanding. I forwarded Steve's comments to Jennifer moments ago.
94
003261
As for "author" credii Jennifer and I are working bn the final

list
but have broken them out between the actual Tool development (the
web
interface etc) and the calculations (Bill Lehr's team) .
>j
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 need to
This is urgent.
this to the authors ASAP even if we don't have the full list yet.
thanks
Message-----
From: Jennifer Austin
[~ailto:Jennifer.Austin@noaa.govJ
To: Mark W Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave

Westerholmi David Kennedy; _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff
Cc:
Spring; Jane.lubchenco@noaa.gov
<mailto:Jane.lubchenco@noaa.gov> <mailto:Jane.lubchenco@noaa.gov>
95
003262
Hi,
Attached is the updated oil budget calculator two-pager,

incorporating
The pie chart uses 60,000 barrels/day flow rate, numbers from
July 26
daily oil budget report.
The latest of htese reports would
be
Mark will share with the authors listed in his earlier email
96
003263
For USGS
IASG) to see
- I would like to check with Steve Hammond (NIC
who USGS thinks should be identified for this document. A

short list
should probably include Dr. McNutt, Mark Sogge, Steve Hammond

(NIC
lASG) , Sky Bristol (led the development team), and Tim Kern.
For NlST - Antonio Possolo (NlST did the uncertainty analysis

that
Jennifer Austin
97
003264
202-482-5757
(office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco
<http://www.facenook.com/noaa.lubchenco>
<http://www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco>
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
Jenni
Austin
202-482~5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell) www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco
98
003265
Timothy Bagley
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Saturday, July 31,20109:29 AM

Jane Lubchenco
jacquee.wright@dhs.gov; Perciasepe.Bob@epamail.epa.gov; David_Hayes@ios.doi.gov;
Marcia K McNutt; Anastas.Paul@epamail.epa.gov; s
t
Holdren, John P.
Re: oil budget calculations
Subject:
Jane and colleagues,

Bob and Paul sent in more specific comments but I have 2 concerns.
1 I think the pie chart and some of the supporting tables and "cylinder charts" may
imply a much, much greater level of certainty for some areas than we actually have (the
amount chemically dispersed or
skimmed are but wo examples).
A bar chart with ranges for each bar
would be better.
That way, things don't add to 100% as they do on a pie chart or the
cylinder .charts.
2 - We are tracking down information but Al Venosa has stated that he did not review the
calculations in the oil budget calculator for this exercise until last night.
So I am
concerned about listing his name in the report.
I
think we could fix the graphics
and other issue quickly.
Thanks, Lisa
------------>
From:
1
1------------>
1
>----------------------------------------------------- -------~---------------------------
-------~---------------------------------I
IJane Lubchenco <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>

>----------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------~
-----------------------------------------1
1------------>
To:
1------------>
1
>----------------------------------------------------- --~--------------------------------
-----------------------------------------1
Paul Anastas/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Bob Perciasepe/DC/USEPA/US@EPA
1
>----------------------------------------------------- ------------------------~----------
----------------------------~------------I
1------------>
ICc:
1------------>
1
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
Marcia K McNutt <mcnutt@usgs.gov>,
"jacquee.wright@dhs.gov" <'jacquee.wright@dhs.gov'>,
I
I
"
" <
>,
"David_Hayes@ios.doi.gov" <David_Hayes@ios.doi.gov>
I
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------99
003266
-------------~---------------------------I
1------------>
1 Date:
1-----:...------>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
107/30/2010 06:27 PM
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------~-I
1------------>
1 Subject:
1------------>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------1
loil budget calculations
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
Hi, Paul,
I'm writing to bring you up to speed on the interagency scientific efforts to report
to the public on where the oil went.
Please note that EPA has
been at the table
on parts of the analyses. The Flow Rate Technical Group (interagency, led by Marcia McNutt
of USGS) is working to finalize a flow rate; I'm told they expect to be through tomorrow
afternoon.
That flow rate feeds into the Oil Budget Calculator (see attached) that was
. developed to use internally to understand what fraction of the oil is where. [EPA (Albert
Venosa) was on the team that created and reviewed the calculations methods used in the oil
budget
calculator.)
The latest draft of the
is attached.
It will
be finalized as soon as the flow rate is
Information about how calculations were done is described
in the documents.
I'm happy to have you get on the phone with some of the team who did the calculations
should you have questions. Marcia can answer some of them, NOAA scientists can answer
others.
All the best! And I trust you're enjoying your new baby.
Jane
[attachment "DeepwaterHorizonOilBudget20100728.pdf" deleted by
[attachment "Oil Budget description 7 30.docx"
deleted by
]
100
003275
Timothy Bagley
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Gilson, Shannon [SGilson@doc.gov]

Friday, July 30,20108:10 PM
Spring, Margaret; Austin, Jennifer; Westerholm, Dave
Lubchenco, Jane; Miller, Mark; Conner, William; Smullen, Scott; Kennedy, David;
'dwh.staff@noaa.gov'; Shah, Parita; Sarri, Kristen; Gray, John; Hallberg, Amanda
Re: Budget Tool update
Rollout will not happen tomorrow. Still very fluid but they are shooting for Sunday.
Message ----From:
Spring <margaret.spring@noaa.gov>
To: Austin, Jennifer: Westerholm, Dave
Cc: Lubchenco, Jane: Spring, Margaret; Miller, Mark; Conner, William; Smullen, Scott;
Kennedy, David; 'dwh.staff@noaa.gov' <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>; Gilson, Shannon; Shah, Parita;
Sarri; Kristen; Gray, John: Hallberg, Amanda
Sent: Fri Jul 30 20:03:49 2010
Subject: Re: Budget Tool update
No word
but will check. I was waiting.
Message ----From: Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>

To: Dave.Westerholm <Dave~Westerholm@noaa.gov>
Cc: Jane Lubchenco <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>; Margaret Spring <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>;
'Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov' <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>: 'william.conner@noaa.gov'
<William.Conner@noaa.gov>i 'Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov' <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>i
'David.Kennedy@noaa.gov' <David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>; 'dwh.staff@noaa.gov'
<dwh.staff@noaa.gov>; 'Sgilson@doc.gov' <Sgilson@doc.gov>; Shah, Parita <PShah@doc.goV>i
Sarri,Kristen <KSarri@doc.goV>i John Gray <John.Gray@noaa.gov>i Amanda Hallberg
<Amanda.Hallberg@noaa.gov>
Sent:
Jul 30 19:58:59 2010
Subject: Budget Tool update
Hi, ,
Margaret
is there any update on where this document is in the inter-agency clearance
process? I sense the WH still wants to release it tomorrow. They will take the lead and
we are awaiting further details from them in terms of
of that plan.
two
I have added one note to the report, after talking with Mark, that simply explains the
difference between the pie chart in our graphic and the cylindrical images used in the oil
budget tool readout document attached as Appendix A.
Because
represent the numbers
differently, it will cause confusion if we don't have this.
Also, because they cannot edit the budget tool report easily, we have switched back to
using the term "natural" dispersion, rather than "physical" dispersion in our report.
Steve has suggested a switch, but
it will cause confusion until we can make the
re-adding John Gray, Amanda, and Kris to this email list so
also have the latest, and
> I know the desire is to lump into
categories and I'm fine if it
> goes forward but I just would add that the ultimate fate
the oil is
> In recovery almost all of the oil can be used similar to the
109
003276
> must be disposed of properly.
In some cases it can be used in an

> landfill.
>
>
>
>
>
>
think there still may be value in looking at these pieces differently.

The same thing could be said for the remaining oil, where at lease the
recovered oily debris/sand/sorbent booms, etc. were (or will be)
disposed in a landfill vs. left in place as unrecoverable.
vIr
Dave
>

not include 'chemically dispersed'. The rationale is that although
they are all federal responses, they have different outcomes. .In the
dispersed r it's still out there or is being degraded.
Jane

*Sent:* Friday, July 30 r 2010 11:23 AM
*Cc: * 'Jennifer .Austin@noaa. gov'; .' Jane. Lubchenco@noaa.gov' ;
'william.conner@noaa.gov'; 'Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov';
'Dave. Westerholm@noaa .. gov'; 'David. Kennedy@noaa.gov' ;
Hir question from WH - would like Jane and Mark's opinion r particularly:
chemically dispersed, burned, skimmed r and direct recovery from well
head (cumulatively 30%) as one slice labeled as "Federal response
efforts" - instead of four separate slices as represented below. Then
recovery ~as responsible for 53% of the oil collected/mitigated by
---------------------------------------------------------------------

*Cc*: 'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov' <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>;
'Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov' <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>;
'william.conner@noaa.gov' <William.Conner@noaa.gov>i
'Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov' <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>;
'David.Kennedy@noaa.gov' <David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>;
'dwh.staff@noaa.gov' <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>; 'Sgilson@doc.gov'
<Sgilson@doc.gov>
*Sent*: Thu Jul 29 19:53:07 2010
Margaret,
110
003277
Mark Sogge, Steven Hammond, and Marcia McNutt, (representing USGS
development team) and Bill Lehr (representing the calculation team)
In addition - Steve Murawski
I ~ould like to send to NIC and OR&R operations people when the WH
clearance begins.
Mark
----- Original Message ----From: Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>

<mailto:Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>; William Conner
<mailto:Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>;
Shannon <SGilson@doc.gov>
Sent: Thu Jul 29 19:29:21 2010
Hi All,
an additional iine explaining subsurface oil that Steve suggested
Thanks, Mark. It's great that all of the authors are comfortable
with
the document.

111
003278

numbers'
,
.
it to
everyone copied here. Margaret will start it through

clearance.
I greatly
everyone working so quickly on this.
Jane
*Sent:* Thursday, July 29, 2010 4:08 PM

*Cc:* Jennifer Austini William Conneri Scott Smullen; Dave
Westerholmi
David KennedYi _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff; Margaret
Dr. Lubchenco,
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.
A s for "author" credit Jennifer and I are working on the final

'list
but have broken them out between the actual Tool

web
interface etc) and the calculations (Bill Lehr's team) .

included
112
(the
003279
"brief
. description of the ~rocess used to do the calculations"? Bill

Lehr has

Mark
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

To: Mark W Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave

Westerholm; David Kennedy; _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff

Hi,
113
003280
Attached is the updated oil budget calculator two-pagerl
incorporating
July 26
daily oil pudget report.
be
'
Let us know immediately if you have comments,'
>>.
For USGS
IASG) tQ see
- I would like to check with Steve Hammond (NIC

short list

(NIC
114
003281
Jennifer Austin
116
003290
Timothy Bagley
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
-Margaret Spring [margaret.spring@noaa.gov]

'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov'; 'Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov'
'Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov'; 'Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov'; 'Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov';
'william.conner@noaa.gov'; Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov'; 'David. Kennedy@noaa.gov';
'dwh.staff@noaa.gov'; 'Sgilson@doc.gov'; 'Pshah@doc.gov'; 'KSarri@doc.gov';
'John.Gray@noaa.gov'; 'Amanda.Haliberg@noaa.gov'
Re: Budget Tool update
No word yet but will check. I was waiting.

To: Dave.Westerholm <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>
Cc: Jane Lubchenco <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>; Margaret Spring <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>;
'Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov' <Mark.W.Miller@noaa;gov>; 'william.conner@noaa.gov'
<William.Conner@noaa.gov>; Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>;
'David.Kennedy@noaa.gov' <David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>; 'dwh.staff@noaa.gov
<dwh.staff@noaa.gov>; 'Sgilson@doc.gov' <Sgilson@doc.gov>; Shah, Parita <PShah@doc.gov>;
Sarri, Kristen <KSarri@doc.gov>; John
<John.Gray@noaa.gov>: Amanda Hallberg
<Amanda.Hallberg@noaa.gov>
Sent: Fri Jul 30 19:58:59 2010
Subject:
Tool update
Hi, ,
Margaret - is there any update on where this document is in the inter-agency clearance .
process? I sense the WH still wants to release it tomorrow.
They will take the lead and
of that plan.
two
I have added one note to the report, after talking with Mark, that simply explai-ns the
budget tool readout document attached as Appendix A.
Because they represent the numbers
Steve has suggested a switch, but
it will cause confusion until we can make the
re-adding John Gray, Amanda, and Kris to this email list so
also have the latest, and
> I know the desire is to lump into
categories and I'm fine if it
> goes forward but I just would add that the ultimate fate of
oil. is
> 'it into the water column (until itis biodegraded). Burning removes
> In recovery almost all of the oil can be used similar to the original
> landfill.
> think there still may be value in looking at these pieces di
> The same
could be said for the
oil, where at lease the
> recovered
debrislsandlsorbent booms, etc. were (or will be)
> vir
125
003291
> Dave
>
I think it wQuld be fine to lump 'burned, skimmed and recovered' but

not include 'chemically dispersed'.
The rationale is that although
they are all federal responses, they have different outcomes.
In the
di~persed, it's still out there or is being degraded.
Jane

*Sent:* Friday, July 30, 2010 11:23 AM
*Cc:* 'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov'; 'Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov';
'william.conner@noaa.gov'i 'Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov';
bead (cumulatively 30%) as one slice labeled as uFederal response
efforts
instead of four separate slices as represented below. Then
collection/mitigation
they were responsible for. i.e Direct
H
--------------------------------------------------------------------

*Cc*: 'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov' <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>i

'william.conner@noaa.gov' <William.Conner@noaa.gov>;
'Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov' <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>i
'Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov' <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>i
'David.Kennedy@noaa.gov' <David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>i
<Sgilson@doc.gov>
*Sent*: Thu Jul 29 19:53:07 2010
*
ect*: Re: budget tool calculator explanation, latest
Margaret,

In additicin - Steve Murawski
I would like to send to NIC and OR&R operations

126
when the WH
003292
clearance begins.
Mark
Pls confirm to me which' authors have signed off so I can report
----- Original Message ---- From: Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>

. Dave Westerholm <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>
<David.Kennedy@noaa.gov> <mailto:David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>;
HQ Deep
Sent: Thu Jul 29 19:29:21 2010
Hi All,
Also attached is the report from the budget calcurator from July 28,

with
the document.

numbers
it to

127
003293
clearance.
Jane

Westerholm;
David Kennedy; _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff;
Spring
Dr. Lubchenco,
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
web
interface etc) and the calculations (Bill Lehr's team).

included
"brief
ion of the process cised to do the calculations"? Bill
Lehr has
128
003294
Mark
references toward the end. If authors are not in agreement with that statement, we can
remove it.
This is urgent.
thanks
-----Original Message-----
From: Jennifer Austin [mailto:Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov)

To: Mark W Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; bave
Please use this
Hi,

ing
129
dated 7.29.
003295
The
chart uses 60,000 barrels/day flow rate, numbers from
July 26
be
Let us know
if you have comments.
For USGS
IASG) to see

short list
- I would like to check with Steve Hammond (NrC

(NIC
130
003296
that
For NIST - Antonio Possolo (NIST did the uncertainty analysis
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047- (cell) www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco
131
003297
132
003298
Timothy Bagley
From:
Sent:
Subject:
Jennifer Austin [Jennifer.Austin@noaa.goy]

Daye. Westerholm
Jane Lubchenco; Margaret Spring; 'Mark.W.Miller@noaa.goy'; 'william.conner@noaa.goy';
'Scott.Smullen@noaa.goy'; 'DaYid.Kennedy@noaa.goy'; 'dwh.staff@noaa.goy';
'Sgilson@doc.goY'; Shah, Panta; Sarri, Kristen; John Gray; Amanda Hallberg
Budget Tool update
Attachments:
Oil Budget description 7.30 y 7pm.docx
To:
Cc:
Oil Budget
:lescription 7.30 v .
Hi"
Me:. "et - is there any update on where this document is in the inter-agency clearance
pr:. 5S? I sense the WH still wants to release it tomorrow.
They will take the lead and
fics of that plan.
two things:
I have added one note to the report, after talking with Mark, that simply explains the
budget tool readout document attached as Appendix A. Because they represent the numbers
di f'ferently, it will cause confusion .if we don't have this.
Steve has suggested a switch, but again it will cause confusion until we can make the
re-adding John Gray, Amanda, and Kris to this email list so they also have the latest, and
> different in each case. As Dr. Lubchenco
out, dispersion puts
> must be disposed of properly.
In some cases it can be used in an
> landfill.
> think there still may be value in looking at these
differently.
> The same thing could be said for the remaining oil, where at lease the
> rec.overed oily debris/sand/sorbent booms, etc. were (or will be)
> vir
> Dave
>
not include 'chemically dispersed'. The rationale is that although

they are all federal responses, they have different outcomes. In the
133
003299
Jane

30~ 2010 11:23 AM
*Cc:* 'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov': 'Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov';
'william.conner@noaa.gov': 'Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov':
*Sent:* Friday, July
Hi, question from WH

would like Jane and Mark's opinion, particularly:
head (cumulatively 30%) as one slice labeled as ~Federal response
effQrts" - instead of four separate slices as represented below. Then
--------------------------------------------------------------------

*Cc*: 'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov' <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>:
'wliliam.conner@noaa.gov' <William.Conner@noaa.gov>;
'Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov' <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>:
'Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov' <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>;
'David.Kennedy@noaa.gov' <David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>;
<Sgilson@doc.gov>
*Sent*: Thu Jul 29 19:53:07 2010
Margaret,
I would like to send to NIC and OR&R operations
clearance begins.
Mark
Spring wrote:
when the WH
Original Message ----134
003300

Sent: Thu Jul 29 19:29:21 2010
Hi All,


with
the document.

numbers
it to
clearance.
Jane
135
003301

Westerholm;
Dr. Lubchenco,
Marcia
and Bill Lehr.
From the standpoint of the document review we have Mark Sogge

still
As for "author" credit Jennifer and I are working on the final

list
web
I have included also the latest report from the Tool to be.
included
with the document sent forward. Does this report satis

"brief
description of the process used to do the calculations"? Bill

Lehr has
the
a lqng, highly technical document but it would take some time to

Mark
136
003302
If authors are not in agreement with that state~ent, we can
simply remove it.
This is urgent.
thanks
T9: Mark W Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave


Hi,

incorporating
137
003303
July 26
be
Let us know inunediately if you have conunents.
For USGS
IASG) to see
- I would like to check with Steve Hanunond (NIC

short list
should probably include Dr. McNutt, Mark Sogge, Steve Hanunond

(NIC
For NIST
Antonio Possolo (NIST did the uncertainty
that

138
003304
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)

www.facebook.com/noa"a .lubchenco
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
<http://www.facehook.com/noaa.lubchenco>
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell) "www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco
139
003305
Timothy Bagley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Perciasepe. Bob@epamail.epa.gov
Friday, July 30, 2010 6:39 PM
Jane Lubchenco
Thank you !!
Bob Perciasepe
Office of the Administrator
(0) 202 564 4711
(c) 202 368 8193
Original Message ----From: Jane Lubchenco [Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov]

Sent: 07/30/2010 06:26 PM AST
To: Paul Anastas; Bob Perciasepe
Cc: R
Marcia K McNutt <mcnutt@usgs.gov>; "jacquee.wright@dhs.gov"
<'jacquee.wright@dhs.gov'>; "t
"
>; "David Hayes@ios.doi.gov" <David Hayes@ios.doi.gov>
Subject: oil budget calculations
-
"
Hi, Paul,
to the public on_where the oil went.
Please note that EPA has already been at the table
afternoon.
developed to use internally to understand what fraction of the oil is where. [EPA (Albert
budget calculator.]
The latest draft of the pie chart is attached.
It will be finalized
as soon as the flow rate is ready.
Information about how calculations were done is described briefly in the documents.
others.
Jane
140
003306
Timothy Bagley
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Gilson, Shannon [SGilson@doc.gov]

Lubchenco, Jane; Spring, Margaret
Shah, Parita; Smullen, Scott
Re: Oil budget evolving
I just had gotten off a call with
! Calling Sean now.
----- Original Message ----From: Jane 1ubchenco <Jane.1ubchenco@noaa.gov>

To: Gilson, Shannon; Spring, Margaret
Cc: Shah, Parita; Smullen, Scott
Sent: Fri Jul 30 17:38:21 2010
Subject: RE: Oil budget evolving
Not what's being said on Principals' Call. Shannon - you may want to check in with
Heather and Sean. Concern is that Flow Rate Tech Group won't be through with their
calculations today, so talking about possible release on Sunday am.
Obviously need a
decision.
-----Original Message----From: Gilson, Shannon [mailto:SGilson@doc.gov]
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 5:29 PM
To: Lubchenco, Jane; Spring, Margaret
Cc: Shah, Parita; Smullen l Scott
Subject: Oil budget evolving
Just hearing wh may rollout the budget tomorrow. They are waiting for sign off, but the
idea is to have Dr. 1, Carol Browner and Tom Hunter on a press call tomorrow.
141
003326
Timothy Bagley
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jane Lubchenco [Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov]

Thursday, July 29, 2010 7:47 PM
'margaret.spring@noaa.gov'; 'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov'; 'Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov'
'Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov'; 'William.Conner@noaa.gov'; 'Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov';
'dave.westerholm@noaa.gov'; 'David.Kennedy@noaa.gov'; 'dwh.staff@noaa.gov';
'Sgilson@doc.gov'
Re: budget tool calculator explanation, latest
Mark should confirm, but it's my understanding that all have signed off
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:
---~- Original Message ----From: Margaret Spring <margaret.spring@noaa.gov>
To: 'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov' <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>; 'Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov'
<Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>
Cc: 'Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov' <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>; 'william.conner@noaa.gov'
<william.conner@noaa.gov>; 'Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov' <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>;
'Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov' <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>; 'David.Kennedy@noaa.gov'
<David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>; 'dwh.staff@noaa.gov' <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>;
'Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov' <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>; 'Sgilson@doc.gov' <Sgilson@doc.gov>
Sent: Thu Jul 29 19:"33:16 2010
"
Subject: Re: budg~t tool calculator explanation, latest

Cc: Mark.W.Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>; William Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>;
Scott Smullen <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>; Dave Westerholm <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>; David
Kennedy <David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>;
HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>;
Margaret Spring <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>; Gilson, Shannon <SGilson@doc.gov>
Sent: Thu Jul 29 19:29:21 2010
Hi All,
Attached is the latest version. Those who saw it earlier should note an additional line
explaining subsurface oil that Steve suggested adding following the explanation of
dispersed oil. Mark and I reviewed and reconciled the edits. This should be final from a
NOAA perspective.
Also attached is the report from the budget calculator from July 28, which will serve as
Appenc!ix A.
I've added Shannon to this distribution list, so she can give a heads up to WH
164
003327
communications and be in touch with Heather and others about release
as necessary.
Any further' comments, let me know, Jen

>
> Thanks, Mark. It's
that all of the authors are comfortable with
> the document.
>
> I've corrected a couple of typos. This looks good to me and the
> descriptions of the people involved is fine. Please plug the numbers
> that are in the pie chart into the text and finalize it and send it to
> everyone copied here. Margaret will start it through interagency
> clearance.
>
> I greatly appreciate everyone working so quickly on this.
>
> Jane
>
> *From:* Mark.W.Miller [mailto:Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov]
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 29, 2010 4:08 PM
> *To:~ Jane Lubchenco'
> *Cc:* Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm;
> David Kennedy; HQ
Water Horizon Staff; Margaret Spring
> *Subject:* Re: budget tool calculator explanation, latest
>
> Dr. Lubchenco,
>
> Here is the latest version that includes comments from you, me, Marcia
> and Bill Lehr.
>
> 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
used to do the calculations"? Bill Lehr has
> a long, highly
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
simply remove it.
>
> We will need to add:
ion of the process used to do the calculations and the names' of the
>
A brief
reviewers, as per the FRTG doc.
individuals involved
>
is urgent.
> thanks'
>
> -----Original
> From: Jennifer
[mailto:Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov]
> Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 12:57 PM
> To: Mark W Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm;
> David Kennedy; HQ
Water Horizon Staff
> Cc: Margaret
Jane.lubchenco@noaa.gov
165
003328
>
<mailto~Jane.lubchenco@noaa.gov>
> Subject: Re: budget tool calculator explanation, latest
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Sorty! I attached the wrong document.

Hi,

incorporating
The pie chart uses 60,000 barrels/day flow rate, numbers from July
26
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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
-Jennifer Austin
166
003329
> NOAA Communications & External Affairs
> 202-482-5757
) 202-302-9047 (ce'll)
> www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco
> <http://www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco>
>
Jennifer Austin
167
003330
Timothy Bagley
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Margaret Spring [margaret.spring@noaa.gov]

Thursday, July 29,20101':33 PM
'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov'; 'Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov'
'Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov'; 'william.conner@noaa.gov'; 'Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov';
'Oave.Westerholm@noaa.gov'; 'Oavid.Kennedy@noaa.gov'; 'dwh.staff@noaa.gov';
'Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov'; 'Sgilson@doc.gov'
Pls confirm to me which authors have signed off so I can report

Cc: Mark.W.Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>; William Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>i
Scott Smullen <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>i Dave Westerholm <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>i David
Kennedy <David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>; HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>;
Margaret Spring <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>i Gilson, Shannon <SGilson@doc.gov>
Sent: Thu Jul 29 19:29:212010
Hi All,
dispersed oil. Mark and I reviewed and reconciled the edits. This should be final from a
NOAA perspective.
Appendix A.
communications and be in touch with Heather and others about release plans as necessary.
>
> Thanks, Mark. It's great that all of the authors are comfortable with
> the document.
>
>
>
>
>
>

descriptions of the people involved is fine. Please plug the numbers
that are in the pie chart into the text and finalize it and send it to
clearance.
>
> I
appreciate everyone working so quickly on this.

>
> Jane
>
> *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: Eudget tool calculator explanation, latest
>
> Dr. Lubchenco,
168
003331
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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
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
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
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 ca'n
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:Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov]
> Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 12:57 PM
> David Kennedy; HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff
> Cc: Margaret Spring; Jane.lubchenco@noaa.gov
> <mailto:Jane.lubchenco@noaa.gov>
>
> Sorry! I attached the wrong document.

>
> Jennifer Austin wrote:
>
>
>
Hi,
>
>
>
>
> incorporating
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 26
>
>
>
>
attached as an appendix to explain calculatioris in further detail.
>
>
>
169
003332
Timothy Bagley
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
. Jennifer Austin [Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov]

Jane Lubchenco
Mark.W.Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm; David Kennedy; _HQ Deep
Water Horizon Staff; Margaret Spring; Gilson, Shannon
Oil Budget description 729 v 7.doc; DeepwaterHorizonOiIBudget20100728.pdf
Oil Budget
DeepwaterHorizon
jescription 7 29 v .. OiIBudget20100...
Hi All,
Attached is the latest ve.rsion. Those who saw it earlier should note an additional line
oil. Mark and I reviewed and reconciled the edits. This should be final from a
NOAA perspective.
Appendix A.
communications and be in touch with Heather and others about release plans as necessary.
Jane Lubchenco wrote~
>
> Thanks, Mark. It's great that all of the authors are comfortable with
> the document.
>

> clearance.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Jane
.
.
*Cc:* Jennifer Austin: William Conner: Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm;
David Kennedy; HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff; Margaret Spring
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Dr. Lubchenco,
Here is the latest version that includes comments from you, me, Marcia
and Bi 11 Lehr.
From the standpoint of the document review we have Mark Sogge still
out
. I forwarded Steve's comments to Jennifer moments ago.
171
003333
>
> but have broken them out between the actual Tool development (the web
>
> description of the process used to do the calculations"? Bill Lehr has
> a 19n9, 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
in
the pie chart.
Because this is an interagency document, I've modified one of the NOAA
simply remove it.
>
>
>
This
is urgent.
> thanks
>
> -----Original Message----> From: Jennifer Austin [mailto:Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov]

> S~nt: Thursday, July 29, 2010 12:57 PM
.
> To: Mark W Miller; William Conner; 'Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm;
> David Kennedy; HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Hi,
>
> incorporating
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 26
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
The latest of htese reports would be .
>
>
>
172
003334
>
>
>
For USGS - I would like to check with Steve Hammond (NIC IASG) to
> see
>
>
> list
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
Jennifer Austin
173
003335
Timothy Bagley
From;
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Thursday. July 29,20106:10 PM
'Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov'
Catch up?
Have something to report on oil budget.
174
003336
Timothy Bagley'
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Thursday, July 29,20103:14 PM
Jane Lubchenco; Jennifer Austin; Mark W Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave
Margaret Spring
RE: budget tool calculator explanation, latest
OK they have gone to the authors; Mark is making clear to them that timing is of the
essence and we need to get this done no later than COB (sooner better). OECC may be making
calls.
Mark, is NIST clear?
-----Original Message----From: Jane Lubchenco [mailto:Jane.LuoChenco@noaa.gov]
Sent: Thursday,' July 29, 2010 1:28 PM
To: Jennifer Austin; Mark W Miller: William Conner; Scott Smullen: Dave Westerholm; David
Kennedy;
Cc: Margaret Spring
I've made corrections to the summary paragraph so that the fractions mirror what is in the
chart.
Because this is an interagency document, I've modified one of the NOAA
simply remove it.
We. will need to add:
This
is urgent.
thanks
To: Mark W Miller: William Conner: Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm; David 'Kennedy; _HQ Deep
Water Horizon Staff
J.ennifer Austin wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Attached is the updated oil budget calculator two-pager, incorporating
> edits from this morning.
>
> The pie chart uses 60,000 barrels/day flow rate, numbers from July 26
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
daily oi.1 budget report.

attached as an appendix to
> 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.
>
175
003337
> For NIST
Antonio Possolo (NIST did the uncertainty analysis that
> created the upper and lower confidence bounds)
>
> For NOAA - Bill Lehr.
>
>
>
Jennifer Austin
NOAA Communications & External Affalrs
176
003338
Timothy Bagley
Cc:
Subject:
Jennifer Austin [Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov]

Mark W Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm; David Kennedy; _HQ Deep
Water Horizon Staff
Margaret Spring; Jane.lubchenco@noaa.gov
Attachments:
Oil Budget description 7 29 v 3.doc
From:
Sent:
To:
Oil Budget
jescription 7 29 v ..

'> Hi,
>
>
> The pie chart uses 60,000 barrels/day flow rate, numbers from July 26
> daily oil budget report.
> 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 >
> should probably include Dr. McNutt, Mark Sogge, Steve Hammond (NIC
> IASG) , Sky Bristol (led the development team), and Tim Kern.
>
> For NIST - Antonio Possolo (NIST did the uncertainty analysis that
> created the upper and lower confidence bounds)
> For NOAA - Bill Lehr.

>
>
>
Jennifer Austin
177
003339
Timothy Bagley
From:
, Jennifer Austin [Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov]

Water Horizon Staff
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Oil Budget description 7.28 v3.doc; DeepwaterHorizonOilBudget Appendix A. pdf
Attachments:
'
Oil Budget
DeepwaterHorizon
fescription 7.28 v3 .. OilBudget Appe...
Hi,
Attached is the updated oil budget calculator two-pager, incorporating edits from this
morning.
The pie chart uses 60,000 barrels/day flow rate, numbers from July 26 daily oil budget
report. The latest of htese reports would be attached as an appendix to
Mark will share with,the authors listed in his earlier email For USGS - I would like to check with Steve Hammond (NIC IASG) to see who USGS thinks'
should be identified for this document. A short list should probably include Dr. McNutt,
'Mark Sogge, Steve Hammond (NIC IASG), Sky Bristol (led the development team), and Tim
Kern.
For NOAA
Bill Lehr.
Jennifer Austin
178
003340
Timothy Bagley
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
David. Kennedy@noaa.gov
Wednesday, July 28, 2010 4:54 PM
Jennifer Austin
Jane Lubchenco; Mark W Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Irobinson@noaa.gov; Dave
Westerholm; Margaret Spring; Caitlyn Kennedy
reminder -
don't see dwh.staff copied on this. pIs do so on ALL actions like this.
dmk
Original Message ----From: Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>
Date: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 4:44 pm
Cc: Mark W Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, William Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>,
Sco.tt Smullen <Scott. Smullen@noaa.gov>, David Kennedy <David. Kennedy@noaa.gov>,
"lrobinson@noaa.gov" <Larry.Robinson1@noaa.gov>, Dave Westerholm
<Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>, Margaret Spring <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>, Caitlyn Kennedy
<caitlyn.kennedy@noaa.gov>
> Hi Dr Lubchenco,
>
> Attached is a draft document to describe the oil budget calculator.
> This
> was drafted in the Communications Office and reviewed by Bill Conner.
>
> Please let us know what comments you have.
>
> The numbers and figure will be updated with the latest numbers when
> they are available.
>
> After we hear from you, Mark can share with his colleagues at the NIC,
>
> as you suggested in point 1.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Mark, Bill, Scott and Jen,
>
> Thanks for your willingness to move quickly on this. A few
> > thoughts/suggestions:
> >
> > 1. It would be good to id a few key folks from other agencies to
> work
> > on this early on so they are not blindsided.
> >
> > 2. I think it's likely that the 'new' rate will not be butside the
> > bounds of the current range, so it might be useful to prepare two
> pie
> > charts: one at the low flow rate (35,000) and the other at the high
>
> > rate (60,000).
> >
> > 3. It's my understanding that 'Remaining' simply means 'left over
> > after subtracting the other categories from the total', (Le., at
> the
> > surface, on beaches, in tar balls or biodegraded, removed from
> > beaches, etc.) as opposed to 'remaining at the surface and on
> beaches'
179
003341
> > (which is what most folks will think). It will be important to
> clarify
> > this.
> >
> > 4. In the text, it will be useful to bin the categories:
> >
> > a. removed by response efforts at the surface (burning + skimming +
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> recovered)
>
> b. subsurface (dispersed naturally and chemically)
>
> c. evaporated
>
> > d. remaining (specify what this is)
> >
> > 5; Other questions folks will ask: what fraction of oil released
made
> it to surface?
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks!
> >
> > Jane
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
180
003342
Timothy Bagley
From:
Sent:
Subject:
Jennifer Austin [Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov1

Wednesday, July 28,20104:45 PM
Jane Lubchenco
Mark W Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; David Kennedy; Irobinson@noaa.gov; Dave
Re: pie chart
Attachments:
Oil Budget description 7.28 v3.doc
To:
Cc:
Oil Budget
lescription 7.28 v3 ..
Hi Dr Lubchenco,
Attached is a draft document to describe the oil budget calculator. This was drafted in
the Communications Office and reviewed by Bill Conner.
After we hear from you, Mark can share with his colleagues at the NIC, as you suggested in
point 1.
>
> Mark, Bill, Scott and Jen,
>
> thoughts/suggestions:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
1. It would be good to id a few key folks from other agencies to work

on this
2. I think it's likely that the 'new' rate will not be outside the
bounds of the current range, so it might be useful to prepare two
charts: one at the low flow rate (35,000) and the other at the high
rate (60,000).
3. It's my understanding that 'Remaining' simply means 'left over
after subtracting the other categories from the total', (i.e., at the
surface, on beaches, in tar balls or biodegraded, removed from
beaches, etc.) as opposed to 'remaining at the surface and on beaches'
(which is what most folks will think). It will be important to clarify
this.
> 4. In the text, it will be useful to bin the categories:

>
> a. removed by response efforts at the surface (burning + skimming +
> recovered)
>
> b. subsurface (dispersed naturally and chemically)
>
> c. evaporated
>
> d. remaining (
what this is)
>
> 5. Other questions folks will ask: what fraction of oil released made
> it to surface?
>
181
003343
> Thanks!
>
> Jane
>
Jennifer Austin
182
003348
Timothy Bagley
Subject:
Mark. W.Miller [Mark. W. Miller@noaa.gov]

Tuesday, July 27,2010 12:57 PM
Scott Smullen; Jennifer Austin; Jane Lubchenco
Oil Budget Tool Report for July 26
Attachments:
DeepwaterHorizonOilBudget201 00726. pdf
From:
Sent:
To:
DeepwaterHorizon
OilBudget20100 ..
Dr. Lubchenco,
Here is the report I created this morning. If there are any questions please call.
Mark
187
003349
Timothy Bagley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mark Miller [mark.w.miller@noaa.gov]

Jane Lubchenco; _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff; William Conner
[Fwd: USGS Oil Budget Tool Write-up]
Attachments:
USGS Oil Budget Tool Write-up.eml
~
/
J2::..J
..
USGS Oil Budget

Tool Write-up ....
Dr. Lubchenco,
Mark
188
003355
Page 1 of3
Timothy Bagley
From:
Jane lubchenco (Jane.lubchenco@noaa.gov] .
Sent:
Saturday. July 31,20106:15 PM
To:
'Mark.w.Miller@noaa.gov': 'Jane.lubchenco@noaa.gov'
Cc:
'Jennifer.AuSlin@noaa.gov'; 'margaret.spring@noaa.gov'; 'William.Conner@noaa.gov'; 'SCOItSmullen@noaa.gov'; 'Sgilson@doc.gov': 'KGriffos@doc.gov'; 'ksarri@doc.gov';

'Pshah@doc.gov'
Subject: Re: (Fwd: Fw: Oil budgellool update coordination)

Mark thx for this. I agree we should mirror the tool language. Feel free to modify the Changes I made
accordingly.
I agree with your solutions on eaCh of the other pOints.
#1) H would be disingenuous to combine chemically and naturally dispersed categolies under the guise of
greater oenainty. Combining them does not remove any uncertainties. And I believe we owe nto
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 tex!, so readers can see both llimped and split categories.
#2 I agree this distinction can be belter explained and would welcome their suggestions.
#3) I agree with your points and think your text addresses !his well.
MarklJen plz address Kris' comments in the next draft.
In view of your upcoming call..and the need for the scientists to resolve the SCientific issues. I'll hold off on
. sending the document until we have text that reflects the above points.
Thanks to all!
Jane
Jane lubchenco
Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atm~spheric Administration
Jane Lubchenco@noaa.gov
(202)482-3436
From: Mark Miller <mark.w.miller@noaa.gov>

To: Jane Lubchenco <Jane,Lubchenco@noaa.gov>
Cc: Jennifer Austin <Jennifer,Austin@noaa.gov>; Margaret Spring <Margaret,Spring@noaa.gov>;
William Conner <William.Conner@noaa,gov>; Scott Smullen <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>; Shannon
Gilson (SGllson@doc.gov) <Sgilson@cJoc,gov>; Kevin Griffis (kgriffis@cJoc,gov) <kgrif!iS@cfoc,gov>;
Kristen Sani (doc) (KSani@cloc,gov) <KSani@cloc,gov>; Parita Shah (Pshah@cloc.gov)
<Pshah@cJoc.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)justcailed and we {USGS, vesa, and NOAA) will be
having a conference call shortly to discuss several topics about the tool. They are proceeding
now with the tool in in present configuration (two scenarios) using the flowrate from the graphic
+ 10% as the "High Flow" rate and 10% as the "Low Flow" rate. Jen and I discussed this earlier
and thought that we would just mirror how they described the flow rate (use as similar words as
possible) and then use the "High Flow" numbers for the pie chart as we have done.
In addition, the eall is supposed to address questions raised by EPA
EPA suggestes in &he interest of getting these out this weekend that we:
1) combine natural and chemical into one category of dispersed oil on charts and in narrative.
I already gave feedback to Steve that it is important to keep them separate because we can
better describe the response impact while still being able to include them in the
biodegradation statement.
2) clear
up the dissolution and dispersion potential confusion with some additional explanation.
I am notsure what this means.
3) if no estimate can be made of biodegradation at least have a robust discussion about it both in
tenns of oil that will remain in marshes to be biodegraded and in tenos of our expectations and
evidence of the dispersed oil subsea.

I will share our statements on biodegradation. I would like to stay away from rates (or any
time estimates) in this document. I will also say that most likely there will be a follow-on
document that focuses on biodegradation and includes rates as they get developed and
refined.
Mark
Jen and Mark
good job!
My modifications to Mark's/Jen's version are attached as track changes in

We can circulate it more broadly as is (clean version), but will need to
I've not been able to reach McNutt by phone or email.
9/27/2010
003356
Page20f3
I will send it to McNutt, Chu apd Perciaseppe with a note about the changes.
Mark please see if you can find out when the GS group will have a new Appendix.
Jane
-----Original Message----From: Mark Miller
(!r~;.:Jtl.t.:':rr:~l::.'"1.:.'.N.rr:i.ller@r;,:'o:J~J.C'c . .]
Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2010 4:01 PM

To: Jennifer Austin
Cc: Margaret Spring; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Jane Lubchenco; Shannon Gilson
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Fw: Oil budget tool update - coordination]
(.3':;i1.~(.'r:l~'~k':::.'lr_'v);
Kevin Griffis
(~:i!"L!rl:::I:\,j .... : ... ,');
Dr. LubchencQ,
Here is the latest copy (prior to final numbers from the Oil Budget tool). As soon as you provide the okay my understanding is that Kri
Mark
Apologies, attached is the latest document.

If anyone else needs to be on the call, we have a different call in
number than I sent outlet me know.
From: Jenni fer Austin [JE!nr~if(:r .A~..!stir:@:1Gi:Li:. (ElV]
To: Margaret Spring
Cc: Mark Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen: Jane Lubchenco;
Shannon Gilson (SG,ilson@dc.c'.!.!0'.f); Kevin Griffis (kf.!!:":iffis!'Jdc.c.".!0"J);
Kristen Sarri (doc) (KSarri[1doc.go.r); Parita Shah (F-shahf~dc'::.CC'll
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Fw: Oil budget tool update - coord,ination]
I can be on at 2 pm.
Will send' the latest document shortly.
on phone with Jane now - can we have a call with Jane, Mark, Jen,
Bill Conner on this? 2 pm?
Am
She wants to understand what was agreed to at EPA last night. And
work out why this is a better approach than the bar chart idea, but
try to work on better representing uncertainty.
Then we need to loop in Marcia, then Heather, and then if we are on
the same page, go back to EPA with a revision and how we tried to
work on their concerns.
Jane is available between now (lpm) and 5 EST
Mark -
- can we do 2 pm?
do we have a call-in we can use?
From: Margaret Spring [rr:c.!oi.:.ret. SP! ina@n(;i.:.i;:..o(.;'I,;]

To: Mark Miller; Margaret Spring
Cc: Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Jane Lubchenco:
Shannon Gilson (SG,i.lsc.j';0dGc.j0V); Kevin Griffis (kr'!!:",iii.i.si'.::dGc.'Jc'J):
Kristen Sarri (doc) (KSarrif~d0c.qc,V): Parita Shah (F-s1":.al":[1dc.c.cc,".,')
Subject: RE: [Fwd: Fw: Oil budget tool update - coordination]
Mark - want to make sure you have these ocmments from USGS and EPA
(HQ)
Marcia McNutt said that whatever EPA and NOAA work out on how
dispersed oil is handled, pIs communicate to Sky Bristol and Mark
Sogge
Jackson said : (1) she was concerned about the level of
certainty implied in ,the pie and cylinder charts (adding to 100',)
and suggests instead bar chart with ranges for each bar instead
-(Jane, let's discuss what to make of this - are we going with a
non-pie chart?);
Adm
(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 (Perciasepel to
clear. When can we send it over?
From: Mark Miller [:t'.ar\.o: ....;.:r;ill(~::.Cj!":(:-aa.:::::-,rJ

Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2010 11:45 AM
To: Margaret Spring
9/27/2010
003357
Page 3 of3
Cc: Jennifer Austin: William Conner; Scott Smullen; Jane Lubchencoi
Shannon Gilson {~;r.;i15':;n@d0c_acv}; Kevin Griffis ~:~~~~~~F>'
Kristen Sarri (doc) (KSr.lO::ri@dcc.aov); Parita
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Fw: Oil budget tool update Margaret,
Bill and I have talked several times this morning so I feel that we
have captured all his thoughts (his and Al Venose from EPA). He and
Al talked
times last night going over the
(Al
a presentation this AM to someone).
sent
PDT and then called my at 3:00 AM FDT. 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 BudfJet Report which is included as an appendix.
I am in reqular communication with the USGS Oil Budget team. The one
outstanding question is the appropriate level of QA/QC from NIST (Dr.
Possolo). NIST
the statistical analysis which provides the
Upper and Lower

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
~argaret
Spring wrote:
Circling in shannon, parita, kevin, kris Also,> what is timeline for incorporating those changes?
Sent: Saturday,
2010 11:21 AM
To: Mark Miller:
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

between
(paul anastas) and noaa (bill
to the
oil and pie charts.
document
related
Are you in that loop and is that document being reworked at your end?
Margaret Spring; William Conner; Scott Smullen

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
Jenni fer Austin
NOAA Communications , External Affairs

202-302-9047
9/27/2010
003358
Page 1 of4
Timothy Bagley
From:
Sent:
Saturday, July 31, 2010 7:42 PM

Jane Lubchenco
To:
ec:
'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov'; 'margarel.spring@noaa.gov'; 'William.Conner@noaa,gO'l; 'ScotLSmullen@noaa.gov'; 'Sgilson@doc.gov'; 'KGriffis@doc.gov'; 'ksam@doc.gov';

'Pshah@doc.gO'I
Dr. Lubchen'Co,
Just wrapped up the Oil Budget tool call. USGS expects to have the tool updated with the new
flow regime within two hours. It was decided to maintain the existing format for the tool with
two scenarios renamed "Higher Flow Estimate" and "Lower Flow Estimate" (hased on the flow
estimate for the day + I O"~ 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 10 help address the potential confusion between dissolution and
dispersion.
Jen and I will update our document as 500n as the tool is in production status and then route as
. previously discussed,
The FRTG press release is out of USGS and at DOE for review. Mark Sogge did not have an
estimate of when it would be released.
Mark
Mark thx for this. I agree we should mirror the tool language. Feel free to modify the
Changes I made a=rdingly.
.
I agree wtlh your solutions on eaCh of the other points.
#1) II 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 ft to everyone to provide the best estimates we can where direct
measurements are not possible. We also. need 10 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 bolh lumped and spld categories.
#2 I agree this distinction can be better explained and would welcome their suggestions.
#3) I agree with your points and think your text addresSes this well.
Mark/Jen plz address Kris' comments in the next draft.
In view of your upcoming call and the need for the scientists to resolve the scientifIC issues,
I'll hold off on sending the document until we have text that reflects the above points.
Thanks to all!
Jane
Jane Lubchenco
AdmInistrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Jane. LUbchenco@noaa.gov
(202) 4823436
www.facebook.com/noaa.lubChenco
From: Mark Miller <mark.w,miller@noaa.gov>

Cc: Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>; Margaret Spring
<Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>; William Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>; Scott
Smullen <Scott.5mullen@noaa.gov>; Shannon Gilson (SGilson@doc.gov)
<SqllSQn@doc,gov>; Kevin Griffis (kgriffis@doc.gov) <kgrfffis@doc.9ov>; Kristen Sam
(doc) (KSarri@doc.gov) <KSarri@doc.gov>; Parila Shah (Pshah@doc.gov)
<Pshah@doc.QOv,>
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 d.iscuss several topics about the tool. They
are proceeding now with the tool in in present configuration (two scenarios) using
the flowrate from the graphic + I0% as the "High Flow" rate and - 10% as the "Low
Flow" rate, Jen and J 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 this weekend that we:
I) combine natural and chemical into one category of dispersed oil on charts and in
narrative.
I already gave feedback to Steve that it is important to keep them separate
9/27/2010
003359
Page 20f4
because we ean better deseribe the response impact while still being able to inelude tbem in the biodegradation statement.
2} clear up the dissolution and dispersion potential confusion with some additional explanation.
I am not sure what this means.

3) if no estimate can be made of biodegradation at least have a robust discussion about it both in terms of oil that will remain in marshes to be biodegraded and in
terms of our expectations and evidence of the dispersed oil subsea.

I will share our statements on biodegradation. J would like to stay away from rates (or any time estimates) in this document. J will also say that .most
likely there will be a follow-on docllment that focllses on biodegradation and includes rates as they get developed and refined.
Mark
Jen and Mark - 900d job!
My modifications to Mark's/Jen's version are attached as track
We can circulate it more broadly as is (clean version), but will
in one doc and a clean version labeled 5.30pm.

to make final changes based on a new Appendix to corne from t
I've not been able to reach McNutt by phone or email ~
I will send it to MCNutt,
Ch~
and Perciaseppe with a note about the changes.
Mark please see i f you can find out when the GS gr<>up will have a new Appendix.
Jane
From:
Sent:
To:
Spring; William Conner; Scott Smullen: Jane Lubchenco; Shannon Gilson
[Fwd: Fw: Oil budget tool update - coordination)
(SG~lsnnE:doe.Gov);
Kevin Griffis
O:c~r,(f,u;0d:':L.
Dr. Lubchenco,
Here is the latest copy (prior to final numbers from the Oil Budget tool), As soon as you provide the okay my understanding is tha
Mark
Jennifer Austin wrote;
Margaret Sprinq wrote:

From: Jennifer Austin (.Jenrdfer .;'.llst:,inr~ncaa. ~c'vl
To: Margaret Spring
Cc: Mark Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen: Jane Lubchenco;
Shannon Gilson (~Gilscn@d~"',.:.c:{~~}; Kevin Griffis ""'U:~~~~~0"
Kristen sarri {doc) {KSa r r j ~dcc. '10\,'); Parita
n
Subject: Re: (FWd: FW: Oil budget tool update
Hill send the latest document shortly,
Am on phone ~ith Jane now - can we have a call with Jane, Mark, Jen,
She wants to understand what was agreed to at EPA last niqht. And
Mark -
can we do 2 pm'?
From: Margaret Spring [:ual-qarct. sl:-r 1::'l!,(1noaa. aov}

CC! Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Jane Lubchenco;
Shannon Gilson (::'::{;i]:;.(':<@.j{>,;., .:,v); Kevin Griffis (:,-,,;ri.Cf1.3fhk~,-~,,:~'-d;
Kristen Sarri (doc) (YS6:rr i~.i~..::.(,;':~V); Parita Shah {F::$!;a~;t~(k:~.,"._~\')
Subject: RE: [Fwd: Fw: Oil budget tool update
coordination)
(HQ)
9/27/2010
003360
Page 3 of4
dispersed oil is handled, pls communicate to Sky Bristol and Mark
Sogge
said : (1) she was concerned about the level of
in the pie and cylinder charts {adding to 100:.)
bar chart with ranges for each bar instead
discuss what to make of this
are we going with a
non-pie chart?);
him as a reviewer (this one you should probably check with Al on):
Note we will need to vet the product with EPA HQ IPerciasepe) to

Kristen Sarri
Subject: Re:
Margar,et l
Bill and r 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
times last night going over the methodology (AI
a presentation this ~~ to someone). Bill sent
m2.Qn.2gnc PDT and then called my at 3:00 AM PDT. I
Jennifer a marked
of the doc and we are poised to
new numbers from

Oil Budget tool which is
to be done approximately 2:00 PM EDT. We wil!
Oil Budget Report which is included as an appendix.
I am in regular communication with the USGS Oil Budget team. The one
is the appropriate level of QA/QC from NIST {Dr.

the statistical analysis which provides the
rnnfid"no,~ lines in the Oil Budget Report. Bill Lehr
Dr. Passolo to discuss and address this. Bill is on
to
Sand Point facility in order to set up for the
starting in approximately an hour.
FRTG
Mark
Circling in shannon, parita, kevin, kris -
Also, what is timeline for incorporating those changes?
Sent:
2010 11 :21 AM
Austin; Margaret Spring: William Conner;
To: Mark
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
(paul anastas) and noaa (bill lenr) last night related
to the
oil and pie charts.
Sent: Friday, July

To: Jennifer Austini Margaret spring; William Conner; Scott Smullen
Subject: [Fwd: Fw: Oil budget tool update - coordination]

numbers tor the pie chart tomorrow afternoon.
Mark
Jennifer Austin
NOAA Communications
202-302-9047
9/27/2010
&
External Affairs
003365
Timothy Bagley
From:
Subject:
BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov
Saturday, July 31.2010'2:56 PM
Sky Bristol
Mark Miller; Stephen Hammond; Sean CDR O'Brien; Antonio Possolo; Tim Kern
Re: Oil budget tool update - coordination
Attachments:
Screen shot 2010-07-31 at 11.52.30AM.png
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Screen shot
!OlO-07-31 at 11.5..
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>, Antonio Possolo <antonio.possolo@nist.gov>, Tim Kern
<kernt@usgs.gov>
> Great! The artifacts to work with will include:
>
> - The R program modified to work with a variable daily discharge

> (We'll be doing this on our end, but Antonio can work with his
> original latest version for his own method on this (see note below).)
>
A new
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
the r.esults 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
>
Office: 303-202-4181
>
Cell:
----<.
>
>
>
>
>
>
On Jul 31, 2010, at 9:24 AM, Mark Miller wrote:

> Steve,
>
> Sorry I missed the call. Bill is on his way to work and will give
1
003366
>
>
>
>
>
Antonio a call to line something up. Bill will reply to this message
when he has details. He of course will also be tied into the FRTG
discussion starting shortly.
>
> Bill's contact info -
> >
> > 206-526- 6310 (w)
> > 206- 719-1813 (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 use to define changes in
flow at the various breakpoints that will be included.
Based on a draft press release in the works, Mark thinks the WH

will be working only with the final lo/hi estimates. At some point
however, the oil budget tool may need to include a timeseries line
graph that shows the cumulative total of oil for the 10 and hi estimates.
What is needed immediately upon completion of the USGS work is a

review for logic and accuracy of the numbers that are will be plugged
into the program and the information output from the program;
We'd
like the help of CG, NOAA and NIST to review the work.
Bill, Mark,
can you help me to line up our NIST colleagues? For consistency, I'd
like to follow whatever process was used before if you think that is reasonable.
.
Steve
Stephen E. Hammond
Reston, VA
703-648-5033 (w)
c)
703-648- 5792 (fax)
-----Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov> wrote:
To: "Stephen E Hammond" <sehammon@usgs.gov>

From: Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>
Date: 07/31/2010 09:51AM
cc: Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, Bill Lehr
<Bill.Lehr@noaa.gov>
Greetings again,
One of the things that we strive for in our application development

process is the same type of rigorous peer review and crosschecking
used in developing a scientific paper. Something that would be helpful
in this case would be an independent person or group who can work this
application through in a slightly different way to validate the final
results.
The core of this application is now the R program developed by

Antonio Possolo and his colleagues at NIST. We had essentially this
type of independent review previously as Antonio and his group ran the
numbers (via spreadsheet) through their original version of the R
program, and we ran them dynamically as part of the online application
2
003367
> through a version of the R program set up to receive the numbers
> through a slightly different route. We could look at both results,
> compare numbers and the slightly different charts, and make sure
> everything was on track.
>
> I don't know what the process will look like with the group meeting
> today and what the level of expertise there will be. If they could
> just work with the R program and the spreadsheet of current values,
> adding new values as necessary to reflect variable discharge over
> time, that would be ideal. It would give them the tool to run through
> a number of scenarios and see the resultant figures, and it would give
> us the multiple angles of review we would like. If they don't have
> that sort of expertise, then 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?
>
> <. ----<. ----<. (C(<
>
Sky Bristol.
sbristol@usgs.gov
>
>
Office: 303-202-4181
>
( ( (<
>
>
> On Jul 31, 2010, at 6:59 AM, Stephen E Hammond wrote:
>
> > Good morning,
> >
> > I spoke to Sean O'Brien this morning.
He does not have e-mail but
> is prepared to head to the office which is about 1/2 hr walk. He does
> not have the ability to look at e-mail at his hotel.
> >
> > I was just blind cc'd on an e-mail form Mark Sogge to 001 perhaps
> you saw these. These were the highlights of his message:
> >
> > - Looks like the meeting today will begin at 12:00 noon COT
> > - He expects the refined numbers will fall within our earlier flow
> rate range
> > - The flow teams will describe how the flow rate has changed
> (decreased) over time
> > - there is high-level interest in releasing this number to the
> media today
> > - Matt Lee-Ashley is working with DOE, DHS, and WH communication
> folks regarding the release
> > Here is a phone bridge when we are ready to meet
> > 1-866-719-3641 passcode 7309196#
> >
> > Bill, Sky, you're furthest west, you all let us know when you want
> to meet.
> > Mark,
Do you want to work on the .
> > I'm prepped to come in to the NIC.
> "Where's th~ 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
Chief Emergency Operations Office, National
Reston, VA
> 703-648-5033 (w)
>
(c)
3
Program
003368
>
>
>
>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 703-648- 5792 (fax)

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

Cheers.
<. (<----<. ----<.
Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
Office: 303-202-4181
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Sky Bristol < sbristol@usgs.gov >

> Date: July 30, 2010 9:54:59 PM MDT
> To: Stephen E Hammond < sehammon@usgs.gov >
> Cc: sean.k.obrien@uscg.mil t bill.lehr@noaa.gov t
mark.w.miller@noaa.mil ,
,
antonio.possolo@nist.gov t "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
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
to the message the report will
be putting out under the new scenario.
>
>
>
> From Marcia McNutt's
of the approach and Mark
Sogge's input, I'm pretty sure
is a relatively simple
modification. The current
(attached FYI) sets oilFlowRate
as a constant value for low and high discharge at 35,000 and 60,000
bbl/day, respectively. When we run it from the Web application, we
send it an array of values from the
variable input:
>
>
the day
>
Oily Water Collected (VOW)
>
Oil Burned (VBU)
Oil Collected via RITT/TopHat (VDT)
>
Dispersants Used, Surface (VCS)
>
Dispersents Used Subsurface (VCB)
>
>
003369
> > 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?
>
=
,
>
> >
> > <. -~-~<. ----<. (
> >
Sky Bristol
> >
sbristol@usgs.gov
> >
Office: 303-202
> >
> >
~---<. ( (
> >
> > On Jul 30, 2010, at 8:09 PM, Stephen E Hammond wrote:
> >
>
>
;:"
> Colleagues,
>
> We'll be asked to make some
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
> requiremerits shared

> this evening by USGS Director McNutt.
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
They'll develop a beta
Steve
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>
>
003370
003371
DRAFT 7.31v 4 pm
Deepwater HorizonlBP Oil Budget Calculator:
Where did the oil go?
The National Incident Command (NIC) assembled the best scientific minds in the government and
independent scientific community to produce an estimate of how much oil has been skimmed, burned,
contained, evaporated and dispersed. They developed a tool, called the Oil Budget Calculator to
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.

Federal
Response
Operations
*Remaining oil is either at

the surface as light sheen
or weathered tar balls,
has been biodegraded, or
has already come ashore.
rned
Skimmed
3%
8%
,
Flow Rate: The Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG), assembled by the National Incident Command,
estimates that as of July 15, between 3-5 million barrels of oil had been released from the Deepwater
HorizonIBP wellhead. The current flow rate estimates are 35,000 to 60,000 barrels of oil per day. The
oil budget tool calculations 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.
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
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
003372
expertise. These numbers will continue to be refined based on additional information and further
analysis.
.
Explan~tion
of Findings
Federal Response Efforts: Response efforts to deal with oil have been aggressive. As shown in the pie
chart (Figure 1), response efforts were successful in dealing with 32% of the spilled oil. This includes
oil that was captured directly from the wellhead by the riser 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 in the 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 surface.
Natural dispersion occurs as a result of the oil coming out of the broken riser pipe at high speed into the
water column, which caused some of the oil to spray off in small droplets (less than 100 microns -:- the
diameter of a human hair). Chemical dispersion also deliberately breaks the oil up into smaller droplets
which keeps it from coming ashore in large surface slicks and makes it more readily avaifable for
biodegradation.
Some portion of the dispersed oil r~mained 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).
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.
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 Gulfwaters. The remaining amount,
003373
just over one quarter is either 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
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.
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 of60;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
003374

Authors
William Conner,.NOAA, DOC
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
refme the analysis and this document will be updated as appropriate.
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Al Allan, SpilTec
James Payne, Payne Env.
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Merv Fingas, Env. Canada(ret)
Per Dating, SINTEF
003375
Page 1 of5
Timothy Bagley
From:
Perciasepe.Bob@epamail.epa.gov
Sent:
Saturday, July 31, 201010:11 PM
To:
Stephen E Hammond
Cc:
mark w miller; bill lehr; Sky Bristol; Mark K Sogge; sean k o'brien
Subject: Re: Oil Budget - EPA Comments - follow up and a request
Thanks Steve.
I will try to get some language but NOAA science folks like Steve Murawski know this better than I. The basic idea
is that this will be the first government input into the fate of the oil issue and biodegradation is a big part of that.
That should be pretty easy to discuss. I will think how I can help on the other item 2. I agree it is a tough one.
I think you are making a mistake on the separate estimates of dispersal but I have no additional arguments other than
it is not verifiable and we will be trying to explain it for the rest of our time on this. I will take it up with white
house.
I greatly appreciate your attention to out concerns.
Bob Perciasepe
(0)2025644711
(c) 2023688193
From: Stephen E Hammond [sehammon@usgs.gov]

Sent: 07/3112010 07:53 PM AST
To: Bob Perciasepe
Cc: mark.w.miller@noaa.gov; bill.lehr@noaa.gov; S~y Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>; Mark K Sogge
<mark_sogge@usgs.gov>; sean.k.o'brien@uscg.gov; Stephen E Hammond <sehammon@usgs.gov>
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 the the NIC. USGS spent some time this afternoon with NOAA and
USCG discussing the three suggestions you made below in preparatic;m to update and
modify the oil budget tool that has been developed. I'll give you a quick update on the
discussion of suggestion 1 & 3, then ask you to 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, the
dispersion types (Natural & Chemical) will not be combined. 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. They indicated that
they tried to make this explanation as robust as possible. We believe that a second
9/27/2010
003376
Page 2 of5
document will be prepared in the near future that addresses biodegradation as the primary focus.
It 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. We'd like to ask you to provide a short write-up that we can consider for. thsi explanation
in the oil budget tool.
We are working to get tell toll updated by this evening. Any feedback you can offer quickly is greatly
appreciated.
.
Steve
Stephen E. Hammond
Reston, VA
703-648-5033 (w)
-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/DOI
Date: 07/31/2010 04:19PM
Subject: Fw: Oil Budget - EPA Comments
Forgot to cc you ...
Mark
----- Forwarded by Mark K Sogge/DO/USGS/DOI on 07/31/2010 03:19 PM -----
From:
Mark K Sogge/DO/USGS/DOI
To:
Sky BristoIjRGIO/USGS/DOI@USGS
Date:
07/31/201003:16 PM
Subject:Fw: Oil Budget - EPA Comments

--------------------------------------------------=-~----------~-
Hi Sky,
I just got the chance to read through this. These changes are clearly within the decision domain of
Bill Lehr and the USCG, rather than USGS.
I see that Bill was referred to in Bob's email, but was not cc'ed on the messages. A logical next
step is to get this feedback to him. Do you prefer to do that, or have me take lead on it?
9/27/2010
003382
DRAFT 7.31v 2 pIn


Based on 60,000 barrels/day flaw rote
'Remaining oil is
E:ith", at the surface
as light sheen or
weaU,ered tar balls,
hdsbeen
biodE:gradE:d. or has
already come
ashore.
I : Oil Budget Calculator- Shows what has happened to the oil.

The Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTO), assembled by the National Incident Command, estimates that
as of July IS. between 3-5 million barrels of oil had been released from the Deepwater HorizonlBP
wellhead. The current now rale estimates are 35.000 to 60.000 barrels of oil per dav. The graphic above
is ba<;cd on the high e$limat~ of 60.000 barrels of oil PCI' day.
.
I
Eflbns to .recover oi I havchccn aggressive. As shown in the pie chart (Figure 1), [csponsc cft{)rts were
successful in dealing with 32% of the spilled oil. This includcs,the oil that was captured directly from
the wellhead by the riser pipe insertion tube and top hat systems (16%). burning {5%) . .skimming (3%),
lind ,I,;hcmil,;al dispersion (8%). ,
; Deleted: aggressive response efforts were
I successful
rDeleted:
lDeleted:
10
rovetln~;;~;~; ~~;~n ot: '
Si"""n percent of.~'.~
L!,?rmatted: Highlight ,."_,'w,.~ ...._
l Deleted: In add'tion.
f Deleted: and
;.:,"""'-<'~".~ r.,<,~ ,
""'='""''','',",
< -
....
~'-~"~~"' ......
003383
It is estimated that 25 ~ofthe oil volume quickly evaporated or dissolved into the water column. The
column or fonn residues such as tar balls.
The residual is included in the catee:orv 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 areJised for fresh QiLand weathered oil to provide the most accurate number.
Based on egtimateg. 16 ~ofthe oil dispersed naturally into the water column. and 8 ~ofthe oil was
as a result of the oil coming out of the broken riser pipe at high speed into the water column, which
caused Some ofthc oilto spray offin small droplets (less than 100 microns the diameter ofa human
hair).
Some portion of the dispersed oillemained below the surface. Previous analyses have shown evidence
Report I and 2, http://ecowatch.ncddc.noaagov/lAG/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.oil from this well is
.
I After accounting for recoverv operations, 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.
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.
for tar balls and near shore submerged oil.
Even though the threat to shorelines has decreased since the capping ofthe BP wellhead, federal
impacts of this spill on wildlife. habitats, and natural resources in the Gulf region will take time and
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
.,;
003384
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
information and a broad range of scientific expertise. These numbers will continue to be refined based
on additional information and further analysis.
Attachments
Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Gulflncident Budget Tool Report from July 28, 2010, contains
segment. The image on page one of Appendix A uses the high flow rate estimate of 60,000 barrel/day.
of35,OOO barrels/day.
003385

Authors
Marcia McNutt, USGS, DOr
Mark Sogge, USGS, 001
Stephen Hammond, USGS, 001
Credits
Th~
following scientists were involved in developing the Oil Budget Calculator tool:
.refine the anaiysis 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
Pat Lambert. Env. Canada
Per Daling, SINTEF
003395
DRAFT 7.30v2
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.

"'Remaining oil is
as light sheen or
has been
biodegraded, or has
already come
ashQre.
The Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG), assembled by the National Incident Command, estimate~ that
wellhead.
As shown in the pie chart (Figure 1), aggressive response efforts were successful in recovering a
significant portion of the spilled oil. Sixteen percent of the oil was captured directly from the wellhead
by the riser pipe insertion tube and top hat systems. In addition, burning and skimming operations
collected approximately 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
003396
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.
Sixteen percent of the oil dispersed naturally 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. 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
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.
waters. The remaining amount, just over one quarter is on the surface, in tar balls, on the shore, already
003397
Attachments
Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Gulflncident Budget Tool Report from July 28,2010, contains
. segment. The image on page one of Appendix A uses the high flow rate estimate of 60,000 barrel/day,
003398

Authors

Steven Hammond, USGS, DOl
.Credits
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
Per Daling, SINTEF
David Usher, ISCO
Peter Carragher, BP
003399
DRAFT 7.30v2
,.!

Ii
I
i
'"Remaining oil is
either at the surfac.e
as light sheen or
has been
biodegraded, or has
already come
ashore.
as of July 15, between 3-5 million barrels of oil had been released from the Deepwater Horizon/BP
wellhead.
003400
Sixteen percent of the oil dispersed naturally into the water column,and 8 percent of the oil was
Naturally occurring bacteria have consumed and biodegraded a significant amount of the oiL Bacteria
qUantify the exact rate of biodegradation in the Gulf, early indications are that the light crude oil from
the oiL Around a quarter of the total naturally evaporated and less than one quarter dispersed into Gulf
Note on degree of confidence. in calculations: The Oil Budget calculations are based on direct
003401
Attachments
Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Gulf Incident Budget Tool Report from July 28,2010, contains
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 r.ate estimate
of35,000 barrels/day.
.
003402

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
003406

9
0
266,375
144,425
78
0
-78
AI! units in barrels. See end notes for assumptions.
Inland Recovery

, generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/29/2010 11 :20 AM MDT.
See end notes section of the report for reference materia! on report eiements.
p.poticatiol~ operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geologica! Survey in cooperation witr :ne \.(;:.,;:)012.Oceanic and Atmospheric Aciminis1 r ation.
003407

0
0
0
0
0
266,375
144,425
78
43,900
370,438
-78
Inland Recovery
Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oli

on 07/29/201011 :20 AM MDT.
Report generated by
elements.
for reference material on
See e:lO notes section of the
App:ication ~"""~,,.,. .,.,~,... by the U.S. Coast Guard and provrded by the U.S . Geological St;rvey ir: GOOper2:ion wit~ the N2: i c-l'lcc,
(Jcf~ank~ and
A.dr~inist;ation.
'<"""--'''''o>'t,,,r
003408
Low Flow Scenario (35,000 barrels/day) - Through JU.ly 28 (Day 100)
650,000
600,000
550,000
500,000
450,000
Ul
(I,)
Jo..
.Jo..
ctS
..c
400,000
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
..l
May-2010
-
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Jul-2010
Dee;:YNater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

Reoor! generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.govon 07/29/201011 :20 AM MDT.
F.pp:icat!OIl
by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geo;og:cal Survey in
C:ceanic a;,o
Administration~
003409
Reference Notes

volume that is evaporated or dissolved, skim'med, burned, or dispersed (either chemically or naturally).
Chart - Deepwater Horizon MC-252- Cumulative Disposition of Oil

reference material.
Discharged
Background
Udspwater Horizon MC252 Gu!f Incident Oil Budget
Reoort generated by mark.w.ml!ler@noaa.govon 07/29/2010 11:20 AM MDT.
See end notes section of the report for reference material on report elements .
."'hllJ,jvGH'V' oDe rated bv the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperatior. 'tIlth th,,~ \2;i(Y,ai
OC9i':f'ic and 'A.tmospheric A.dministration,
003410

Dispersed Naturally
method of determining oil dispersion in the water column. A higher factor is used for the IIMaximum
Removal" scenario to result in a larger amount of oilllremoved." See background documentation for
more information.
Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/29/2010 11 :20 AM MDT.
See end notes section of the report for reference materia.l on report elements.
operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geo:ogical Survey in coopera1!on v.;i~:; :he Nailan;::;
and A~mospheric Administration.
003411
for the cumulative total "over time. Different factors are used to represent the difference in this rate. The
by removing the following from .the total discharge:

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.
00.,IM<>10
~eport generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/29/2010 1 i :20 AM MDT.

Geological Survey in cooperation
Applicatioll operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the
Oesa;;;::: ar:ci Atmospheric Administration.
003412
-International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation (ITOPF) "planning purpose ll dosage of 20:1 used
Dispersant Used
Oil Remaining
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Guir Incident Oil Budget

generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/29/201011 :20 AM MDT.
Apoiication operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geologica! Survey in
003413
DRAFT 7.29
The National Incident COinmand has assembled the best scientific minds in the government and
Calculator to determine where the oil has gone .. The nurnbers are based on best estimates of how much

Remaining oil is
as light sheen or
has been
biodegraded, or has
already come
ashore.
,0"
__ "
as of July 15, between 3-5 million barrels of oil had been released from the Deepwater HorizonlBP
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.
.The volatile components of oil evaporate, while the components that are not volatile dissolve into the
003414
16 percent of the oil has dispersed physically into the water column, and 8 percent of the oil was
dispersed by the application of nearly 50,000 barrels of chemical dispersants. Physical dispersion occurs
surface.. Previous analyses have shown evidence of a diffuse cloud of dispersed oil between 3300 and
'http://ecowatch.ncddc.noaa.gov/JAG/reports.html).
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 iliat the light
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 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.
possible. The numbers for direct recovery and burns were measured directly and reported in daily
003415
Attachments
003416

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
003417
DRAFT 7.30

* Remaining oil is
as light sheen or
has been
biodegraded, or has
already come
ashore.
--"-,~"-"'~-------.--.-
..----
" " ,-,---
wellhead.
collected approximately 8 percent of the oiL
003418
Sixteen percent of the oil dispersed physically into the water colwnn, and 8 percent of the oil was
surf~e. Previous analyses have shown evidence of diffuse clouds of dispersed oil between 3300 and
large part because of the wann water there, the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, and the fact that oil
Not~
on degree of confidence in calculations: The Oil Budget calculations are based on direct
003419
Attachments
003420

Authors
Marcia McNutt, USGS, DOr
Mark Sogge, USGS, DOr
Credits
Steve Hale, Kent Morgan, Kevin Laurent, and Jerry McFaul (USGS) Technical advisors
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Albert Venosa, EPA
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed.Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
David Usher, ISCO
Peter Carragher, BP
003421
DRAFT 7.30

'"Remaining oil is
as light sheen or
has been
biodegraded, or has
already come
ashore.
as of July 15, .between 3-5 million barrels of oil had been released from the Deepwater HorizonlBP
wellhead.
003422
Sixteen percent of the oil dispersed physically into the water column, and 8 percent of the oil was
large part because of the warm water there, the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, and the fact that oii
the oiL Around a quarter ofthe total naturally evaporated and less than one quarter dispersed into Gulf
003423
Attachments
003424

Aufhors
Credits
LCDR Lance Lindgren and CDR Peter Hoffinan (USCG) - Application requirements
Steve Hale; Kent Morgan, Kevin Laurent, and Jerry McFaul (USGS) - Technical advisors
Sky Bristol and Tim Kern (USGS) . . :. Project vision and management
Kevin Gallagher and Martha Garcia (USGS) Executive sponsors
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
003429
Page 1 of 1
Timothy Bagley
From:
Marcia K McNutt [mcnutt@usgs.gov]
Sent:
Friday, July 30, 201012:14 PM
To:
Cc:
Perciasepe.Bob@epamail.epa.gov; Anastas.Paul@epamail.epa.gov
David_Hayes@ios.doi.gov; Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov; vlabson@usgs.gov; rclark@usgs.gov
Subject: RE: Oil Budget

Bob Thanks forthe note. There are two activities underway where EPA should be participating. One is the
formal oil budget work. I got a note from Jane Lubchenco that I will forward to you next about that, as I
understand NOAA is taking the lead on an interagency effort to determine "where all the oil went." And
indeed we are doing some additional AVIRIS overflights. I am copying this email to Vic Labson and Roger
.
Clark to make sure that they know of EPA's interest and that they will keep Paul in the loop.
Marcia.
~S~S~S~SU5~S~S~S~S~S~S~S~S~S~S~S~S~S
Dr. Marcia K. McNutt

Director, U.S. Geological Survey
12201 Sunrise Valley Drive MS 100
Reston, VA 20192
. (703) 648-7411 (office)
(703) 648-4454 (fax)
(571) 296-6730 (bb)
(831) 915-4699 (cell)
www.usgs.gov
~s~~s~s~s~s~s~s~s~s~s~s~s~s~s~s~s~s
From: Perciasepe.Bob@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Perciasepe.Bob@epamail.epa.gov]

To: marcia_mcNutt@usgs.gov <marcia_mcNutt@usgs.gov>; Anastas.Paul@epamail.epa.gov
Cc: David_Hayes@ios.doi.gov
Subject: Oil Budget
Marcia:
I would like EPA to get more engaged in the "Oil Budget" work. You and I have chatted about it and I
have the early work done. Last we spoke you were going to work with NASA imagery to better define
surface volume. We remain extremely interested in volume potentially reaching shore, and the fate of
sub-sea volumes.
At the meeting yesterday in the WH there were several versions of this information and some labeling
differences (and increased Cabinet and Presidential interest) . I would like Paul Anastas, our Assistant
Administrator for Research and Science Advisor to be part of the group.
I appreciate your continued efforts on this.
Bob Perciasepe
Deputy Administrator
(0) +1 2025644711
(c) +1 2023688193
9127/2010
003430
Page 10f3
Timothy Bagley
From:
Oave.Weslarholm IOave. Westerholm@noaa.gov]
Sent:
Friday. July 30, 2010 1:09 PM

Jane Lubchenco
To:
Cc:
Margaret Spring; 'Mark. W.MiJler@noaa.gov'; 'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov'; 'william.conner@noaa.gov'; ScottSmullen@noaa.gov'; 'David.Kennedy@noaa.gov';
'dwh.staff@noaa.gov'; 'Sgilson@doc.gov'; Dave Weslerholm

I know the desire is to lump into bigger categories and I'm fine if it goes forward but I just would
add that the ultimate fate of the oil is different in each case. As Dr. Lubchenco points out,
dispersion puts it into the water column (until it is biodegraded). Burning removes 98%+ of the
oil from the system and transforms it into energy (heat). In recovery almost all of the oil can be
used similar to the original product and in skimming most the product is classified as waste and
must be disposed of properly. In some cases it can be US!?d in an incineration waste stream and
in others it must go to an approved landfill.
Because we are ultimately trying to show "what happens" to the oil I think there still may be
value in looking at these pieces differently.
The same thing could be said for the remaining oil, where at lease the recovered oily
debris/sand/sorbent booms, etc. were (or will be) disposed in a landfill vs. left in place as
unrecoverable.
vir
Dave
I thin~
it would be fjne to lump 'burned, skimmed and recovered' but not include
'chemically dispersed'. The rationale is that although they are all federal responses, they
have different outcomes. In the first three, the oil has been removed from the system; for
chemicallv dispersed, it's still out there or is being degraded.
Jane
From: Margaret Spring (mailto:marqaret.sOrinq@noaa.gov)

Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 11:23 AM
To: 'Mark.W.Miller@noaa.goy'; 'Margatet.SOring@noaa.gov'
Ce: 'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov'; 'Jane.LubctlencQ@hOaa.gov'; 'william.CQnner@noaa.QOv';
'ScottSmullen@noaa.goll'; 'Oave.Westerholm@noaa.QOv'; 'Oavid.Kennedv@noaa.gov';
'dwh.stilff@noaa.g9v'; 'Sgilson@doc.gov'
Subjed:: Re: budget tool calculator explanation, ,latest
Hi. question from WH would like Jane and Mark's opinion, particularly:
"For the pie chart.,. I think it would make more sense to include chemically dispersed.
burned, skimmed. and direct recovery from well nead (cumulatively 30%) as one slice
labeled as "Federal response efforts' - instead of four separate slices as represented
below. Then have a second graph that breaks those four down communicating what pereant
each of these represented in the overall federal collection/mitigation efforts they were
responsible for. Le Direct recovery was responsible for 53% of the oil collected/mitigated by
the federal govt, skimming is 10%. burning 17%. chemical dispersant 20%, Thoughts?
Ooable?"

To: Margaret Spring <Margaret.SOring@noaa.gov>
Cc: 'Jennifer.AuSlin@noaa.qov' <Jennifer.AusM@nqaa.g9v>; '~.Lubchenco@ncaa.gov'
<Jane.LubchencQ@noaa.g9v>; 'winiam.conner@noaa.gov' <Wilham.Cllnner@noaa.QOv>;
'Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov' ~ott.Smu!len@noaa.g9v>; 'Dave.WesWmolm@noaa.qov'
<Dave.Westertlolm@noaa.qov>; Oavj(!.KennedY@nqaa.QOv' <David.Kennedy@r!gaa.gov>;
'dwh.S\aff@noaa.gov' <dwh.staff@noaa.qov>; 'SqHson@doc.gov <Sgilson@doc.QOv>
Sent: Thu Jul 29 19:53:072010
Margaret,
Mark Sogge. Steven Hammond. and Marcia McNutt, (representing USGS
In addition. Steve Murawski
I would like to send to NIC and OR&R operations people when the WH clearance
begins.
Mark
PIs confirm to me which authors have sigried off so I can report
=rom:Jane Lubchenco
70:
Cc:
Mark.W~Miller
"l~~~~~~~~~~~~
Conner
<t~;:llian-,.~~(')nnc
Sent: Thu Jul 29

Subjec~: Re: budqet tool calculator explanation, latest
Hi All,
Attached is the latest version. Those who saw it earlier should note an
additional line explai~ing subsurface oil that Steve suggested adding
9/27/2010
003431
Page 2 of3
following the
of dispersed oil. ~ark and r reviewed and
reconciled the
This should be final from a NOllA perspective.
and science contributors are acknowledged in Appendix B.
which will serVe as Appendix A.
A~thors
will mOVe through inter-agency and WH clearance.

will inform others at the NIC.
1 'va added Shannon to this distribution list, so she can give a heads up
to WH communications and be in touch with Heather and others about
"releaSE: plans as necessary.

Thanks, Mark. It's great that all of the authors are comfortable with
the document.
l've corrected a couple of typos. This looks good to me and the
clearance~
greatly appreciate everyone working so quickly on this.
Jane
'From: *' Mark.W~Mil1er [:mailtC':MarjL:''i.Miller:}n;:<aa.C'C'''~''l

'Sent:- Thursday, July 29, 2010 4:08 PM
*To:" Jane Lubchenco
'Cc:' Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm;
Subject:+ Re: budget tool calculator explanation, latest
Dr ~ Lubchenco,
Here is the latest version that includes comments

and Bill Lehr.
f~om
From the standpoint of the document review we h~ve

outstanding. I forwarded Steve's comments to Jennifer
you,
me~
Marcia
still
ago.
r have included also the latest report from the Tool to be included
with the document sent forward. Does this report satis::y the ubrief
description of the process used to do the calculations"? Sill Lehr has
Marl:
.Jane Lubchenco wrote:
I've made corrections to the summary paragraph
50
that the fractions mirror what is in the pie chart.
Because this is an
i~t~rage

A brief description of the process used to do the calculations and the names of the individuals involved plus reviewers, as per
We need to get this to the authors ASAP even if we don't have the full list yet. This is urgent.
thanks
-----Ori9ina1 Message----From: V'enni ~er Austin (:r.ail "te: Jennife::-. P.:.:.s:::ini1noaa. C'~Y'~"1
To: Mark W Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm: David Kennedy; _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff
Cc:
Spring; ;;l'J!'f!".l~;b.;-:he:l>.:c'@!'"'.ca~J .G(,V <rr~;jtlt(':': ..r;'J:l~. ],~lb';:::1~:1,;.(};,71nQi;t{1 Utl,!:Re: budget tool calculator explanation, latest
Sorry! ! attached the wrong document.

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

edi t:.s from this morning.
The pie chart uses 60,000 barrels/day flow rate, numbers from ,july 26
dai~y
oil budget report.
The latest of htese reports w?uld be
at~ached as an appendix to explain calculations in further detail.
Let us know immediately if you have
9/27/2010
comments~
003432
Page 3 of3
For USGS
- I would like to check with Steve Hanunond (NIC IASG) to see
should probably include Dr: McNutt, Mark Sogge, Steve Hammond (NIC
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell) www. f~).::ebook . .::cm/~oaa. ltlb..:henGo <fit. t':".': /
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5151 (office) 202-302-9041 (cell)
9/27/2010
/WW'N.
f;Jcebook" ~-;n:!l/r;('\;-F:J 1.ubGhE~II;::(.'>
003433
DRAFT 7.29

"'Remaining oil is
as light sheen or
weathered tar balis,
has been
biodegraded, or has
already come
ashore.
->
...
~,
wellhead.
riser pipe insertion tube and top hat systems. In addition, burning and skimming operations collected
003434
surface. Previous analyses have shown evidence of a diffuse cloud of dispersed oil between 3300 and
http://ecowatch.ncddc.noaa.gov/JAG/repo~.html).
oil. Hacteria that break down the dispersed and weathered surface oil are naturally abundant in the Gulf
beaches.
information and a broad range of scientific expertise. These numbers. will continue to be refined based
003435
Attachments
003436

Authors
Credits
Steve Hale, Kent Morgan, Kevin Laurent, and Jerry McFaul (USGS)- Technical advisors
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
RobertJones, NOAA
AibertVenosa, EPA
Ron Goodman~ U. of Calgary
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Pm Lambert, Env. Canada
Per Daling, SINTEF
David Usher, ISCO
Peter Carragher, BP
003437
DRAFT 7.29

*Remaining oil is
as light sheen or
has been
biodegr.aded, or has
already come
ashore.
as of July 15, between 3-5 million barrels of oil had been released from the Deepwater HorizonJBP
wellhead.
.
003438
surface. Previous analyses have shoWn evidence of a diffuse cloud of dispersed oil between 3300 and
oiL Bacteria that break down the dispersed and weathered surface oil are naturally abundant in the Gulf
beaches.
scientists remain extremely concerned about the impactto the Gulf ecosystem. Fully understanding the
003439
Attachments
003440

Authors

Marcia McNutt, USGS, 001
Steven Hammond, USGS, 001
Credits
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Albert Venosa, EPA
Ron Goodman,U. of Calgary
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
David Usher, ISCO
Peter Carragher, BP
003445
Page 1 of 1
Timothy Bagley
From:
Amrit Mehra [amrit.mehra@noaa.goy]
Sent:
To:
Jane Lubchenco
Subject: RE: Homework tonight

We can cover #3 tomorrow morning, no worries! DWH oil budget and DOl, Frank follow-ups are definitely more
important.
From: Jane Lubchenco [mailto:Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov]

To: 'Amrit.Mehra@noaa.goY'; 'Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov'
Subject: Re: Homework tonight
#2 is done; #1 will take a couple of hours to do properly. Can't get to #3 tonight. Am working on follow up
fr DOIIDWH mtg and oil budget report and mtg w Congr. Frank. Not enuf bandwith.
Jane Lubchenco
~ane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov
(202) 482-3436
From: Amrit Mehra <amrit.mehra@noaa.goy>

To: Jane Lubchenco. <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.goY>
Sent: Thu Jul 29 20:03:48 2010
Subject: Homework tonight
Jane,
After speaking to Margaret, Jim and Pat, it sounds like your homework priorities for you this evening are:
1.
2.
3.
OPTF all-hands presentation

OPTF letter of appreciation (for post all-hands reception)
Reviewing "strategic" calendar (attached) for lO:30am meeting tomorrow. This product is a result of
input from Margaret, Mary, Larry/Jacqueline, Andy, John/Amanda and IA (Sue and Shannon). Asked but
hadn't hear back from some folks (policy, Comms, Monica).
Hope this helps!

Amrit
Amrit Mehra
Special Assistant to the Administrator
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
.Direct: 202.482.5921 I Mobile: 202.510.5561
9/27/2010
003446
Page 1 of3
Timothy Bagley
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject
Thursday, July 29, 20108:52 PM

Jane Lubchenco
lennifer.Austin@noaa.gov'

Attachments: Oil Budget description 7 29 v 7.doc
The version that Jennifer just sent (Oil Budget description 7 29 v 7.doc) should have your
comments incorporated and the percentages from the pie chart entered into the text of the
document. Did we miss some?
Mark
'Nno is making the changes I requested (plugging in Is) to the document?
Jane Lubchenco
Jane.Lubchenco@nosa.gov
(202) 4823436
\Wffl.faceboOk.com/noaa.lubchenco
From: Mark Miller <mark.w.miller@noaa.oov>

To: Margaret Spring <Mamaret.Spr!ng@noaa.gov>
0::: 'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.QOII' ~.Austin@noaa.qov>: 'Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov'
<Jane.lubchenco@noaa.gov>; 'winlam.conner@noaa.gov' <William.Conner@noaa.gov>:
'~llen@noaa.g~ ,il;ott5muBen@noaa.QOv>; 'Dave.Wes1erholm@noaa.qov'
<Oave.Westerholm@noaa.qov>; 'David.Kennedv@noaa.dov' <David.Kennedv@noaa.gov>;
'dwh.staff@noaa.gov' <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>; '5qilson@dOC.99v' <SQilson@doc.gov>
Sent: Thu Jul 29 19:53:07 2010
Subjed:: Re: budget tool calculator explanation, latest
Margaret,
.In addition. Steve Murawski
I would like to send to NIC and OR&R operations people when the WH clearance
begins.
Mark
Pls confirm to me which authors have Signed off so I can report
Message
;~~ro~ane LUbChe~~tin ~~~~~~~~~~~~

Cc: Mark.W.Miller
Conner <tHllia:r..
Sent: 'l'hu Jul 29

Hi All,
additional line explaining subsurface oil that Steve suggested addin
the explanation of dispersed oil.
Mar~
and I reviewed and
the edi t.s. This should be final from i1i NOAA perspective.
Authors and science cont.ributors a:-e
in Appendix B~
Also attached is the report from the budget
from July 28,

I've added Shannon to this distributiOn list~ so she can give a head
l1-'1Y further comments, let me know, Jen

Thanks, Mark. It's great that all of the authors are comfortabl
9/2712010
003447
Page 20f3
the document.
I'va corrected a couple 'of

descriptions of the
that are in the
everyone copied
clearance.
looks good to me and the

is fine. Please plug the numbers
the text and finalize it and send it to
will start it through interagency

Jane
~From: Mark.W.Miller
Sent:* Thursday, July
+To:+ Jane Lubchenco
Cc:* Jennifer Austin: William Conner: Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm;
David Kennedy; HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff; Margaret Spring
Subject:+ Re: budget tool calculator explanation, latest
Dr. Lubchenco I
Here is the latest version that includes comments from

and Bi 11 Lehr.
you~
me, Marcia
From the sc,an"p<"n.C of the document review we have Mark Sogge still
outstanding.
Steve's comments to Jennifer mome~ts ago~
AS tor "author" credit Jennifer and I are working on the final list
description of the
used to do the calculations"? Bill Lehr has
a long, highly
document but it would take some time to
Mark
lIve made corrections to the summary paragraph so that the fractions mirror what is in the pie chart.
Because this is an
in~

A brief description of the process used to do the calculations and the names of the individuals involved plus reviewers, as
thanks
-----Original Message----From: Jennifer Austin [rr~ailto:Jennifer.i\U'stin@!'icaa.ao . .]
Sent: Thursday, July 29. 2010 12:57 PM
70: Mark W Miller; William Conner; Scott smullen; Dave Westerholm; David KennedYi _HQ Deep
Cc: Margaret Spring; ~;r~~~~~~~~~~i;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Subject: Re: budget t,
Sorry! I attached the wrong
document~
Please use this version dated
7~29.

HiJ'
Attached is the updated oil budget
calcula~or
two-pager, incorporating
edits from this rnorninq.
The pie chart uses 60,000 barrels/day flow rate. numbers from July 26
Let us know
i~~ediately
if you have
comme~ts.
For USGS
- i would like to check with sceve Hammond (NIC IASG) to see
who USGS thinks should be identified for this document. A shor.t list
(~!C
9/27/2010
wate~
Horizon Staff
003448
Page 3 of3
Jennifer Austin
NOAA Communications
&
External Affairs
202-482-5757 {office] 202-302-9047 (cell} wvrv:. fact:bcoy. ~ com/nc.aa.1 ubchenco <htt:.: / /..,!...:~.'. faceboo}:. CO."ll/noaa. J: hbcher~,-'O:'"
Jennifer Austin
NOAA Communications
&
External Affairs
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)

'H'W",h'. f;j.::~bN~l( .~(\nJ!1()~l;..!
9/27/2010
.1;Jbche!h.-;:')
003449

266,375
144,425
78
43,900
o
-78
Ail units In barrels. See end notes for assump:ions.
Inland Recovery
Deeo'uater Horizcn r",1C252 Gulf incident Oii Budget

Report
by mark.w.!';dller@noaa.gov on 07/29/2010 '11 :20 AM MDT.
by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in
Aoolication
Oceanic and
Administration.
vvlt h the Na:iona!
003450

1,750,000
1,500,0001
(fj
1,250,0001
1,000,000
750,000
500,000
i
I
250,001
oj====~============~============~========~
May-2010
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Jul-2010

Report generated by mark..w.rnilier@noaa.gov on 07/29/201011 :20 AM MDT.
See end notes section of the report for reference material or. report elements.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geologica! Survey in cooperatio:l with the Natiorn
003451

Ail units in barrels. See end notes for assumptions.
Inland Recovery
DecowW;v Horizen MC252 Gulf incident Oil B\..idget

by mark.w.miiler@noaa.gov or, 07/29/2010 i 1 :20 AM MDT.
See e!lc notes section of the report for reference materia! on report eiements.
operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geo!ogica! Survey if' cooperation witi, t':G i\d:'::)n~\!
a:-lc Atmospheric Acminlstration.
003452

650,000 ~
I'
-600,000 i
550,000
500,0001
450,000
-~
U)
lI..
400,000
350,000
~ 300,000
250,000
i
j'
200,001
150,000
100,000 J
50,000 I
OJ======~============~============~==============
May-2010
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
JUI-201
HoriZon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

generated by mark.w.miHer@noaa.govon 07/29/201011 :20 AM MDT.
,,\,"~'t,"n operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geologica: Survey in cooperatio:'1
and Atmospheric Adm!:1istration,
'Ni~),
ti,e
003453
Reference Notes
Chart - Cumulative/Da.ily Volume Remaining of the Surface


reference material.
Discharged
. The Discharge values shown in the reports come from the low and high estimates determined by the
F:low 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 FRTGof changing dynamics in
Other estimation methods provided higher and lower values.
Background
Deepv,ater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget
generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/29/2010 11 :20 AM MDT.
See end notes section of the report for reference materiar on report elements.
App:ication operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperat'O:lWit'l H,e 0: al:':n 2.:
Ccearic and Atmospheric Administration.
.
003454

Dispersed Naturally
-Subsurface natural dispersion based upon plume turbulent energy diSSipation
more information.
Deep;;arer Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

Repcn generated by mark,'Jv.mille~@noaa.gov on 07/29/2010 11 :20 Af'J: MDT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation wit!, the Nation":
Oceanic ane Atmospheric Administration.
003455
Measured amount removed via RITT and Top Hat
The remaining amount is then multiplied with a different factor based on scientific research and
fOF a full discussion of the scientific methodol()gy used in this calculation.

Measured amount removed via RITT and Top Hat
Calculated amount of evaporation and dissolution
Skimmed
Removal scenarios.
The actual amount of skimmed oil should ultimately be based on actual measurement
this calculation.
Burned
cumulative totals.
generated by mark:w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/29/2010 11 :20 AM MDT.
operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperatlon wit:"'. ;he \2,t i :;ni:::
and Atmospheric Administration.
003456
assumptio'ns and factors apply:
Dispersant Used
personnel. It is an actual measurement of the total dispersant used via all methods employed .
.' Oil Remaining

Horizon MC252 Gu!f Incident Oil Budget

generated by mari<.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/29/201011 :20 AM MDT.
See end notes section of the report for reference material on report eiements.
Ap;.:;iication operated by the U.S. Coast Gi.Jard and provided by the U.S. GeOlogica! Survey in
Oceanic and l'.tmospheric Administration.
'"''''r"iW:::l,or
003457
DRAFT 7.29
Where did the oil go? '

Basedon 60,000 barrels/day flow rate
*Remaining oil is
as light sheen or
has been
biodegraded, or has
already come
ashore.
..
,----.-.---~.~.~~--
as of July 15, between 3-5 million barrels of oil had been released from the Deepwater HorizonlBP
wellhead.
It is estimated that 25 percent of the oil volume quickly evaporated or dissolved into the water column.,
003458
surface. Previous analyses have shown evidence of a diffuse cloud of dispersed oil between 3300 and
beaches.
. impacts of this spill on wildlife, habitats, and natural resources in the Gulf region will take time and
003459
Attachments
Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Gulf Incident Budget Tool Report from JUly 28, 2010, contains
conaboration with US Coast Guard, NOAA, and NIST.
003460

Authors

Credits
Jeff Allen (USGS) Interface designer
Steve Hale, Kent Morgan, Kevin Laurent, and Jeny 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
Per Daling, SINTEF
David Usher, ISCO
Peter Carragher, BP
003461

o
o
o
o
o
Inland Recovery
Deep'Nater Horizon MC252 Guif Incident Oji Budget

Repo:t
by marky.J.miller~i:noaa.gov on 07/29/2010 1: :20 AM MD~.
See end notes section of the report for reference materia! on report eie:nents.
Application
by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geclogical Su':Vey in
Oceanic and
Administration.
003462

1,750,000
1,500,000
til
Q)
1,000,000
~
~
as
.c
750,000
500,0001
250,001 :
!
oJ====~==========~==========~===========
May-2010
Jun-2010
Jul-2010
-
088,:':;/II3t8'
Expected Value -
fic:)Ori generated by mark.vv.miller@noaa.gov on 07/29/2010 ~ 1:20 Arvi MDT.
fI.ppiicaton operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperatcr \Niti, the l\:a'Ly',[,;
Ocea<c and Atmospheric Administration.
003463

78
o
-78
" AI! units in barreis. See end notes for assum;:ltio:'"!s.
Inland Recovery
Deepvvater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budge~

Report generate.::: by mark,w.miHer@noaa.gov on 07/29/20-;0 ~ 1 :20 AM MDT.
See ene rotes section of the
for reference materia! on report elements.
Application operated by the U,S. Coast Guard and provided by the U,S. Geologica! SUPJey in
Oceanic anc Atmospneric Administration,
003464

650,000
600,000 i
550,000
500,000
450,000
.!!l. 400,000 , .
~ 350,000 i
300,01
250,01
i
150,000 i
200,000
100,000
50,000
====~============~==========~==========~
May-2010
Expected Value -
Jun-20 10
Jul-201
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Guif incident Oil Budget

generated by mark,w,miller@noaa,gov on 07/29/2010 11 :20 AM MOT.
See end notes section of the report for reference material on report elements,
Applicaton operated by the U,S. Coast Guard and provided by the U,S. Geo!ogica! Survey in cooperation w:th tho Na:iona i
003465
Reference Notes
Chart - Cumulative/Da.ily Volume Remaining of the Surface


. budget model. The values used in the chart come from the calculations in a statistical model and
reference material.
Discharged
Chosen because same measurement method used pre- and post-riser cut.
. -Other estimation methods provided higher and lower values.
Background
On June 15, 2010, an improved estimate. of how much oil is flowing from the leaking BP well was
Deep'1/ater Ho~izo:-, MC252 GUlf incident Oil Budget
Report generated by mark::i.miller@noaa.gov on 07/29/2010 11:20 AM MDT.
See end notes sec~jcn of the report for referer;ce material on report elements .
.A,ooficatior; operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geologica! Survey in coopera:icn 'N:rn tre N2 cic;ne'
Oceanic and Atmosoher:c Administration.
003466

Dispersed Natu rally

. -Subsurface natural dispersion based upon plume turbulent energy dissipation
Removal ll scenario to result in a larger amount of oil ll removed. 1I See background documentation for
more information.
Deepwater Hor:zon MC252 Guif Incident Oil Budget

. Repc< generated by ma!k.w.mi"er(~1lnoaa.gov on 07/29/2010 11 :20 AM MO-'.
See end notes section of the report for reference material on report elements .
.A.po!ica!:on operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in coope'2tion 'i'::t:~ the \;2'iGi~2.:
Oceanic and Atmosoheric Administration.
003467

Skimmed
Removal scenarios.
this calculation.
Burned
Total burn~d values are entered daily by National Incident Command personnel and used in daily and
cumulative totals.
Deepwater Horizon iVlC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget
Report generated by mark,'l;l.miller@noaa.gov on 07/29/201011:20 AM MDT.
Aopiication operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. '-A ","'JlV",," "a.
003468
. of the methodology used in this calculated measurement.
No natural surface dispersion assumed
-International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation (ITOPF) II planning purpose" dosage of 20:1 used
Dispersant Used
Oil 'Remaining
Horizon MC252 Gu!f Incident Oil Budget

Repo:t generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/29/2010 11 :20 AM MOT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geologtcal Survey in cooperation witl, the National
003469
. DRAFT 7.29

Based on 60 OOO barrels/day flow rate
J
*Remaining oil is
as light sheen or
has been
biodegraded, or has
already come ashore
on beaches.
kimmed
3%
Figure 1: Oil Budget Galculator- 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 HorizonlBP
the oil budget.)
collected just over %% percent of the oiL
003470
vohitile components of oil evaporate, while the components that are not volatile dissolve into the water
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 an,alysis
.
.
beaches .
summary, burning, skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead have removed roughly 114 of the
.::1
monitoring strategies for tar balls and near shore submerged oiL
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 cQIlaboration
with US Coast Guard, NOAA, and NIST.
operational reports. The rest of the numbers.were based on previous scientific analyses, best available
003471
Science Team
The following scientists at USGS were involved in developing the Oil Budget Calculator tool:
Marcia McNutt
Mark Sogge
Steven Hammond
Sky Bristol
TimKem
The Following Scientists created and reviewed the calculation methods used the oil budget calculator:
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Albert Venosa, EPA
Al Allim, 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.
003472
Page lof2
Timothy Bagley
From:
Marl< Miller [mark.w,mi1Ier@noaa,govl
Sent
To:
Margaret Spring
Cc:
'Jennifer,Austin@noaa,goll'; 'Jane,lubchenco@noaa,goll'; 'william,conner@noaa,gov'; 'Scott,Smullen@noaa,gov'; 'Dave,W$stemolm@noaa,goll'; 'Oavid,Kennedy@noaa,goll';

'dwh,staff@noaa,gov'; 'Sgilson@doc,gov'
Margaret.
Mark Sogge. Steven Hammond, and Marcia McNutt, (representing USGS development team)
and Bill Lehr (representing the calculation team)
J would like to send to NIC and OR&R operations people when the WH clearance begins,
Mark
<';"l;~~j!
er .;'.;;s~-.i n~nGaa. go'
:'';ar.e. Lubch'fr:.cc@noaa. C:O~J>

Cc: Mark. W.Miller ..:!o1ar.k~ N .Hiller0noaa .ao'.!>; William Conner <Nilliam.Conne
Sent: Thu Ju1 29 19:29:21 2010

Hi F.ll,
additional line
subsurface oil that Steve suggested adding
fol!owing the
of dispersed oil~ Mark and! reviewed and
reconciled the
This should be final from a NOAA per~pe':ti've
Authors and science contributors are acknowledqed in
Also attached is the report from the budget calculator
Margaret will move through inter-agency and WH
Mark will inform others at the N1C.
clearance~
I've added Shannon to this dist:ibution list, so she can

to WH communications and be in touch wi"t:h Heather and
a heads up
about

Thanks, Mark. It's great that all of the authors are comfortable wit
the document.
I've corrected a couple of typos. This looks
and the
descriptions of the people involved is finc.
the numbers
that are in the pie char~ into the text and finalize
and send it
clearance.
I
gtea~ly
appreciate everyone working so quickly on this.
Jane
"'From:'" Mark. W.Miller [mEd.} tr,::"lt:.rk .\4 .:1) 11~1<~nci.':c. .'JGvl
sent:
July 29, 2010 4:08 PM
"''1'0:'' Jane Lu.bcI1er.co
"'ee: Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerhol
David
HQ Oeep Water Horizon s:aff; Margaret
Subject:budget tool calculator explanation,
Dr. Lubchenco;
Here is the latest version that includes

and Bill Lehr.
co~ents
fro~
YOUI me, Marc
o! the document review we have Mark Sogge still

Steve's comments to Jennifer moments ago.
As for "author" credit ~'1ennifer and 1 are
but have broken them out between the actual
interface etc} and the calculations (Bill Lehr's team}.
I
have included also the latest report from the Tool to be included
forward. Does this
the "brief
used to do the
Bill Lehr h
but it would take some time to
Mark
9/27/2010
003473
Page 2 of2
I've made corrections to the summary paragraph so that the fractions mirror what is in the pie chart.
Because this is an interage

thanks
This is urgent.
-----Original Message----From: Jennifer Austin (n\~ i 1. to: ,jenn i fer. Aust in@noaa.O'o"]

To; Mark W Miller; William Conner; Scott smullen; Dave Nesterholrni David Kennedy; _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff
Cc: Margaret Spring; ~;r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Q~~~~~~~
Subj act: Re: budget t
Jennifer AUstin wrote:

Hi"

The pie chart uses 60,000 barrels/day flow.rate, numbers from July 26
attached as an appendix to explain calculations in fUrther detail.
For USGS
- I would like to check with Steve Hammond (NIC IASG) to see
should probably include Dr. McNutt, Mark Sogge, Steve Hammond (N:C
For
NOAA -
Bill Lehr.
Jennifer Austin
NOAA Communications' External Affairs
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 {cell) www ~
Jcnni :er Austin
N0AA Communications & External ~ffairs

202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
9/27/2010
f(;;cebcc;:.~ c<;mfnC~':'b .1::bc:-~E:r!cV
<httc: /
/\.;.~w.
iac{.,.i:;u(.}:. -::>.,m/ r..:,.1!. 'l.:!>::h;;f:';-: ';.
003474
Page 1 of2
Timothy Bagley
From:
Mark. W.Miller [Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov]
Sent:
Thursday, July 29; 20104:08 PM
To:
Jane Lubchenco
Cc:
Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm; David Kennedy: _Hq Deep Water
. Horizon Staff; Margaret Spring
Subject:
Attachments: Oil Budget description 7 29 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 ofthe process used to do the
calculations"? Bill Lehr has a long, highly technical document but it would take some time to
Mark
I've made corrections to the summary paragraph so that the fractions mirr
thanks
-----Original Message----From: Jennifer Austin [mailto:Jennifer.Austin@noaa.aov]
Cc: Margaret Spring; Jane.lubchenco@noaa.aov
ect: Re: budget tool calculator explanation, latest
Please use this version dated 7.29
Hi,
Attached is the
oil budget calculator two-pager, incorporati
9/27/2010
003475
Page 2 of2
Jennifer Austin
9/2712010
003476
Page 1 of2
Timothy Bagley
From:
Sent:
To:
'Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov'; 'Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov'
Cc:
'Jennife(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'

Did you send to Marcia McNutt? Also when did you say we needed clearance by?
Thx.
from: Mark.W.Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>

To: Jane Lubcheilco <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>
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
.
Sent: Thu Jul 29 14:01:502010
I had a few small edits - all our dissolution, evaporation, and natural dispersion estimates are
based on previous analyzes on similar Gulf oil not DWH oil. Also I was wondering if we wanted
to delete reference to our oil trajectories if there is a chance they will stop early next week.
Mark
thanks
-----Original Message----From: Jennifer Austin [mailto:Jennifer.Austin@noaa.aov]
Cc: Margaret Spring; Ja~e.lu~chenco@noaa.qov
Hi,
9/27/2010
003477
Page 2 of2

Jennifer Austin
9/27/2010
003478

Burned
Skimmed
78
o
-78
All units In barrels. See end :1otes for assumptions.
Inland Recovery
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf incident Oil Budget

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.govor: 07/29/2010 11 :20 Al\j MDT.
See e~ld notes section of the report for reference material on report elements.
by tIle U.s. Coast Guard and provi62d by the U,S. Geologica! Survey in coope~ation 'i/itil n'2 [\2,\:)1':;:\
;',opiication
Administration.
OceaTiic anc
003479

lr-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--~----------------~
1,750,0001'
1,500,000 i
1,250,0001
U)
~ 1,000,0001
750,000
j'
I
500,000]
250,000
I
i
oj~====~~~~~~==~==~========~============~
May-2010
-
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Jul-2010
8eepwate r Horizon MC252 Gulf Jr;cident Oil Budget

Repoi1 generated by mark,w,milier@noaa.gov on 07i29!2010 11 :20 AM MDT.
ADolicatio'1 operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U,S. Geological Survey in
Oceanic a::d Atmosnheric Administration,
003480

o
o
o
o
o
Burned
78
Skimmed
o
- Ali units in barrels. See end notes for assumptions.
Inland Recovery
LH;f.!r)W,fller
Report
Horizon I\J1C252 Gu!f Incident Oil
'Jy ma;k,\v.:niiier(cl?:loaa.gov on 07/29/2010 11 :20 Alv1 MDT.
?pplication operated by the U,S. Coast Guard and provided by the U,S. Geologica! Survey in cooper2tio;1 Wi:1
Oceanic aile Atmospheric Administration,
:'-:e hia'io;,['.;
003481

650;000~
600,000 ~ .
...
.""'.~""~i>"
.J
550,000j
500,000
450,000
. tn 400,000
-~
350,000
m
.c
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000]
100,000 I
50,00~j======~============s===========~============~
May-2010
Jul-2010
Jun-201
Expected Value -

R8:)ort 9,::.:nerated :Jy mark.vv.miller@noaa.gov on 07/29/2010 ,: :20 AM MDT.
See end notes section of the
for reference materia! on report elements.
App:ication operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geologica! Survey in
0:::8a:<:::: and Atmospheric Administration.
003482
Reference Notes


Clicking on the labels in the table) for further information on the individual calculations and further
reference material.
Discharged
The Discharge values shown in the reports come from the low and high estimates determined. by the
Background
On June 15,2010, an improved estimate of how much oil is flowing from the leaking BP well was
by mark,w,miller@noaa.gov on 07/29/2010 11 :20 AM MDT,
Ao(lIIC3TIO:: operated by the U.S, Coast Guard and provided by the U,S, Geological Survey in
and Atmospheric Administration,
lr>or"."",tor
003483

Dispersed Naturally
Removal" scenario to result in a larger amount of oil "removed." See background documentation for'
more information.
-Evaporated or Dissolved
Deep\va'er Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

Repo!-t generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/29/2010 11 :20 AM MDT
See end notes section of the report Tor reference material on report elements.
,A.pplication
by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S.
OCeaniC and
Adm'"istration.
Survey in cooperation WJt'l the Na::iof":;:;d
003484
Note: Refer to the section on EVaporated and Dissolved Oil in the Mass Balance Formulas document
for a full disclJssion of the scientific methodology used in this calculation.

The amount available for recovery, both daily and cumulative, is simply the remaining 011 after removing
Skimmed
Removal scenarios.
this calculation.
Burned
cumulative totals.
Deep'iv&ter Ho~izon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget
R~)Dort generated ':Jy mark.w.mil!er@noaa.gov on 07/29/2010 11 :20 AM MDT.
fI.po!ication operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geologica! Survey in coope~ation 'fit'! tt~e "~2'1();:;::
003485
-1\10 natural surface dispersion assumed
-International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation (ITOPF) nplanningpurposendosage of 20:1 used
Dispersant Used
Oil Remaining
Deepvlater Horizon MC252 Gulf incident Oil Budget

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov .on 07/29/2010 i 1:20 AM MDT.
See ene no~es section of the report for reference materiai on report elements.
f..pp!icaton operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation \fv'th
Oceanic and ,1\tmospheric Administration.
tre i\2tonai
003486
DRAFT 7.29
Deepwater Horizon/BP Oil Budget Calculator
independent scientific community to produce an estimate ofjust how much oil has been skimmed,

"'Remaining oil is
as light sheen or
has been
biodegraded, or has
already come ashore
on beaches.
the oil budget.)
003487
column or form residues such as tar balls. The evaporation rate estimate is based on previous analvsis of
similar oil from the Gulfv A different evaporation tate is used for fresh and weathered oil to provide the
most accurate number.
r Deleted: scientific ;... rch .nd-~~~i;;;;;-

; conducted during the Deepwater Horizo~~~!~~..
%% percent of the oil has dispersed naturally into the water column, and %% percent ofthe 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 II.;! of the
waters. The remaining amount, roughly Viis on the surface, in tar balls, on beaches, removed from
scicntistvemain,.extremely concerned about the impact to the Gulf ecosystem. Fully understanding the
Note on degree of confidence in calculations:lhe Oil Budget calculations,ilKbased on direct
Deleted: 3
Comment [llUl: With trajectories probably

ending early next week do we- YIallt to remove the
last part orth. sentence?
003488
DRAFT 7.29
The National Incident Command has assembled the best scientific minds in the goverru:nent and

*Remaining oil is
as light sheen or
has been
biodegraded, or has
already come ashore
on beaches.
the oil budget.)
.
003489
. the fact that oil enters the Gulf of Mexico through natural seeps regularly .. While there is more analysis
beaches.
Even though the threatto shorelines has decreased since the capping of the BP wellhead, NOAA
of this spill on wildlife, habitats, and natural resources in the Gulfregion will take time and continued
.
numbers for direct recovery and bums were measured directly and reported in daily operational reports.
003490
Page 1 of3
Timothy Bagley
From:
Margaret Spring [margaret.spring@noaa.govl
Sent:
Friday, July SO, 2010 11:23AM
To:
'Mark.W.Mil!er@noaa.gov'; 'Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov'
Cc:
'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov'; 'Jane.lubchenco@noaa.gov'; 'william.conner@noaa.gov'; 'ScoltSmul!en@noaa.gov'; Oave.Westerholm@noaa.gOv'; 'Oavi<:l.Kennedy@noaa.gov';

Subject: Re: budget 1001 calculator explanation, latest
Hi. question from \NH - would like Jane and Mark's opinion, particularly:
"For the pie chart-Ilhink it would make more sense to inclu<:le chemically dispersed, bumed. skimmed.
and direct recovery from well head (cumulatively 30%) as one slice labeled as -Federal response efforts"
- instead of four separate slices as represented below. Then have a second graph that breaks those four
down communicating what percent each of these represented in the overall federal collectionlmijigation
efforts they were responsible for. I.e Direct recovery was responsible for 63% of the oil collected/mitigated
by the federal govl, skimming is 10%. burning 17%. chemical dispersant 20%. Thoughts? Doable?"
....
--.~
~~~-----------------
From: Mark Miller <:mark,w,miller@noaa,gov>
Cc: ',)ennifer.Austin@noaa,gov' <:Jenn1fer.AuSlln@noaa.gov>; 'Jane,lubchenco@noaa.gov'

<Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>; 'william,conner@noaa.gov' <:William.Conner@noaa.gov>;
'Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov' <Scott.5mullen@noaa.gov>; 'Dave.Wesl1!rholm@noaa,gov'
<Dave.Westerllolm@noaa,gov>; 'David.Kenned'/@noaa.gov' <DaviO.!Cennedy@noaa.gov>;
'dwh.slaff@noaa.gov' <:dwh,staff@noaa,gov>; 'Sgilson@doc.gov' <:Sgllson@cIOc:Qov>
Sent: Thu Jul 29 19:53:07 2010
Subject: Re: budget tool calculator explanatiOn, latest
Margaret,
Mark Sogge, Steven Hammond, and Marcia McNutt, (representing USGS development team)
and Bill Lehr (representing the calculation team)
I would like to send to NIC and OR&R operations people when the WH clearance begins.
Mark
Pls confirm to me which authors have signed off so I can report
Original Message
From: Jennifer Austo;i~n~~~~ti~~~~~~~~
To: Jane Lubchenco.:
Cc: Mark.W.Miller
Sent: Thu Jul 29

Subject: Re: budqet
Conner
~ool
<(;illi~.Conr!e
calculator explanation, latest
Hi All,
add!tional line explaining subsurface oil that Steve suggested adding
following the explanation of dispersed oil. Mark and I reviewed and
reconciled the edits. This should be final from a NOAA perspective.'
Margaret will move through i!1ter-agency and WH clearance.

Mark will inform others at the NrC.
I've added Shannon to this distribution list# so she can give a heads up
Any further comments l
let me know .. Jen
Thanks, Mark. It's great that all of the authors are comfortable wit
the document ~ "
I've corrected a couple of typos. This looks
to me and the
descriptions of the people involved is fine.
plug the numbers
that are in the
char:: into the text and finalize it and send it
eve::yone copied
Margaret will start it through 'interagency
clearance.
I greatly appreciate everyone workinq so quickly on this.

Jane
+From:+ Mark.W.Miller
*Sent:+ Thursday, July
+To: Ja~e Lubchenco
*Cc:* Jennifer Austin; William Conner: Scott Smullen; Dave Westerhol
David Kennedy; HQ
Water Horizon Sta!f; Margaret Spring
Subjecc:* Re: budget
calculator explanation, latest
9/27/2010
003491
Page 2 of3
Dr. Lubchenco I
Here is the latest version that includes comments from you, me, Marcia
and Bill Lehr.
outstanding. 1 forwarded Steve's comments to Jennifer moments ago.
AS for "author" credit Jennifer and I are working on the final list
qut ~ave broken them out between the actual Tool development (the web
Mark
I've made corrections to the
s~ary
paragraph so that the fractions mirror what is in the piechart.
Because this is an interage

thanks
-----Original Message----From: Jennifer Austin [::r:ail 'Co: Jennifer .;~us"Cinf.moaa. 00""..7]
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 12: 57 PM
To: Mark W Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm; David Kennedy; _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff
Margaret Spring; J3.ne. l.~;b~he!'l.-:ot~!1C-3(,J. CO"oJ <mi3. i.l tc: Jan~. 1 ub.::he!1~0;';noaa. GOi. >
Cc:

Hi,

edi ts from this morning.
The latest of htese repo+ts would be
For USGS
- I would like to check with Steve Hammond (N!C rASG) to see
Jennifer Aust.in
NOAA Communications & External Af!"airs
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-90~"7 (cell)
9/27/2010
www.~ ;j,--;<':!bf".''..:' ,.:,'rrjni:~~J~J
. L~bcl'er';I..I .::!~ t. t .:~: "
,''.N'..-J'..-J.
f ,l,:e~'("..' k. i.:~'~!L,' J ."':"1. 11;~'i.:lo:'l ,:" ..
003492
Page 3 of3
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
wwv..'.
~i:."~bC,Gl~. CCI!1l/nGai'l..l :.!bcherv::0
9/27/2010
003493
DRAFT7.28 '
much oil has been skimmed, burned, contained,. evaporated and dispersed. They have
The numbers.are based on best estimates of how much oil was released and how this oil

Chemically
Dispersed
11%
Burned
8%
Dispersion
3%
13%
Deepwater HorizonfBP wellhead., (*When announced later this week (t), new FRTG
003494
the oil was dispersed by the application of nearly 50,000 barrels of chemical dispersants.
Natural dispersion occurs as it result of the oil coming out of the broken riser pipe at high
beaches.
003497
Page 1 of2
Timothy Bagley
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Margaret Spring [margaretspring@noaa.govj

Thursday. July 29. 2010 11:44AM
'Scotl.Smullen@noaa.gov'; 'Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov'
'Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov'; 'Marl<.WMiller@noaa.gov'; 'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov'; 'william.connernoaa.gov'; Oavid.Kennedy@noaa.gov'; 'larry.Robinson1@noaa.gov;

Oave.Westerholm@noaa.gov'; 'caalyn.kennedy@noaa.gov'; 'Amrit.Mehra@noaa.gov';'dwh.staf!@noaa.gov'
Subject Re: pie chan
ThankS. The main question has to do with how long it would be to get a pie chart that is run at the 60k
flow rate.
Mark?
From: Scott Smullen <ScottSmuJlen@noaa.gov>

Ce: 'Jane.lubchenco@noaa.gov' <Jane.Lubchfoco@noaa.gov>; 'Mari<.W.Miller@noaa.gov'
<Mari<. W.Miller@noaa.gov>; 'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov' <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>;
'william.conner@noaa.gov' <William.Conner@noaa.gov>; 'Davld.Kennedynoaap
<David. Kerlnedy@noaa.gov>; 'Larry.Robinsonl@noaa.gov' <Larry.RobInsonl@noaa.gov>;
'Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov' <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>; 'caltlyn.kennedy@noaa.gov'
<caltlyn.kennedy@noaa.gov>; 'Amrlt.Mehra@noaa.gov' <AmritMehra@noaa.gov>;
'dwh.staff@noaa.gov' <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>
Sent: Thu Jul 29 11:35:27 2010
Based on our discussions with Dr. L this morning, Mark is working with us on modifications to
text of2-pgr and clariJYing descriptions in the pie chart. We are still more than an hour away.
Hi. just got a call- plan is slightly changing - sat is too late. They would like to see Wwe can
get the pie chart diagram run at SDK and finished today to share. If the text is slower in
clearing thet is OK, but they said Carol Browner and Thad Allen would make any calls
necessary to get clrerances done ASAP.
So:
(1) How long would it take to construct the pie chari aISOK? Can we dolhatASAP?
(2) When are you sending text around? When you do thaI we can eelivale high level
attention for quick clearance if whe know who needs to clear.
Thx
From: Jane Lubchenco <Jane.lubchenco@noaa.gov>

To: Mark Miller <mark. w. miller@noaa.oov>
Ce: Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.QOv>; William Conner
<William.Conner@noaa.gov>; Scott Smullen <Scott.5mullen@noaa,gov>; David Kennedy
<David.Kennedy,'5)noaa.goy>; IrobinSO!!@noaa.qov < Lam. Robinsonl@noaa.qov>; Dave
WesterhGlm <Dave.WesterhOlm@noaa.gov>; Margaret Spring
<Margaret5pring@noaa.qov>; C<litlyn Kennedy <caitlyn.kennedv@noaa.qov>; Amrit
Mehra <Amrit.MehratOlnoaa.goy>; dwh.staff@noaa.qov <dwh.stafftOlnoaa.gov>
Sent: Thu Jul 29 07:54:52 2010
Hi. Mark,
All of these folks sound just right. The challenge will be having them reply rapidly so we
can work through any issues anyone raises then get this into interagency clearance asap.
I'm assuming thzt the earlier discussions and development of tools and flow rate have .
enabled most ofthe issues to be raised, but we want to be sure! Am happy to discuss any
of this right after the 8:00 it need be.
Thanks
Jane

Sent, Thursday, July 29,20105:53 AM
To: Jane Lubchenco
Ce: Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; David Kennedy; Irobinson@noaa.QOv;
Dave Westerholm; Margaret Spring; C<litlyn Kennedy; Amrit Mehra; dwh.staff@noaa.9OY
Dr. Lubchenco,
For [he Oil Budget tool I would include:
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 lASG). Sky Bristol (led the
development team). and Tim Kern.
.
for NIST Antonio Possolo (NIST did the uncerlainty analysis that created the
For NOAA - Bill Lehr. I also included below the team he pulled together to review
the calculations)
Mark
9/27/2010
003498
Page 2 of2
affiliation
Team. Member
U. of Calgary
Ron Goodman
SpilTec
Al Allan
Payne Env.
James Payne
. Tom Coolbaugh
Exxon Mobil
LSU
Ed Overton
Juan-Lasheras
UCSD
Albert Venosa
EPA
Merv Fingas
Env Canada(ret)
Env. Canada
Ali Khe1ifa
Robert Jones
NOAA
Pat Lambert
Env. Canada
Per Daling
SINTEF
David Usher
ISCO
Peter Carragher
BP
Michel Boufadel
Temple U.

This is a great start. Many thanks for pulling this together quickly. I've added a summary paragraph at the end and changed one sente
The FRTT is trying to finalize a flow rate number by COB Friday. We are being asked to have this ready to announce Saturday, but i
Bill and Mark, can you tell me who are the other people in other agencies (as well as ours) who are the team who have been working
Many thanks,
Jane
-----Original Message----From: Jennifer Austin (mai.ltc-:,Jenni:er.Aust.:.nf!noaa.ao... J

To: Jane Lubchenco
Cc: Mark W Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; David Kennedy; lr<:.'cinson@noEsa.a0v; Dave Westerholm; Margaret Spring; Cait.lyn Kennedy
Hi Dr Lubchenco
Attached is a draft document to descr~be the oil budget calculator. This was
P:ease let us know what comments you have.
dr~fted
in the Communications Office and
After we hear from you
Mark can share with his colleagues at the Nrc
Scott Smullen
Deputy Director
NOAA Cornmunicat:.ions & External Affairs
202-482-1097 0 / 202-494-6515 c
9/27/2010
as you suggested in point 1.
review~d
by Bill
003499
Page 1 of2
Timothy Bagley
From:
Scott Smullen [SCOIt.Smullert@ooaa.gov)
Sent:
Thursday. July 29. 2010 11:35 AM
To:
Margaret Spring
Cc:
Jan... Lubchenco@noaa.gov; 'Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov: 'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov'; 'william.conner@noaa.gov'; 'Oavid.Kennedy@noaa.gov; 'Larry.Robinson1@noaa.gov';

'Oave.Westerholm@noaa.gov'; 'caitlyn.kennedy@noaa.gov: 'AmrltMehra@noaa.gov; 'dwh.staff@noaa.gov'
Based on our discussions with Dr. L this morning. Mark is working with us on modifications to
text of 2-pgr and clarifYing descriptions in the pie chart. We are still more than an hour away.
Hi. just got a call plan is slightly changing sat is too late. They would like to see if we can
get the pie chart diagram run at 60K and finished today 10 share. If the text is slower in
clearing that is OK, but they said Carol Srowner and Thad Allen would make any calls
necessal}' 10 gel clrarances done ASAP.
So:
(1) How long would it take to construct the pie chart at SOK? Can we do that ASAP?
(2) When are you sending text around? When you do thai we can activate high level
attention for quick clearance if whe know who needs to clear.

Thx
From: Jane lulxhenco <Jane.lubchenco@noaa.gov>
To: -Mark Miller <mark.w.miller@noaa.oov>

Cc: Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.oov>; William Conner
<wiltiam.Conner@noaa.gov>; Scott Smullen <ScottSmullen@noaa.gov>; David Kennedy
<David.Kenned'f@noaa.gov>; lrobinson@noaa.gov <lanv.Robinsonl@noaa.gov>; Dave
WesII!rholm <Dave. Weslerholm@noaa.gov>; Margaret Spring
<MargaretSpring@noaa.gov>; caillyn Kennedy <caitlyn.kennedv@noaa.gov>; Amrlt
Mehra <Amrit.Mehra@nga;a.gov>; dwh.slaff@noaa.gov <dwh.$ff@noaa.90v>
Sent: Thu Jul 2907:54:52 2010
Hi, Mark,
AU of these folks sound just right. The challenge will be having them reply rapidly so we
can work through any Issues anyone raises then get this into interagency clearance asap.
I'm assuming that the earlier discussions and development of tools and flow rate have
enabled most ofthe issues to be raised, but we want to be sure! Am happy to discuss any
of this right a~er the 8:00 if need be.
Thanks
Jane
From: Marl< Miller [mailto:mark.w.miller@noaa.gov]

Sent: Thursday. July 29, 2010 5:53 AM
To: Jane Lubchenco
Cc: Jennifer Austin; William COnner; Scott Smullen; David Kennedy; Irobinson@noaa.gov;
Dave WesII!rholm; Margaret Spring; caillyn Kennedy; Amrit Mehra; dwh.$ff@noaa.!!llV
Dr. Lubchenco,
For USGS I would like to check with Steve Hammond (NIC IASG) 10 see who
USGS thinks should be identified for this document. A short list should probably
development team). and Tim Kern.
For NIST Antonio Possolo (NIST did the uncertainty analysis that created the
For NOAA - Bill Lehr. I also included below the team he pulled together to review
the calculations)
Mark
Team Member
affiliation
Ron Goodman
U. of Calgary
Al Allan
SpilTec
James Payne
Payne Env.
'rom Coolbaugh
Exxon Mobil
Ed Overton
Juan Lasheras
Albert Venosa
Merv Fingas
Ali Khelifa
9/27/2010
LSU
UCSD
EPA
Env canada (ret)
Env. Canada
003500
Page 2 of2
Robert Jones
NOAA
l'at Lambert
E:nv. Canada
Per Daling
SINTEF
David Usher
ISCQ
Peter Carragher
SF
Michel Boufadel
Temple U.
Jane Lubchenoo wrote:
This is a great start. Many thanks for pulling this

The FRTT is trying to finalize a flow rate number
Bill ana Mark, can you tell me who are the other
Many thanks,
quickly.
I've added a summary paragraph at the end and changed one sente
Friday.. We are being asked to have this ready to announce Saturday, but i
in other agencies (as well as ours) who are the team who have been working
Jane
-----Original Message----From: Jennifer Austin l~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[J

Sent: Wednesday, July
To: Jane Lubchenco
Cc: Mark N Miller; William Conner: Scott Smullen; David Kennedy; lrobinson@n~ao.q0v; Dave Westernolm; Margaret Spring; Caitlyn Kennedy
Hi Dr Lubchenco t
After we hear from you, Mark can share with his colleagues at the NIC, as you suggested in point 1.
Scott Smullen
:>eputy Director
202-482-1097 0 I 202-490:-6515 c
9/27/2010
003501
Page 1 of2
Timothy Bagley
From: Margaret Spring [margaretspring@noaa.govl
Sent:. Thursday, July 29,201011 :27 AM
To:
'Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov'; 'Mark. W.Miller@noaa.gov'
Cc:
'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov; 'william.conner@noaa.gov'; 'Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov'; 'Oavld.Kennedy@noaa.gov'; 'Larry.Robinson1@noaa.gov'; 'Oave.westerholm@noaa.goy;
'Margare\.Spring@noaa.gov'; 'caitlyn.kennedy@noaa.goy'; 'Amrit.Mehra@noaa.goY'; 'dwh.staff@noaa.gov'
Hi. just got a call - plan is slightly Changing - sat is too late. They would like to see if we can get the pie
chart diagram run at 60K and finished today to share. If the text is slower in clearing that is OK. but they
said Carol Browner and Thad Allen would make any calls necessary to get clrarances done ASPJ>.
So:
(1) How long would it take to construct the pie chart at SOK? Can we do that ASAP?
(2) When are you sending text around? When you do that we can activate high level attention for quick
clearance if whe know who needs to clear.

Thx
From: Jane Lubchenco <lane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>

To: Mark Miller <mark.w.miller@noaa.gov>
Cc: Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa,gov>; William Conner <William.Conner@noaa,gov>; Scott
Smullen <5cottSmuUen@noaa.gov>; David Kennedy <Oavld.Kennecly@noaa.gov>; lrobinson@noaa.gov
<Larry.RobInson1@noaa.gov>; Dave Westerholm <Dave.Wester11oIm@noaa.gov>; Margaret Spring
<MargaretSpring@noaa.gov>; C8ltlyn Kennedy <caltlyn.kennecly@noaa.gov>; Amrit Mehra
<AmritMehra@noaa,gov>; dwh.staff@noaa.gov <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>
Sent: Thu lui 2907:54:522010
Su~:RE:~echart
Hi, Mark,
All of these folks sound just right. The challenge will be having them reply rapidly so we Can work
through any issues anyone raises then get this into interagency clearance asap. I'm assuming that the
earlier discussions and development of tools and flow rate have enabled most of the issues to be raised,
but we want to be sure! Am happy to discuss any of this right after the 8:00 if need be.
Thanks
Jane
Sent; Thursday, July 29, 2010 5:53 AM

To: Jane Lubchenco
Cc; Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; David Kennedy; lrobinson@noaa.gov; Oave
Westerholm; Margaret Spring; C8it1yn Kennedy; Amrit Mehra; dwh.stalf@noaa,gov
Subject: Re: ~e chart
Dr. Lubchenco,
For the Oil Budget tool1 would include:
For USGS - I would like to check with Steve Hammond (NIC lASG) to see who USGS thinks
Sogge, Steve Hammond (NIC IASG), Sky Bristol (led the development team), and Tim Kern.
For NIST - Antonio Possolo (NIST did the uncertainty analysis that created the upper and lower
confidence bounds)
calculations)
Mark
Team. Member
affili.ation
Ron Goodman
U. of Calgary
A1 Allan
SpilTec
James Payne
Payne Env.
'Tom Coolbaugh
Exxon Mobil
Ed Overton
LSU
Juan Lasheras
UCSD
Albert Venosa
EPA
Mer'll Fingas
A~.i
Kheli:a
Env Canada (ret)
Env. Canada
Robert Jones
NOAA
Pdt Lambert
Env. Canada
?er Daling
SINTEr
David Usher
ISCO
Peter Carragher
BP
9/27/2010
003502
Page 2 of2
Michel Boufad';l
TemjUe
U.

Many thanks for pulling this together quickly.
I've added a summary paragraph at the end and changed one sentence s
to finalize a fl-ow rate number by COB Friday. We are being asked to have this ready to announce Saturday, but it is
can you tell me who are the other people in other agencies {as well as ours} who are the team who have been working on t
Many thanks,
Jane
-----Original Messaq,e-"-"From: Jennifer
Sent:
To: Jane
[mail~c.: ':;'!!:1nifre"::: .~.us:i.~t;;noaa. aov]

28, 2010 4: 45 PM
Cc: Mark W Miller; william conner; Scott Smullen; D?vid Kennedy; l:::obinsontinoi:3a.crovi Dave Westerholm: Margaret Spring: Caitlyn Kennedy
Hi Dr Lubchenco I
Attached is a draft document to describe the oil budget calculator. This was drafted in the Communications Office and reviewed by Bill Conne
,Please let us know what comments you have.
The numbers and figure will be updated with the latest numbers .when they are available.
After we hear from you, Mark can share with his colleagues at the NrC, as you suggested in point 1.
9/2712010
003504

Dispersed Naturally
IIy Dispersed
- All units in barrels. See end notes for assumptions.
Inland Recovery

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.90v on 07/27/201009:27 AM MDT.
003505
High Flow Scenario (60,000 barrels/day) .. Through July 2~ (Day 98)

1,500,000
1,250,000
tI)
...cof
.Q
1,000,000
750,000
500,000
250,000
o
May-2010
-
Expected Value -
Jun-201
Jul-2010

Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U,S. Geological Survey in cooperation
Wit!1
the Natiorai
003506

Inland Recovery

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 the Nationa!
003507

700,0001
650,000
600,000
...
550,000
500,000
450,000
tn
cv 400,000
"-
~ 350,000
..c 300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
o
May-2010
-
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 the Nationa:
003508
Reference Notes

The \lolume 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
Chart - Deepwater Horizon MC-2S2 - Cumulative Disposition of on

reference material.
Discharged
Background
Report generated by mark.w.mHler@ooaa.gov on 07/27/2010 09:27 AM MDT.
003509

spill flow. Values for the amount recovered 'by the vessels Helix Producer, Discoverer Enterprise and
Dispersed Natural.ly
~emoval"
scenario to result in a larger amount of oil "removed." See background documentation for
more information.

.
003510
for the Gumulative total over time. Different factors are used to represent the difference in this rate. The
-Measured amount removed via RITI and Top Hat
-The remaining amount is then multiplied with a different factor based on sCie':1tific research and
for a full disclJssion of the scientific methodology used in this calculation.

-Measured amount removed via RITI and Top Hat
Skimmed
factored estimation of net oil content. The net oil factoris different for the Maximum and Minimum
Removal scenarios.
this calculation.
Burned
cumulative totals.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Natio1ai
003511
-Different rates for non-emulsified and emulsified oil .
Dispersant Used
Oil Remaining

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.goy on 07/27/2010 09:27 AM MDT.
003512
TN Pere Ana C, Mud Lake, LA - July 27

At approximately 0050 CDT on July 27; 2010, the dredge barge Captain Buford pushed by TN
Pere Ana C collided with the abandoned Cedyco Corporation natural gas wellhead - SL 8357
Number 1 well (SN 170436). The collision occurred while the tug and barge combination exited
Mud Lake into the Barataria Waterway halfway between Lafitte and Grand Isle, Louisiana. As a
result of the impact, the well discharging natural gas mixed with light crude oil 50-100 feet
into the air at an unknown rate. It may take 1-2 days to cap the leak. The NOAA Gulf Region
SSC is on scene at Sector New Orleans to provide support for this incident.
is
Barge Collision, Mississippi River, TN, July 26

At approximately 2115 CDT on July 26,2010, the two barges Kirby 28083 and Kirby 30001
collided at Mississippi River Marker 774. Each barge carried an estimated 25,000 barrels of
Acrylonitrile (ACN). It remains unknown the total quantity of product released into this remote
section of the Mississippi River about 40 miles north of Memphis, TN. Three employees were
hospitalized due to injuries caused by product exposure. No fatalities reported. Coast Guard
Sector Lower Mississippi River requested support from NOAA SSC.
FN Cape Cross, Main Bay, AI( - July 26

At approximately 1400L on the afternoon of July 26, 2010, the 98-foot wooden FN Cape Cross
ran aground in Prince William Sound's Main Bay, Alaska. MSU Valdez notified the NOAA
Alaska SSC. Early in the morning of July 27, 2010, the vessel rolled and partially sank but
remained grounded. Product on board includes 3000 gallons diesel, 300 gallons lube oil, and 100
gallons hydraulic oiL The fuel tanks appear to be undamaged. With the only reported damage to
the engine room, bilge slops were the most likely source of the sheen observed initially. No
additional release reported at this time. Salvage crew already on scene. Since Main Bay is the
site of one of the major Prince William Sound fish hatcheries, the hatchery will be boomed using
prepositioned boom anchors. No immediate assistance was requested from NOAA.
For more details please refer to:
https:llresponselink.orr.noaa.govlhotline/incidents/8239
Pipeline Failure, Marshall, MI - July 26

On the morning of July 26, 2010, a failure occurred in a 30-inch diameter pipeline releasing
approximately 19,500 barrels of crude oil into a tributary creek of the Kalamazoo River in
Marshall, ML EPA requested weather forecast information to assist with air monitoring. NOAA
provided trajectory support to Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan to determine if/when oil may
reach the COTP zone on the Kalamazoo River.
MN Nordmeer, Thunder Bay NMS, MI - July 24

On June 24,2010, oil sheen was observed to be coming from the wreck MN Nordmeer (470 ft.,
8,683 gross tons) within Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary (NMS). The USCG and NMS
staffare investigating. The NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab (GLERL) is
sending an ROV to support dive operations and source identification. The Nordmeer grounded
on a shoal during a storm and sank in November 1966.
003513
luly 28, 2010

DEEPWATER HORIZON INCIDENT NOAA LEADERSHIP BRIETING CALL
Time: 0800- Call in Number: 210-839-8783 - Pass Code: 554982
MEETING PURPOSE: To update key NOAA officials on the current status of the situation and the NOAA response.
Please put your phones on mute if you are not speaking.
DAILY UPDATES:
1. SITUATION UPDATE
?
OPERATIONS:
VESSElS
NOAA Ship Gordon Gunter u/w for DWH Marine Mammal Assessment Leg 3 and wellhead monitoring.
NOAA Ship Oregon II u/w for DWH Seafood Safety Trawl leg 3.
NOAA Ship Pisces is u/w for DWH acoustic monitoring around the wellhead
NOAA Ship Nancy Foster u/w for DWH Deep Sea Corals Survey.
NOAA Ship Bigelow arriving Key West today/LID tomorrowenroute to wellhead to relieve Pisces acoustic monitoring
effort.
General
Containment boom deployed today: 600' *
Containment boom deployed to date: 3,711,030'
- Louisiana: 1,949,105'
- Mississippi: 470,050'
- Alabama: 604,575'
- Florida: 392,400'
Boom beyond ACP: 294,900'
Sorbent boom deployed today: 6,840' *
Sorbent boom deployed to date: 7,822,496'
Sorbent boom staged: 2,486,189'
Oil & Gas recovery at source today: 0 bbl
Oil recovery at source cumulative to date: 827,046 bbl
Gas recovery at source cumulative to date: 1,866 mmscf
Dispersant Applied: 0 gallons
Dispersant Available: 577,348 gallons
Total personnel working on response: 24,842
Volunteers Registered: 25,180
Shoreline oiledd: 640 miles
Q4 running light duty intervention system. No seismic survey today. Acoustic survey today. Start date
static kill- 8.4. rainbow sheens at source - well boars - monitoring during over flights this week. Brian
Julius / Mike Aslaksen down in the gulf. 6,000 ft around new well spill. SSC on scene - limiting /
complicate NRDA oyster sampling. Nola established this as separate response. Trajectories - scattered tar
balls - sheen moving shoreward. Increased weathering and break up.
How deep is the well head - barratry bay. - approx 6 feet.
Local Weather: high pressure will continue to build from the east and settle over the operations area wednesday
through the end of the week. This will bring drier than normal conditions along with warmer than normal temperatures
and dangerous heat index readings each afternoon and evening.
> Hurricane Center: protocol question: - East coast storm - do we want to hear from the He center? No. DWH
effect would be the driver.
ICC:
Testimony - house subcommittee- coastal comm. - Roger Dow - pres and CEO of travel association. subcommittee
chairman - rush, reported 300,000 jobs impacted- 22.7 billion in lost revenue over the next few years - 15% total
jobs in jeopardy. NOAA - 10.3 yesterday - 9.3 today.
;,. NOAA Ship Gordon Gunter u/w for DWH Marine Mammal Assessment Leg 3 and wellhead monitoring.
NOAA Ship Oregon II u/w for DWH Seafood Safety Trawl leg 3.
NOAA Ship Pisces is u/w for DWH acoustic monitoring around the wellhead
NOAA Ship Nancy Foster u/w for DWH Deep Sea Corals Survey.
NOAA Ship Bigelow arriving Key West today/LID tomorrow enroute to wellhead to relieve Fiscesacoustic monitoring
effort.
003514
NIC:
Presentation to ERMA - NGA - Lisa Furria presentation. Cross walk comparison between NIC/NOAA
strategic plan. Reporting back from tasker on Sat. NIC strategy provides historical overview of creation of
structure. Provided NOAA comments to NIC. Reviewed common areas - no discontinuity between the two.
NIC strategy review every two weeks.
RESPONSE:
Status of revised doc - comments back from Dr. Lubchenco - turned back around and sent back out. Need
green light to get to external affairs. Bill will move forward.
2. LIVING MARINE RESOURCES
~ Wildlife
~
Seafood safety
~ Governor's call this am - re: LA. Weekly call this afternoon FDA/NOAA/State directors. HHS/FDA letter
sending to governors to ensure info is up and down the state chain of operations.
~
Closure I Reopening - call with states to discuss reopening process - how we are implementing the protocol
for reopening and hope all will follow in getting in step with the other states.
~
Calls - FDA I NMFS - trying to give FDA support on their portion of Seafood safety (letter from commissioner
to states) oil in the area / likelihood the oil will return determines sampling efforts / reopening. Created
process as states come in with requests to sample in areas - FDA will consult NOAA (Seattle) and determine
state should sample and come back and have another check in to see if oil has returned to the area.
S.SCIENCE
)- Working through 2 nd round of comments draft collaboration policy- investigators to be funded by BP $.
Have draft for NOAA le;idership around noon today.
~ Governors call - subsurface oil VO pull up anchors and found oil . Ed Levine / Murawski will discuss
survey of inshore waters. Pie chart oil description. Pull together short doc that describes what the oil
budget tool - pie chart says, where it came from. Need to provide concise document - expedited through
clearance. Graphic represents numbers from tools. Conner/Leir/Miller chart based on what's next doc.
~ Dr. Robinson extensive conversation on principles call re: new number of flow rate. Number will be based
on pressure data - DOE. This will be the final number - Sec. Chu and science team will arrive at one range
from all data they have to date. Percent would change - small variation.
~
Put together document and plot in the numbers when we get clarity when get the flow rate numbers.
~ Two pages is about right.
4. COMMUNICATIONS
~
Press conf. with Adm Allen yesterday.
~
100 days website
OTHER UPDATES:
Leg Affairs Activity positive direction. Reported yesterday having trouble in Senate. Made progress with commerce
committed pushing back on pieces for Sen Reed. Made progress with members who are weighing in with Sen.
Reed. House - made progress. Nat resources comm. consultation language we wanted into the bill being
marked up and voted on in the next few days. Administration's statement of position. - reinforces what's in the
bill with what we agree with. Better positioned today than yesterday.
.
.
Tony Penn's testimony went well.
Sen Carden - transparency third party external review. Dr. Ava Pell- research in the gulf - baseline info.
Laughtenberrg - focus on dispersants and offshore drilling. Introduced dispersants safety act. Vitter focused on
berm and agencies positions on supporting or slowing down the process. Murkley what are we doing to
understand subsurface and water column data, toxicity data/testing.
REVIEW ACTION ITEMS:
003515
2~:~,;:~\ili}Z::~~1:t',;;ifn\;P~~~:(,',~'S.\(ts'0>",,;:~r'J.if.w.~"2~~;'ib;~B;;;%;t1$t.9~~;t.f2a5jkrtk:ti\:t.tl::J.YEri~i;J\:~~ }&.&f*::/;1t:l;~':::&,eK,h ;~S~1f,;:-:~;,~,'j~ \~,:;~ /:is; ;:,\~~j;;A"~,::;:';, ~;~,,:,J!/I"I
DATE
POe
ACfION ITEMS
7/28
Bill Conner
Shoreline threat doc -distribute revised doc to leg

affairs. Bill will move forward.
7/28
Steve Murawski
draft collaboration policy ~ Have draft for NOAA

leadership around noon today.
7/28
Mark Miller
Full together short ~ two page doc that describes what

the oil budget tool data for the pubic. - pie chart says,
where it came from. Need to provide concise
document expedited through clearance. - pull
group together to discuss after this call. Draft two
pager - audience is the public
Used to
h intera~ency clearance - expedited.
7/27
Murawski
7/27
Scott Smullen
7/27
Scott Smullen
Data info / report to Dr. Lubchenco for press briefing

today.
7/27
Gallagher
Discuss future funding / supplemental with Kennedy

and K. Sarri.
7/27
As we divert missions - should we be thinking about

Kennedy /Mura ws funding the missions we lost out on to do this. Will
follow up off line. - PRFA funding to support - will
ki/Kenul
discuss further.
7/27
Steve/Lois/Bob/C Steve/Lois/Bob walk through different situations

regarding research ~unded by BP / outside sources
raig Mclean
7/27
Lois Schiffer/Jen
Pizza
7/27
Conner
7/27
Oliver
7126
7/26
'
DATE DUE STATUS
Completed
Send around Policy on Scientific Data publ'

Distribute Bob Gagosian's Washington Post article re:
gulf spill and research. And draft response op ed.
Will distribute NOAA's scientific research

collaboration policy on research done from BF
funding.
Next steps -shoreline threat document- Gulf of Mexico
discussion. Will send out today to leadership for
review.
Completed
Completed
Send out PRFA notice after this call
Shoreline threat modeling discuss further.

Conner/Kennedy Qualitative discussion - rate of oil on the surface,
/Miller
provide bulleted points.
Vessels - planning One paragraph on impacts of
Steve Murawski to rescheduling vessels.
Dr. Luchenco
7/26
Request further discussion on Fleet priorities within

Adm.
KenullKennedy/S NOAA - meet then advance up the chain of leadership
for approval.
teve Murawski
7/26
Comms
Send DWH Leadership to review 100 days / 100 ways

website.
7/22
Gary Reiser
Budget proposal on hiring more vessels proposal to Dr.

Lubchenco.
Completed
003516
7122
7/22
7/11
7/12
7/20
7/14
7/14
C.
Blackburn/Policy Standard Briefing to the Commission outline

FDA - panel of experts - opening state waters. Need
to interface with them to get them good information
Mark Miller
on where state can reopen state waters, in an orderly
way.lTPDATE: Monica sent an email to rnA offcling
~upport and We are waiting for a response.
Day 100: need to start tee-ing up the stories of what
David Miller
we are doing - due to leadership - next Friday.
Pull together a short document that would summarize
the lesson learned on previous oil spills - ixtoc and
Exxon Valdez - Conner, Kenney and others met
K@i'uq,@y/Conner/E yesterday and developed a 3-part plan that is
wald
responsive to this tasker. Justin will develop a
summary and discuss with Dr. Lubchenco. Connor
drafting document, will work with John Ewald to
finalize. Document drafted. Bein~ reviewed.
Product from Jacqui Michel-leadership would like to
Jacqui Michel
review asap - SCAT
Post inventory of data / tools / etc. up on noaa.gov
Joe Klimavicz
(data.gov) site by Friday AND post a link on the FOIA
site indicatin~ where the data is.
Get group together today at 5 pm. Come back with a
plan as to how we are going to move forward to speed
Steve/Joe (data
the process up. - Completed / Next steps? UPDATE:
lead) /Justin/Kenn still working to get data through to comms for
edy/Westerholm posting. Got a good amount from NODC website over
the weekend. Need pac to help navigate NODC
In progress
In progress
In progress
In progress
In progress/
update?
Status update?
webpa~e.
Meeting complete
- status on
comms posting
7/14
Kennedy to meet
with group
Next steps for Response Effort - Short report to discuss

next steps
7/19
Steve Murawski
Find out if we are archiving seafood samples to

compare to future testing on dispersants.
7/16
Allison Reed
UAC set up International observers program. Allison

to get more info and send out today.
Status update?
7/16
Comms
Post data policy on the web
Status update?
7/14
Seafood data - work on policy.

Justin Kenney/Jen Sperm Whale tracker info - get up today.
Austin
UPDATE: Comms can't get access to the data, still want
it. UPDATE: Comms has information
In progress
Status update?
~".
~':7'-~'-7--;-
",-
,"
4!'
Ahsah Tribble
Update from Ahsah on Contingency Plan
Completed
7122
Monica Medina
Monica check in on venue for Reopening

announcement.
Completed
7/20
Phil Kenul
Kenul finalize DWH near and long term plan and send
to Mary Glackin.
Completed
7/13
DWH Staff
(Bern IBrysen)
Send Q and A's from Closed Areas.- DWH staff to

send around.
Completed.
\:-'~~2
~~_'i:)
003517
7/22
7/24
7/24
7/16
7/16
Oil budget tool - Napolitano - really liked the tool.

Appropriate to draft up explanation and have
Mark Miller
document that describes the whole tool and associated
I ~aphics. Miller talk to Steve Hammond.
. Our strategic planning - DWH NOAA - incorporate
strategic implementation plan. Crosswalk our NOAA
Mark Miller
work with NrC strategic plan
Mark Miller - to Dr. Lubchenco: flow Write what lays
out what the numbers are - where they came from,
Mark Miller
date, on doc given to Napalitano.
Next P3 flight -likely not funded by USCG. Need to
decide if we wanted to continue these flights. Meeting
Science Box
today at 3:00 pm. Recommendations to leadership.
Will follow up after decision. Dr. Lubchenco to appeal
to Admrl Allen if necessary.
Gunter mission - consult clear way ahead KenullKennedy ISteve Murwaski consult clear way
RDML Phil Kenul
ahead. Paul Zukunft Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard.
- Steve answer on consultation issue.
LA 1 MS 1 AL 1 FL? - checking into reopening state

waters decisions.
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed by
Science - Check
on status of
recommendations
Completed
Completed
Trying to clear the JAG report. Waiting on OSTP.

Want to notify Sen. Nelson before we make this public.
Completed
Kennedy IKenul1
Muraski to meet
Vessels - future plans discussion
Completed
7/19
Kennedy
Approve Data list to post to the web
completed
7/19
Bill Connor to Dr.

L
Bill Connor to Dr.
L
Shoreline threat model document distribute to Dr. L 7120

for review.
Shoreline threat draft completed distribute to Dr. L for 7120
review.
Meeting Steve, Mark, Phil, Marsha, Chu to discuss how 7120
asset planning works and long term plan for
aircraft! vessels.
7/16
MurawskilGray
7/19
7/20
completed
completed
7/20
Murawski to
Marsha
7120
Ahsah Tribble
Tropical storm update - ongoing
Ongoing
7/22
S.Walker
Proposed NOAA science symposiums list
Ongoing
7112
SallyIPolicy 1
NRDA
Weekly update on Mabus 1 long term restoration
Ongoing
7/15
Mark Miller
7/16
Mark Miller
7/16
Monica Medina
7122
Conner
7/}3
Schiffer
Report back on long term trajectories plan. Draft for

review COB today 1 Send draft to K. Sarri.---Also
report back to International on impacts to Mexico.
1.011;;0, term vian will '~o up for clearance today.
Send new trajectory to Monica- for Fisheries reopening clarification.
Monica - circulate roll out plan for reopening
Copies of Job Aid readily available re: Observer
training Seattle - g 15 copies
Mobile - 6 copies
Call lawyers to DOl jurisdiction of Necropsies pelicans
Completed
Long term plan

completed.
Completed
Complete
Complete
Completed
003518
7/14
Murawski
7/14
Charlie Henry
7/14
LMR/Oliver
7/15/ Tribble
7/13
Murawski
7113
Murawski
Check in with Ben Shorr to see if we have access to

High Res maps.
Questions/requests from Commission to dwh.staff list
- received and will distribute/respond appropriately
JQ fotward notice LA open large scale area to
recreational fishing late yesterday.
Review contingency plan. Mark Miller will provide
copy done / being reviewed and will discuss further
with Kennedy/Westerholm after full review / Ahasha
will visit the NIC today (7/16) to discuss / clarify
Status of DO manuscript - waiting approval from
OSTP. - will get / send out
Document how the JAG operates / distribute to the
dwh.Ieadership group
Complete
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed'
003519
DRAFT 7.28
Prepared By: Caitlyn Kennedy, JenAustin

~eepwater Horizon Oil Budget
i Chemically
'I
Dispersed
11%
8%
Dispersion i
3%
13%
flow rate I total escape will adjust this and the percentages in the oil budget.)
003520
naturally abundant in the Gulf of Mexico in large part because of the warm 'water there,
beaches.
003524
Page I of2
Timothy Bagley
From:
Mark. W.Miller [Mark. W. Miller@noaa.gov]
Sent:
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
Attachments: Oil Budget description 7 29 v 3 .IL_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 ifthere is a chance they will stop early next week.
Mark
thanks
-----Original
From: Jennifer Austin (mailto:Jennifer.Austin@noaa.oov]
Cc: Margaret Spring; Jane.lubchenco@noaa.aov
Hi,
Attached is the updated oil budget calculator two-pager, incorporati
The
chart uses 60,000 barrels/day flow rate; numbers from July 2
attached as an
to explain calculations in further detail.
Mark will share with the authors listed in his earlier email For USGS - I would like to check with Steve Hammond (NrC IASG) to s
9/27/2010
003525
Page 2 of2
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
9/27/2010
wi'll',.
facebook. com/noaa.lubchenco
003526
Page 1 of 1
Timothy Bagley
From:
Jen. Pizza [Jen. Pizza@noaa.gov].
Sent:
To:
DWH leadership
Subject:
800 AM DAILY DWH LEADERSHIP BRIEFING NOTES 7.28.2010
Attachments: spills 7_27_28_1 O.doc; BOO_AM_NOAA_DWH_LEADERSHIP_AGENDA_7.2B.2010_notes.doc
Good morning everyone,

Attached are the DWH Leadership Briefing notes laction items (also pasted below).
Additionally - FOR YOUR SITUATIONAL AWARENESS - attached is a summary of other
spill related incidents that occUrred in Alaska, Michigan, and Louisiana
7/28
Bill Conner
Shoreline threat doc -distribute revised doc to leg

affairs. Bill will move forward.
7/28
Steve Murawski
draft collaboration policy - distribute draft to NOAA

leadership by noon today.
7/28
Mark Miller
Full together short - two page doc that describes what

the oil budget tool data for the pubic. - pie chart says,
where it came from. Need to provide concise document
- expedited through clearance. - pull group together
to discuss after this call. Draft two pager - audience is
. the public
Used to go through interagency clearance - expedited.
9/27/2010
003529
Page 1 of 1
Timothy Bagley
From:
Mark Miller [mark.w.miller@noaa.govl
Sent
To:
Thursday. July 29.2010 5:53AM

Jane Lubchenco
Cc:
Jennifer Austin; William Conner: Scott Smullen; David Kennedy; lrobinson@noaa.gov; Dave Westerholm; Margaret Spring; eaRlyn Kennedy; Amrit Mehra; dwh.staff@noaa.gov
Dr. Lubchenco,
For USGS J would like to check with Steve Hammond (NIC IASG) to see who USGS thinks
should be identified for this document. A shortlist should probably include Dr. McNutt, Mark
Sogge, Steve Hammond (NIC (ASG), Sky Bristol (led the development team), and Tim Kern.
For NIST Antonio Possolo (NIST did the uncel1ainty analysis that created the upper and lower
confidence bounds)
.
For NOAA Bill Lehr. I also included below the team he pulled together to review the
calculations)
Mark
Team Member
aff;'Uation
Ron Goodman
U. of Calgary
SpilTec
Al Allan
Jam~s
Payne
Tom Coolbaugh
Ed Overton
Juan Lasheras
~lbert
Venosa
Merv Fingas
Ali Khelifa
Payne Env.
E><><on Mobil
LSU
UCSD
EPA
Env Canada (ret)
Env. Canada
Robert Jones
NOAA
?at Lambert
Env. Canada
Per Daling
David Usher
SINTEF
ISCO
Peter Carraghe:
BI?
Michel Boufadel
'I'ernple
U.

thanks for pulling this together quickly.
a :low rate number by COB Friday~ We
tell me who are the other people in other age
Many tha:1Ks,
Jane
-----criqinal
From: Jennifer
Sent: Wednesday, July
To: Jane Lubchenco
Cc: Mark W Miller; William Conner: Scott Smullen; David Kennedy:
SubJect: Re: pie chart
1~0btn$~
Hi Dr Lubchenco,
Attached is a draft document to describe the oil budget calculator. This
The numbers and figure will be updated with the latest numbers when they
Af~er
we hear from you, Mark can share with his colleagues at the NIC, as
9/27/2010
003530

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

003531

1,500,000
1,250,000
fIJ
.~ 1,000,000
:...
ns
.c
750,000
500,000
250,000
May-2010
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Jul-2010

Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. GeologIca! Survey in cooperation with the National
003532

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

003533
Low Flow Scenario (35,000 I;>arrels/day) - Through July 26 (Day 98)

Cumul~tive
Remaining
700,000
650,000
600,000
550,000
500,000
450,000
.; 400,000 '
~
:0
350,000
..Q
300,000
250,000 .
200,000 .
150,000
100,000
50,000
May-2010
-
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Jul-201

See end notes section of the report for reference mClterial on report elements.
003534
Reference Notes


released over time based on low and high discharge. estimates, the relative amounts of oil recovered or
Clicking on the labels in the table) for further information on the individua(calculations and further
reference material.
Discharged
Background
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 Nations;
003535

Dispersed Naturally
more information.
Deepvilater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

003536

. -Measured amount removed via RITT ~nd Top Hat
Skimmed
Removal scenarios.
this calculation.
Burned
cumulative totals.
. 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 Nationa:
003537
Chemical oil dispersion is the result ota scientific calculation based on the amount of chemical
Dispersant Used
personnel. It is an actual measurement of the total dispersanf used via all methods employed.
Oil Remaining

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 Natiorai
.
003538

Inland Recovery

generated by mark.w.mi!ler@noaa.gov on 07/22/201001 :39 PM MOT.
See eild Olotes 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 cooperaUor. 'Njt~ the \2.~iG:':::
Oceanic and Atr"JOspheric Administration.
003539

1,750,0001
!
1,500,000
j .
1 ,250,000
t/)
G)
JJ
!I ;.
i
1,000,000 i .
Ii
. I'
750,000 i
500,0001;
I ..
J
250,000
j
I
OJ======~================~==============~============
May-2010
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Jul-2010
Deeowater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

ReDort generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/22/2010 01 :39 Piv'; MDT.
jl..pplicatio:l operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation
w(!~
the NB1:);"d:
003540

.Low Flow Scenario (35,000 barrels/day) Through July 21 (Day 93)
Inland Recovery

gere c2ted by mark,w,mi!ier@noaa.gov on 07/22/201001 :39 PM M!::rr.
See end notes section of the report for refer'~nce materiai on ,eport eiements,
Application operated by the U,S. Coast Guard ane provided by the U,S.
Ocea~:c anc: Atmospheric Administration,
003541
Low Flow Scenario (35,000 barrels/day) - Through Ju-Iy 21 (Day 93)

j ..
700,000
650,000 '
600,000
550,000
500,000
U)
450,000
:to..
:to..
400,000 'j1
35.0,000
-CD
as
.c
300,000
250,000 {
I
200,0001
150,000 ~
100,000
50,000
i
i
oj======~======~========~======~======~======~====~
30-Apr
15-May
Expected Value -
30-May
14-Jun
29-Jun
14-J u I

generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov. on 07/22/2010 01 :39 PM MDT.
/I,pplication operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological St;rvey in cooperation with the Na:iona:
003542
Reference Notes

The volume of oil that each day is added to the volume of oil already on the surface is computed taking.
Chart - Deepwater Horiz9n MC-252 ,;, Cumulative Disposition of Oil

The Cumulative Disposition of Oil"Barrel Graph" provides a representation of the total amount of oil
reference material.
Dispersant Used
Burned
cumulative totals.
-Different rates for
non~emulsified
and emulsified oil

by mark.w.mi!ler@noaa.gov on 07122/201001 :39 PM MDT.
operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and prov:ded by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation vvitl~ the Nf'~::;r;2.;
arc Atmospheric Administration.
003543


RIIT and Top Hat are mechanical devices that British Petroleum (BP) has used to recover oil from the
Droplets smaller than 100 micron are considered dispersed
-International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation (lTOPF) II planning purpose" dosage of 20:1 used
Skimmed
Removal scenarios.
this calculation.
DGepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf incident Oi! Budget
generated by mark.w.miHer@noaa.gov on 07/22/201001 :39 PM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Su~vey in cooperation 'Nith tee Nalio;,ct'
Oceanic and fl.tmospheric Administration.
003544
~ispersed
Natu rally
oNo natural surface dispersion assomed
Removal" scenario to result in a larger amount of oilllremoved." See background documentation for
more information.
-Measured amount removed via RID and Top Hat

by mark.w.milier@noaa.gov on 07j22J201 001 :39 PM MDT.
operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation 'Ni::~ t,e N8t:O,"','
r .J',JII",C,,,vl
003545
Discharged
the incident (e.g., severing the riser) .
. -Discharge rates use flow limits from FRTG Plume Team PIV measurements.
Background
improved estimate is based on more and better data that is available after the riser cut 'ArtAA data which
DoeptJater Horizor: MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation witli H,8 Na~ior~i'"
003546
Page 1 of 1
Timothy Bagley
From:
Mark.W.Miller [Mark.W.MilIer@noaa.gov]
Sent:
Thursday. July 22,20103:50 PM
To:
Jane Lubchenco; _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff; Bill Conner
Subject:
Background Information on Pie Chart and Oil Budget Tool
Attachments: DeepwaterHorizon_briefing_schematic2.png
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 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.
Low Flow July 15
ICategory
High Flow July 22
IRemaining
480,000
16%
1,470,000
28%
II Direct Recovery
820,000
27%
823,000
16%
IINatural Dispersion
400,000
13%
826,000
IEvaporated
670,000
22%
1,346,000
*
*
ISkimmed
100,000
3%
120,000
2%
IBurned
260,000
8%
266,000
5%
340,000 11%
344,000
II
* 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.
9/2712010
003547
Page 1 of 1
Timothy Bagley
From:
Stephen E Hammond [sehammon@usgs.gov]
Sent:
To: .
Thursday, July 22, 20104:45 PM
Cc:
Sturm, Francis; Brown, Baron CDR; O'Brien, Sean CDR; Mark Miller - NOAA; Offutt, Todd CDR;
Stephen E Hammond
.
Subject:
USGS Oil Budget Tool Write-up
Grawe, William
Attachments: Deepwater Horizon Oil Budget background 201 00721.pdf; DeepwaterHorizon oilbuget tool
briefing 7-22-10 Flnal.doc
Bill,
.It was close but we made it. Here is the one page summary of the oil budget tool and a pdf
of the tool's output. Thanks for your help and guidance today.
Stephen E. Hammond
Reston, VA
703-648-5033 (w)
7
(c)
703-648- 5792 (fax)
9/27/2010
003548
Page 1 of 1
Timothy Bagley
From:
Sent:
To:

. Wednesday, July 28, 2010 7:07 AM
Jane Lubchenco
Subject: oil budget pie chart
As the public turns to asking "where is the oil?", there is great urgency in finalizing the pie chart
describing percentages of oil that have been dispersed, skimmed, etc, etc. I understand the chart is
derived from the Oil Budget Tool developed for internal use within the NIC. I've not seen a document
describing the chart or its bases. Can we pull that together very rapidly? I think a couple of pages
should do it -- user friendly for non-technical audiences, explaining simply the best estimates
(understanding that most of the figures are indeed estimates) for what oil is where. Bill C and team
have put together the longer 'where will the oil go?'
9/27/2010
003549
Timothy Bagley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mark.W.Milier [Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov)
Tuesday, July 27,201012:57 PM
Scott Smullen; Jennifer Austin; Jane Lubchenco
Oil Budget Tool Report for July 26
Attachments:
DeepwaterHorizonOilBudget20100726.pdf
,i-
DeepwaterHorizon
OilBudget20100..
Dr. Lubchenco,
Here is the report I created this morning. If there are any questions please call.
Mark
003550
Timothy Bagley
Subject:

Jane Lubchenco; _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff; William Conner
[Fwd: USGS Oil Budget Tool Write-up]
Attachments:
USGS Oil Budget Tool Write-up.eml
From:
Sent:
To:
USGS Oil Budget

Tool Write-up ....
Dr. Lubchenco ,
Mark
003556

Inland Recovery

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/27i2010 09:27 AM MDT.
003557

1,750,000
1,500,000
1,250,000
en
(U
""-
1,000,000
.c
750,000
500,000
250,000
0
May-2010
-
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Jul-20 10

. 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. Geologica! Survey in cooperation with the National
003558

Inland Recovery

003559
Low Flow Scerlario (35,000 barrels/day) - Through July 26 (Day 98)

700,000
650,000
600,000
550,000
500,000
450,000
400,000
"""
m
350,000
f/)
(I,)
. """
.c 300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
May-201O
-
Expected Value -
Jun-201
Jul-201
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident 0il Budget

003560
Reference Notes


The Cumulative Disposition of Oil "Barrel G!~ph" provides a representation of the total amount of oil
reference material.
Discharged
Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG) for the Deepwater Horizon inCident. Discharge rates are adjusted
. the scientific methodology used in this calculation.
Background
003561
to collect additional data and refine these estimates. it is important to realize that the numbers can

RITI and Top Hat are mechanical devices that British Petroleum (BP) has used to recover oil from the
Dispersed Naturally
more information.
-I\.I1ost evaporative losses occur during the first 24 hours

.
.
.
003562
Evaporation is calculated differently for "fresh" oil within 24 hours (daily total fn the report) and older oil
by removing the following from the. total discharge:

Skimmed
Removal scenarios.
this calculation.
Burned
cumulative totals.
Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov pn 07127/2010 09:27 AM MDT.
003563
-Different rates .for non-emulsified and emulsified oil
Dispersant Used
Oil Remaining
Volume of oil. remaining after other known volume totals are removed from the total discharged.

003564

Inland Recovery

Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geo!ogical Survey in cooperation with the National
003565

1 ,750,000
j "; 1:'l! licf}~i);f; ;?>~ i ;':;,I;i~; ;C;~;~iS~~:;"

I',:,::
I
1 ,500,000
1 ,250,000
-!tn 1,000,000
a-
m
.c
750,000
500,000
250,000
jI
oJ====~========~==========~======
May-2010
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Jul-2010

Report generated ty mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/22/2010 01 :39 PM MDT.
003566

Inland Recovery

003567

700,000
650,000
600,000
550,000
SOO,OOO
rn 450,000
-CD 400,000
m 3S0,000
.Q
300,000
250,000
200,000
1S0,000
100,000
SO,OO~ J
30-Apr
1S-May
Expected Value -
30-May
14-Jun
29-Jun
14-Jul
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Guif !ncident Oil Budget

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07122/2010 01 :39 PM MOT.
See end notes section of the report for reference materia: on report elements.
003568
Reference Notes

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

released over time based on low and high discharge estimates, the relative amounts of oil recoveredor
correspond to the cumulative values in the table. See the footnotes (available in the W~b application by
reference material.
Dispersant Used
Burned
cumulative totals.
-Different rates for non-emulsified and emulsHied oil

Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Sur,tey in cooperation with the National
003569


Chemical oil dispersion is the result of a scientific calbulation based on the amount of chemical
-International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation (ITOPF) "planning purposell dosage of 20:1 used
as estimate .for slJccessful. chemical dispersant application
Skimmed
Removal scenarios.
this calculation.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Nat;onai
.
003570
Dispersed Naturally
No natural surface dispersion' assumed
more information.
Largest oil removal mechanism for surface oil
Most evaporative losses occur during the first 24 hours
Reported amount of oil burned
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil BUdget

Oceanic anc Atmospheric Administration.
003571
Discharged
. -Other estimation methods provided higher and lower values.
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 011 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 ofthe estimate. As the Government continues

Repo:-: generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.govon 07/22/2010 01 :39 PM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S, Geological Survey in cooperation with the Nationai
003572
Page 1 of 1
Timothy Bagley
From:
Mark.W.Miller [Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov]
Sent:
To:
Jane Lubchenco; _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff; Bill Conner
Subject:
Background Information on Pie Chart and Oil Budget Tool
Attachments: DeepwaterHorizon_briefing_schematic2.png
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 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
IILow Flow July 15
IRemaining
II
480,000
16%
IDirect Recovery
820,000
27%
INatural Dispersion
400,000
IEvaporated
High Flow July 22

1,470,000
28%
823,000
16%
13%
826,000
670,000
22%
1,346,000
*
*
ISkimmed
100,000
3%
120,000
2%
IBurned
260,000
8%
266,000
5%
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 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 expected availability. RADM Neffenger mentioned that he would be
verbally briefing the tool this evening.
9/27/2010
003573
Page lof 1
Timothy Bagley
From:
Stephen E Hammond [sehammon@usgs.gov]
Sent:
To:
Grawe, William
Cc:
Sturm, Francis; Brown, Baron CDR; O'Brien, Sean CDR; Mark Miller - NOAA; Offutt, Todd CDR;
Stephen E Hammond
Subject:
USGS Oil Budget Tool Write-up
Attachments: Deepwater Horizon Oil Budget background 20100721. pdf; DeepwaterHorizon oil buget tool
briefing 7-22-10 Flnal.doc
.
Bill,
It was close but we made it. Here is the one page summary of the oil budget tool and a pdf
of the tool's output. Thanks for your help and guidance today.
Stephen E. Hammond
Reston, VA
703-648-5033 (w)
(fax)
9/27/2010
003574
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulfincident Oil Budget

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 GulfIncident 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:

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 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.
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.
Backnround: 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 GulfIncident Oil
Budg~t, 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.
003638
. 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.
003639
That said, we continue to monitor the water, we continue to assess and we continue to
be concerned about the long term effects of this spill and what it means for the health
of the Gulf ecosystem and the millions of people who depend on the Gulf for their
livelihoods and enjoyment.
The Federal Government is not going anywhere. We are committed to this region and its
long term recovery. We are here until the oil from this spill is cleaned up and the people
from this region are made whole.
As you know, teams of scientists and experts have been carefully tracking the oil since
Day One of this spill, and based on the data from those efforts and their collective
expertise, they are now able to provide these useful estimates.
These estimates were derived by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) and the Department of the Interior (001), who jointly developed what1s 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 governmenfs Flow Rate
Technical Group estimate from Monday, August 2,2010.
The oil budget calculations are based on direct measurements where that is possible
and the .best available scientific estimates where measurements were not possible.
Other research efforts are currently underway to further understand and quantify the
location and concentrations of subsurface oil, and results, as you know, so far have
shown that diffuse concentrations in the low parts per million, exist at depth. Our latest
information is that those concentrations are being degraded through time.
We will continue to monitor and sample and conduct a number of other studies to
quantify the rate of degradation. Because that is a key question about which we'd like
more information. While further analysis remains to be done to quantify the rate of
degradation, early indications are that this oil is degrading quickly.
003659
Timothy Bagley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Fw ent to
reporters.eml
.Amanda Hallberg Greenwell [Amanda.Haliberg@noaa.gov]

Wednesday, August 04,20101:12 PM
_NOAA HQ leadership; 'dwh.staff@noaa.gov'; Michael Jarvis; Jessica Kondel
[Fwd: Fw: ent to reporters]
Fw ent to reporters.eml; Amanda_Haliberg.vet
Amanda_Haliberg.v
cf (637 B)
Markey statement re the Oil budget report.
20
003664
Timothy Bagley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jen.Pizza [Jen.Pizza@noaa.gov]
Wednesday. August 04, 2010 9:00 AM
DWH leadership
OIL BUDGET REPORT - PDF ATTACHED
AttachmentS:
Oil Budget description 8 3 FINAL.pdf
Oil Budget
lescription 8 3 F.IN ..
Final Oil Budget Report
attached.
25
003665
Timothy Bagley
From:
Sent:
Subject:

Wednesday, August 04, 2010 8:56 AM
Jane Lubchenco
_HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff; KSarri@doc.gov; KGriffis@doc.gov;
justin.kenney@noaa.gov; Scott Smullen; margaret.spring@noaa.gov; Mark W Miller
Re: Oil Budget Report
Attachments:
To:
Cc:
'-m,"-"
.:."--.
Oil Budget
lescription 8 3 FIN ..
PDF version.
Jen Pizza, can you please forward to leadersh{p list.
thanks, Jen

> Jen - please convert the report to a PDF and send it around.
Thanks!
Jennifer Austin
26
003666
Timothy Bagley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
. Jen.Pizza [Jen.Pizza@noaa.gov]
Wednesday, August 04,20108:41 AM
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/04oil. html?
27
&hp
003775
Timothy Bagley
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Sarri, Kristen [KSarri@doc.gov]

Sunday, August 01,20102:21 PM
Lubchenco, Jane; Austin, Jennifer
Conner, William; Miller, Mark; Spring, Margaret
RE: Fw: Oil Budget Tool Update Complete - Draft Final with Report
Do we still want to do 3:30 pm phone call to discuss internally?

From: Jane Lubchenco [Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov]
Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2010 2:11 PM
To: Austin, Jennifer; Sarri, Kristen
Cc: Conner, William; Miller, Mark; Spring, Margaret
Subject: RE: Fw: Oil Budget Tool Update Complete - Draft Final with Report
Jen - I have some additional edits, but I've made them on the previous draft.
I'll send
them to you shortly and ask if you can add them into the version you just sent and resend
to all.
OK?
Jane
Message----From: Jennifer Austin [mailto:Jennifer.Austin@n6aa.gov]
To: Sarri, Kristen
Cc: Conner, William; Miller, Mark; Lubchenco, Jane; Spring, Margaret
Subject: Re: Fw: Oil Budget Tool Update Complete - Draft Final with Report
--~--Original
Hi Team,
Here is the updated document with the latest numbers inserted throughout.
The report that it draws from is also attached (same one Mark sent this morning) .
Sarri, Kristen wrote:

> Jane and Bill >
> One outstanding issue and that is with EPA re: dispersant numbers.
>
> Jane, how did you want to handle with EPA?
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------->
> *From*: william. conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>
> *To*: Sarri, Kristen
> *Cc*: Miller, Mark; Lubchenco, Jane; Spring, Margaret; Austin,
> Jennifer
> *Sent*: Sun Aug 01 12:19:45 2010
> *Subject*: Re: Fw: Oil Budget Tool Update Complete - Dra.ft Final with
> Report
>
> Kris >
> I spoke with Mark to make sure that I got my head straight on these
> questions.
>
> The short answer is that we used the 4.9M bb1 total flow from the
> seabed PLUS the error estimate of 10%, giving us a total flow of 5.4M
> bbls.
>
> Of this amount, 823,452 bbls were recovered by the riser insertion
> tube and the Top Hat systems.
So this is pretty close to the 800,000
> bbl number that Heather mentioned. Of course, this number us
136
003783
Timothy Bagley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Sunday, August 01, 2010 2: 16 PM
Jane Lubchenco
Re: Fw: Oil Budget Tool Update Complete - Draft Final with Report
will do.
> Jen - I have some additional edits, but I've made them on the previous draft.
I'll send
them to you shortly and ask if you can add them into the version you just sent and resend
to all. OK?
> Jane
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

To: Sarri, Kristen
Subject: Re: Fw: Oil Budget Tool Update Complete - Draft Final with
Report
Hi Team,
The report that it draws from is also attached (same one Mark sent this morning) ..
>
>
>
> Sarri, Kristen wrote:
>
Jane and Bill
One outstanding issue and that is with EPA re: dispersant numbers.
Jane, how did you want to handle with EPA?
--------------------------------------------------------------------*From*: william. conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>

*To*: Sarri, Kristen
*Cc*: Miller, Mark; Lubchenco, Jane; Spring, Margaret; Austin,
Jennifer
*Sent*: Sun Aug 01 12:19:45 2010
*Subject*: Re: Fw: Oil Budget Tool Update Complete - Draft Final with
Report
Kris I spoke with Mark to make sure that I got my head straight on these
questions.
The short answer is that we used the 4.9M bbl total flow from the
seabed PLUS the error estimate of 10%, giving us a total flow of 5.4M
bbls.
Of this amount, 823,452 bbls were recovered by the riser insertion

tube and the Top Hat systems.
So this is pretty close to the 800,000
bbl number that Heather mentioned.
Of course, this number us
independent of flow rate since it was measured directly.
UNFORTUNATELY, while Mark and I were talking, we noticed that, using

these numbers, the % Direct Recovery from Wellhead should be 15%, not
144
003791
Timothy Bagley
From:
Cc:
Subject:

Sunday, August 01, 2010 2:09 PM
Sarri, Kristen
Conner, William; lVIiller, Mark; Lubchenco, Jane; Spring, Margaret
Attachments:
Oil Budget description 8.1 v 2pm.docx; DeepwaterHorizonOiIBudget20100730.pdf
Sent:
To:
q:;~~;
".'
~r..
) --.-.:::
Oil Budget
DeepwaterHorizon
jescription 8.1 v 2.. OilBudget20100 ...
Hi Team,
The rep6rt that it draws from is also attached (same one Mark sent this morning).

> Jane and Bill >
> One outstanding issue and that is with EPA re: dispersant numbers.
>
> Jane, how did you want to handle with EPA?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------> -> *From*: william. conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>
> *To*: Sarri, Kristen
> *Cc*: Miller, Mark; Lubchenco, Jane; Spring, Margaret; Austin,
> Jennifer
> *Sent*: Sun Aug 01 12:19:45 2010
> *Subject*: Re: Fw: Oil Budget Tool Update Complete - Draft Final with
> Report
>
> Kris >
> I spoke with Mark to make sure that I got my head straight on these
> questions.
>
> The short answer is that we used the. 4.9M bbl total flow from the
'> seabed PLUS the error estimate of 10%, giving us a total flow of 5.4M
> bbls.
>
> Of this amount, 823,452 bbls were recovered by the riser insertion
> tube and the Top Hat systems. So this is pretty close to the 800,000
> bbl number that Heather mentioned. Of course, this number us
> independent of flow rate since it was measured directly.
>
> UNFORTUNATELY, while Mark and I were talking, we noticed that, using
> these numbers, the % Direct Recovery from Wellhead should be 15%, not
> the 16% that is in the current version of the document. So, all of
> the percentages in the pie chart and the text of the report should be
> double checked using the analytical results from the Oil Budget Tool
> that were attached to Mark's email this morning, pulling the numbers
> from the Higher Flow Estimate.
>
So,
> Mark assured me that Jennifer could do this without any problem.
> we'd like to ask that she go ah~ad and do that (Thanks, Jenn!)
If you
> have any questions, please call my cell 240-460-6475. I can double
> check the numbers.
152
003809
~E:

From: "Robert.Haddad" <Robert.Haddad@noaa.gov>
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 10:59:29 -0400
<Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, '_HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>, 'Dave Westerholm'
<Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>
It has nothing to do with the oil budget. Just so that's clear, if 100 bbls
of oil are released, the per bbl penalty would be assessed on all 100
even if 50% of the oil that was released evaporated.
Bob
Office: 301.713.4248x110
Cell: 240.328.9085

To: Robert.Haddad
Cc: 'Jennifer Austin'; Tony.Penn@noaa.gov; 'Mark W Miller'; '_HQ Deep Water
impact BP's
of a civil fine under the Clean Water Act. Under
a clause added to
CWA following the Exxon Valdez spill, the federal
Gulf.--Steve
Jennifer:
The oil budget will not immediately impact BP's liability with
to
NRDA. This is because the under OPAl the Natural Resource injuries have
Itobe
documented by the trustees and the causal linkage between the
oil
uries quantified. Thus, the NRD liability (or the
and these
that are related to either the spill or to response
ecosystem
as a result of the spill. In other words, we can't say
actions
NOAA/Office of Response& Restoration
Office: 301.713.4248x110
Cell: 240.328.9085
-----Original Message-----
of2
8/4/20103:45 P
003810
.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
this morning, we're pulling together,Q&A for Dr. for her
with
1. *
of2
8/4/2010 3:45 P
003811
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 dear that the
administration's response removed significant amounts of it from the Gulf.
A few things about the report:

o First, this report is the result of very careful, peer-reviewed'
calculations by some of the nation's best scientists, working together
across a number of agencies.
o Secondly, we have found that the aggressive and unprecedented
response efforts were effective in dealing with roughly a third of the
oil released - representing about 1.6 million barrels. The men and
women who were working so hard to remove oil through skimming,
burning, and direct capture really did make a significant dent in the
total amount of oil in the Gulf. Direct capture is one of the actions
the government directed BP to do.
o Mother nature is also aSSisting this response effort and together we
are seeing significant progress.
o We continue to be extremely concerned about what this oil spill
means for the health of the Gulf ecosystem and the millions of
people who depend on the Gulf for the livelihoods and enjoyment.
But we are making very good progress and doing as much as possible
to deal with this tragedy in as aggressive a fashion as possible.
003812
As you know, teams of scientists and experts have been carefully tracking
the oil since Day One of this spill, and based on the data from those efforts
and their collective expertise, they are now able to provide these useful
estimates.
The oil budget calculations are based on direct measurements where that is
possible and the best available scientific estimates where measurements
were not possible. The report is based on the most recent estimates of the
Flow Rate Technical Group, released yesterday, which is a cumulative
release of 4.9 million barrels of oil.
From that, we estimate that the Unified Command's aggressive recovery

operations, including burning, skimming and direct recovery from the
wellhead were successful in removing one quarter of the oil.
An additional one quarter of the total oil naturally evaporated or dissolved;
And just less than one quarter (24%) was dispersed, either naturally or
chemically, into microscopic droplets.
The residual amount, just over one quarter (26%), is either on or just below
the surface as light sheen and weathered tar 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.
COmment [kl]:
I heard Sean mention this, bull

haven't independentlv confirmed. It's possible that I
dreamed it,
003813
The dispersed and residual Qil 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

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.
003814
Where is the remaining oil?

The remaining oil is found in two categories, residual oil and dispersed oil, which combined
account for half (50%) of the total release of oil from the spill.
The residual amount,just over one quarter (26%), is either on or just below the surface as residue
and weathered tarballs, has washed ashore or been collected from the shore, or is 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
application of chemical dispersants on and below the surface.
For the purpose of this analysis, 'dispersed oil' is defined as droplets that are less than 100
microns - about the diameter of a human hair. Oil droplets that are this small are neutrally
buoyant and thus remain in the water column where they then begin to biodegrade
Dispersion increases the likelihood that the oil will be biodegraded, both in the water column and
at the surface.
Dispersed and residual oil remain in the system and until they degrade through a number of
natural processes. Early indications are that the oil is degrading quickly.
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.
Is there oil on the seafloor?

No. Oil that is beneath the surface, as far as we can determine, is primarily in the water column
itself not sitting on 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 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.
003815
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 terrri and that underscores the importance of having this very aggressive
monitoring and research effort underway. So that we can actually better understand this and learn
from this.
A recent JAG report said that you found oil subsurface in the 4-7 ppm range. Is that still
the ease?
That is the range for that dataset. But there are variations depending on the methods used to
analyze subsurface oil concentrations. The Joint Analytical Group will soon release chemical
analytical data from the research missions 'that may show different values.
But the main point here is that the oil that is subsurface is, as far as we can tell, in very small
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.
003816
1. How long does it take for dispersed oil to biodegrade? Is there an approximate
length of time or a range?
We don't yet have a figure for biodegradation rates of this oil in the Gulf. Biodegradation speed
varies greatly depending on oil type and water conditions. Dispersed and residual oil will
biodegrade, and that
NOAA NSF and DOE are actively studying this important question to studying. and we hope to
have results soon.
2. Has the data already been peer-reviewed, or is it going to be peer-reviewed? Also.

did outside scientists help with the calculations?
The Oil Budget Calculator was developed by a team at the Department of the Interior (001) and
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The tool was created by the US
A number of outside scientists contributed to or reviewed the calculation methodologies.
3. With all the ships and dispersants and .the skimming and the burning, why did 67
percent of the oil in this incident elude your efforts, winding up in the Gulf!
There are a 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.
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.
003817
EPA continues to conduct testing to understand the toxicity of dispersants to marine life,
and has recently released it second report about that subject.
These results confirm that the dispersant used in response to the oil spill in the gulf, Corexit
9S00A, when mixed with oil, is generally no more or less toxic than mixtures with the other
available alternatives. The results also indicate that dispersant-oil mixtures are generally no
more toxic to the aquatic test species than oil alone.
Dispersant was one of many response techniques employed to combat this environmental
disaster, and as we have said all along, was a question of environmental trade-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 responseefforts?
wruit 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 nat1:lIe 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?
003819
Page 1 of1
Timothy Bagley
From:
Unruh-Cohen, AnaiAna.UnruhCohen@m'aiLhouse.gov]
Sent:
Wednesday, August 04, 20101:00 PM
To:
'amanda.hallberg@noaa.gov
Subject: Fw: ent to reporters

Fyi. Our statement. Ana
Ana Unruh Cohen, Ph.D.

Select Committee on Energy Independence
& Global Warming
From: Sharp, Jeff

To: Sharp, Jeff; Chenault, Jacqueline; Phillips, Jonathan; Gray, Morgan; Gallagher, Mark; McClory,
Maggie; Dirico, Rocco; Goo, Michael; Baussan, Daniellei Butler, Sarah; Scozzaro, A.Tianna; Stein buck,
Jonah
Cc: Unruh-Cohen, Ana; Duncan, Jeff; Freedhoff, Michal; Joseph, Avenel
Sent: Wed Aug 04 12:40:26 2010
Subject: ent to reporters
For Immediate Release

Contact: Jeff Sharp, Chairman Markey, 202 2254079
MARKEY: Administration Report Suggests Progress in Cleaning up the Gulf, but
Vigilance Still Required
WASHINGTON DC (August 4, 2010) Today the National Incident Command released an
interagency report estimating the amount and fate ofthe oil spilled out ofBP's Deepwater
Horizon leak.
In response, Rep. Ed Markey (DMass), Chairman of twin climate and energy panels in the
House of Representatives, released the following statement:
"I applaud the efforts by federal, state and local governments who have worked with local
fisherman and workers in the Gulf on an unprecedented response effort to capture, burn and skim
oil following BP's horrific oj] spill. However, at least 50% ofthe oil from what is now the largest
oil spill in history remains in the environment in some form. That is the equivalent of nine Exxon
Valdez-sized spills and does not account for the methane that has also been released from this
well.
"Families working in the Gulf's imperiled fishing and tourism industry deserve nothing less than
a ] 00% effort to ensure that both the environment and the economy fully recover from the
damage caused by BP's oil spill.
"We still have an environmental crime scene in the Gulf of Mexico, and all Americans,
especially Gulf Coast residents, fully expect investigators to continue monitoring health and
safety hazards in the months and years ahead so the region can fully recover."
###
9/27/2010
003822
. Federal Science Report Details Fate of Oil from BP Spill
Page 1 of3
Timothy Bagley .
From:
Justin Kenney Uustin.kenney@noaa.gov]
Sent:
Wednesday, Augusf04, 2010 11:31 AM
To:
Deepwater Staff (dwh.staff@noaa.gov); DEEPWATER ~eadership (dwh.leadership@noaa.gov)
Subject: FW: [Fwd: Federal Science Report Details Fate of Oil from BP Spill]
FYI, also going up on NOAA.gov soon.

Justin Kenney
NOAA Director of Communications & External Affairs
Office: 202-482-6090
Cell: 202-821-6310
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
capturel;l. or mitigated by the Unified Command recovery operations, including burning,
skimming, chemical dispersion and direct recovery from the wellhead, according to a federal
science report released today.
An additional 25 percent of the total oil naturally evaporated or dissolved, and 16 percent was
dispersed naturally into microscopic droplets. The residual amount, just over one quarter (26
9/27/2010
003823
Federal Science Report Details Fate of Oil from BP Spill
Page 20f3
percent), is either on or just below the sl,lrface 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.
X
Image removed by sender. Deepwater Horizon Oil Budget
"Tearns of scientists and experts have been carefully tracking the oil since day one of this spill, and
based on the data from those efforts and their collective expertise, they have been able to provide these
useful and educated estimates about the fate of the oil," says Jane Lubchenco, under secretary of
commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator. "Less oil on the surface does not mean
that there isn't oil still in the water column or that our beaches and marshes aren't still.at risk. Knowing
generally what happened to the oil helps us better understand areas of risk and likely impacts."
The estimates do not make conclusions about the long-term impacts of oil on the Gulf. Fully
understanding the damages and impacts of the spill on the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem is something that
will take time and continued monitoring and research.
Dispersion increases the likelihood that the oil will be biodegraded, both in the water column and at the
surface. While there is more analysis to be done to quantify the rate of biodegradation in the Gulf, early
observations and preliminary research results from a number of scientists show that the oil from the BP
Deepwater Horizon spill is biodegrading quickly. Scientists from NOAA, EPA, DOE, and academic
scientists are working to calculate more precise estimates of this rate.
It is well known that bacteria that break down the dispersed and weathered surface oil are abundant in
the Gulf of Mexico in large part because of the warm water, the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels,
and the fact that oil enters the Gulf of Mexico through natural seeps regularly.
Residual oil is also degraded and weathered by a number of physical and biological processes.
Microbes consume the oil, and wave action, sun, currents and continued evaporation and dissolution
continue to break down the residual oil in the water and on shorelines.
The oil budget calculations are based on direct measurements wherever possible and the best available
9/27/2010
003824
Page 3 of3
scientific estimates where measurements were not possible. The numbers for direct recovery and burns
were measured directly and reported in daily operational reports. The skimming numbers were also
based on daily reported estimates. The rest of the numbers were based on previous scientific analyses,
best available information and a broad range of scientific expertise. These estimates will continue to be
refined as additional information becomes available.
To view the full BP oil spill budget report, click here.
Visit this link to unsubscribe
Chris Vaccaro
Acting Media Relations Director
v.202-482-6093 / c.202-536-8911 / NOAA.gov
9/27/2010
003831
Page 1 of3
Timothy Bagley
. From:
Fetcher, Adam [Adam.Fetcher@dhs.gov]
Sent:
Wednesday, August 04, 2010 11 :37 AM
To:
Jane Lubchenco; Griffis, Kevin; Smullen, Scott
Cc:
Kenney, Justin; Austin, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Federal Science Report Details Fate of Oil from BP Spill
From:
Deepwater Horizon Response External Affairs
To: Fetcher, Adam
Subject: Federal Sciencj9 Report Details Fate of Oil from BP Spill
] On Behalf Of
DATE: August 04, 2010 10:22:24 CST

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
D~epwater
Horizon
Incident
Joint Information
Center
Phone: (713) 323-1670
(713) 323-1671
Submit a claim for damages: (80D.) 440-0858

Report oiled wildlife: (866) 557-1401
WASHI~GTON
_. The vast majority of the oil from the BP oil spill has either evaporated
or been burned, skimmed, recovered from the wellhead or dispersed - much of which is
in the process of being degraded. A significant amount of this is the direct result of the
robust federal response efforts.
A third (33 percent) of the total amount of oil released in the Deepwater Horizon/BP spill
was captured or mitigated by the Unified Command recovery operations, including
burning, skimming, chemical dispersion and direct recovery from the wellhead,
according to a federal science report released today_
9/27/2010
003832
Page 2 of3
An additional 25 percent of the total oil naturally evaporated or dissolved, am~ 16 percent was
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.
(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.
X Deepwater Horizon Oil Budget
''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 anq 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.
It is well known that bacteria that break down the dispersed and weathered surface oil are
and oxygen levels, and the fact that oil enters the Gulf of Mexico through natural seeps
regularly.
9/27/2010
003833
Page 3 of3
Residual oil is also degraded and weathered by a number of physical and biological
processes. Microbes consume the oil, and wave action, sun, currents and continued
evaporation and dissolution continue to break down the residual oil in the water and on
shorelines.
The oil budget calculations are based on direct measurements wherever possible and the best
available scientific estimates where measurements were not possible. The numbers for direct
recovery and burns were measured directly and reported in daily operational reports. The
skimming numbers were also based on daily reported estimates. The rest of the numbers
were based on previous scientific analyses, best available information and a broad range of
scientific expertise. These estimates will continue to be refined as additional information
becomes available.
To view the full BP oil spill budget report, click here.
Share
9/27/2010
003877

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
calculated the flow rate and total oil released. Led by Energy Secretary Steven Chu and United States
A second interagency team, led by the Department ofthe Interior (001) and the National Oceanic and
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
evaporated or dissolved, and just less than.one quarter (24%) was dispersed (either naturally or as a
result of operations) as microscopic droplets into Gulfwaters. The residual amount -just over one
quarter (26%) - is either on or just below the surface as light sheen and weathered tar balls, has washed
becomes available.

Unified
Residual include, oil
Command
Response
Operations
that is on or just beiow

lhl:'surtace as light
sheen and weathered
ta r ball". h"s wa~hed

a~hore
Qr been
101ledt'd hom the

~hore. or i; buried in
~and and !>edirnent>.
3%
'd\
)
8%
*Oil in tlle~e 3 calegorie::. i~

current Iy b!:!lIlg (il:'graded
naturally.
003878
as a result of the oil comi~g 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
small are neutrally buoy'ant and thus remain in the water column where they then begin to biodegrade.
moved into the top 20 feet or the water column where it mixed with surrounding waters and began to
biodegrade.
003879
enters the Gulf of Mexico through natural seeps.

Flow Rate: The Oil Budget Calculator starts with an estimate of the cumulative amount of oil released
Survey (USGS) Director Marcia McNutt, and a team of Department of Energy (DOE) scientists and
The numbers for direct recovery and bums were measured directly and reported in daily operational
analysis. Further information on these calculation methods is available in the Deepwater Horizon Gulf.

www.geoplatfoml.gov.
001, 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
distribution and impact of oil there. EPA and NOAA have carefully monitored BP's use of dispersant in
003880
003881
Deepwater HorizonIBP Oil Budget:

Acknowledgements
Authors
,Mark Miller, NOAA, DOC
Credits
LTUg) Charity Drew (USCG) -:- Original Excel spreadsheet and application inspiration
David Mack and Jeff Allen (USGS) - Application development and engineering .
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
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Dating, SINTEF
003882
BP Deepwater Horizon on Budget:

estimate the quantity ofBP Deepwater Horizon oil that has been released from the well and the fate of
dispersed categories is in the process of being degraded. The report below describes each bfthese
becomes available.

Residual incluqe~ oil

that is on or ju~t below
~hE:!en and wt!alherE:!d
tar balls.. h,lS w.'!"i1ed
<1>hore or bel::'n
Unified
Command
Response
Operations
Burned
wlledeu from Lilt'

~hore. or i~ burie(j in
sand and sediment~,
\
'mmed
3%
ChemiC<liiy
8%
*Oillfl lhl;'~e 3 C<llegorie::. i~
currently btllng degladed
naturally,
Figure 1: Oil Budget -
S~ows
current best estimates of what happened to the oil.
003883
asa 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 offill small droplets. For the purpose of this analysis, 'dispersed oil' is defined as
droplets that are less than roo 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.
decreasing with distance from the wellhe.ad. (citation: Federal Joint Analysis Group Report 1 and 2,
biodegrade.
molecules from the oil separate and dissolve into the water just as sugar can be dissolved in water. "
003884

. National Incident Command's Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG) led by United States Geological
above is based on this group's estimate of 4.9 miilion barrels of oil.
were based on previous scientific analyses, best available infonnation and a broad range of scientific
expertise. These numbers will continue to be refined based on additional infonnation and further
analysis. Further infonnation on these calculation methods is available in the Deepwater Horizon Gulf

activities, results and data to the public on a regular basis. Updates and infonnation can be found at
ecosystem and wildlife impacts. 001 and DOE responders are working to ensure control of the well and
003885
mitigate impacts of oil to terrestrial wildlife, natural resources, and public lands. .
of the BP wellhead, federal scientists remain extremely concerned about the impact ofthe spill to the
003886
Deepwater HorizonIBP Oil Budget:

Acknowledgements
Authors
Credits
LT(jg) Charity Drew (USCG) - Original Excel spreadsheet and application inspiration
program
Sky Bristol and Tim Kern (USGS) Project vision and management
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
003889
. BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Budget:

result of operations) as microscopic droplets into Gulfwaters. The residual amount _.-just over one
becomes available.

Based an estimated release of 4.9m barrels of oil
Unified
Command
Response
Operations
Residua! includes oil

that is on or ju>t below
lhe ~llrface as light
~heen
and weathered
ha" washed
a~hon'! or been
tar
ball~.
collected from the

~hore.
~,lnd
Skimmed
3%
or I:; buried in
and :,edirnenl:,.
Chemici.llly
8%
*0;1 in th;:e 3 calegor;<'~ i:,
(u rren lly be,ng degr" d e(l
Ildtural!y .
. - ,,-,
-.
"
..
003890
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,
biodegrade.
003891

analysis. Further infonnation on these calculation methods is available in the Deepwater Horizon Gulf

understanding of the fate, transport and impact of the oiL The federal government will continue to report
activities, results and data to the public on a regular basis. Updates and infonnation can be found at
www.restoretheguJf.gov, and data from the response and monitoring can be found at
w>Jvw.geoplatform.gov.
DOl, NASA and NOAA continue to refine understanding of amounts of remaining surface oiL NOAA
003892
Even though the threat to shorelines, fish and wildlife, and ecosystems has decrea~ed since the capping
003893

Acknowledgements
Authors
Stephen Hannnond, USGS, DOl
Credits
LTOg) Charity Drew (USCG) - Original Excel spreadsheet and application inspiration
Bill Lehr (NOAA) Lead mass balance and oil budget scientist
program
Kevin Gallagher, Martha Garcia, and Stephen Hannnond (USGS) - Executive sponsors
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Antonio Possoio, NIST
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Pm Lambert, Env. Canada
Per Daling, SINTEF
003894

calculated the flow rate arid total oil released. Led by Energy Secretary Steven Chu and United States
Geological Survey (USGS) Director Marcia McNutt, this team announced on August 2,2010, that it
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
disposition of the oil t~ date.
quarter (26%)
is either on or just below the surface as light sheen and weathered tar balls, has washed
becomes available.

Unified
Command
Response
Operations

sheen and weathered
tar bails, has washed
ashore or been
collected from the
sand and sediments.
Skimmed
3%
Chemically
8%
naturally.
Figure 1: Oil Budget - Shows current best
003895
shown i!1 the pie chart (Figure 1), response efforts were successful in addressing 33% of the spilled oil.
.as a result of the oil coming out of the riser pipe at high speed into the water column, which caused some
small are neutrally buoyant .and thus remain in the water column where they then begin to biodegrade.
decreasing with. distance from the wellhead. (citation: Federal Joint Analysis Group Report 1 and 2,
biodegrade.
below the surface in the fonn of light sheen or tar balls, oil that has washed ashore or been collected
003896
enters the Gulf ofMexico through natural seeps.
barrels of oil flowed from theBP 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.
reports. The skimming numbers were ~lso based on daily reported estimates. The rest of the numbers
VvVo/w.geoplatform.gov.
ecosystem and wildlife impacts. DOl and DOE responders are working to ensure control ofthe well and
003897
003898
Deepwater HorizonfBP Oil Budget:

Ackilowledgements
Authors
Credits
Antonio Possolo and Pedro Espina (NIST)- Statistical oil budget model encoded as an R
program
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
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Dating, SINTEF
003899
DRAFT 8.3v 11:30am

What bappened to the oil?
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 Enen!"\' Sccretarv 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.m iIlion
barrels of oil have been released from the BP Deepwater Horizon well. A second interagency team, led
by the Dcpal1mcnt of Interior mOl) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
tNOAAl 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 describes the outputs of the oil budget calculator.
quarter of the oil released from the wellhead. One quarter ofthe 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 Gulfwaters. The residual amount,just over one quarter, includes l)j\ that has
wl1shed ashore or been collected Ii'om the shore or is just below the surface as residue and weathered
~=~ The report below describes each of these categories and calculations. These estimates will
continue to be refined as additional information becomes available.
Deleted: is either on or just below the surface as

residue and weathered tatballs. has washed ashore or
been eollected from the shore. is buried in sand and
>====:===~====~~
Comment [zl]: Residual includes oil that has

washed ashore or been collected from the shore or is
just below the surfaee as residue and weathered

that is <,>n or just below

the ~urface as residue
and weathered tarhalls.
ha~ wasbed ashore or
been collected from the
shore or is buried in
,;and and sediments.
tarballs.
Unified
Command
Response
Operations
*These 'l percentages represent

0;1 initiaJly in these catego(lE1's that
is now degradIng.
003900
shown in the pie chart (Figure I), response efforts were successful in,addressimz 33% of the spilled oil.
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 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 ofthe oil that was chemically dispersed remained well below
the surface in diffuse clouds, where it began to dissipate further and biodegrade. Previous analyses
have shown evidence of diffuse clouds of dispersed oil between 3300 and 4300 feet in very low
http://ecowatch.ncddc.noaa.uov/JAG/reports.html). Oil that was chemically dispersed at the surface
biodegrade.
evaporated or dissolved into the water column. The evaporation and dissolution rate estimate is based
on scientific research and observations conducted during the Deepwater Horizon incident.
Residual: After accounting for the categories that can be measured directly or estimated, Le., recovery
operations, dispersion, and evaporation and dissolution, an estimated 26% remains. 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 tllat is buried in sand and sediments and may resurface through time. This oil has also
begun to degrade through a number of natural processes.
003901
Biodegradation: Dispersed oil in the water column and oiIon the surface 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 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.
over the course ofthe spill. The newest estimates reflect the collaborative work and discussions of the
National Incident Command's.Flow Rate technical Group (FRTG), led by United States Geological
barrels of oil flowed from the Deepwater HorizonIBP wellhead between April 22, 2010 and July 15,
20 I 0, at which time the flow of oil was suspended. The uncertainty on this estimate is 10% (cite:
Flow Rate Technical Group, website or report). The pie chart above is based on this group's estimate of
4.9 million barrels ofoil.
expertise. Further information on these methods is available in Appendix A. These numbers will
continue to be refined based on additional information and further analysis.
Our knowledge ofthe oil, dispersants, ecosystem impacts and human impacts will continue to evolve.
www.rcstorcthegulf.gov, and data from the response and monitoring can be found at
www.gcoplatform.gov.
DOl. NASA and NOAA continue to refine understanding of amounts of remaining surface oil. NOAA
submerged oil, and researchers continue subsurface scanning and sampling to monitor the conc\;":ntration,
003902
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.
in the Gulfregion will take time and continued monitoring and research.
Attachments
Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Gulflncident Budget Tool Report from Aug 1,2010, contains
representing the same numbers as the pie chart above. These cylindrical images combine the three
segment. The cylindrical image on page one of Appendix A uses the cumulative release estimate of 4.9
M barrels, which is the same as the pie chart used above. The cylindrical chart on pages 3 and 5 of the
report are based on the Higher Flow Estimate and Lower Flow Estimate representing the upper and
lower bound of the 10% uncertainty on the 4.9 M barrel cumulative release estimate.
003903

Authors
Credits
Antonio Possolo and Pedro Espina (NlST) - Statistical oil budget model encoded as an R
program
LCDR Lance Lindgren, CDR Peter Hoffman, CDR Sean O'Brien, and L T Amy McElroy
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
AI Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Pat Lambert, Env.Canada
Per Daling, SINTEF
003904
Page 1 of6
Timothy Bagley
From:
Sent:
Monday, August 02, 2010 5:15 PM
To:
Jane Lubchenco; Anastas.Paul@epamail.epa.gov
Cc:
mark.w.miller@noaa.gov; Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov; William Conner
Subject: Re: Oil Budget - EPA Monitoring.
Thanks Jane.
Paul is available to review.
Bob Perciasepe
(0)202564 4711
(c) 202 368 8193

Sent: 08/02/201003:24 PM AST
To: Bob Perciasepe; Paul Anastas
Cc: "mark.w.miller@noaa.gov" <mark.w.miller@noaa.gov>; "Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov"
<1ennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>; William Conner <William.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 fjnal 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
Jane and Mark

Here are some sentences for EPA monitoring
EP A'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.govlbpspill). EPA with NOAA, has also provided oversight for monitoring in the
deep sea during subsurface application to determine the effectiveness of the dispersant
9/27/2010
003905
Page 2 of6
application and to monitor for any early signs of environmental effects (e.g., dissolved 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
(0)2025644711
(c) 202 368 8193

Sent: 08/02/201001:24 PM AST
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: Perciasepe.Bob@epamail.epa.gov]
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 9:07 AM
To: Jane Lubchenco
Cc: anastas.paul@epa.gov; mark.w.miller@noaa.gov
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.
9/27/2010
003910
Page 1 of2
Timothy Bagley
From:
Christine Blackburn [Christine.Blackburn@noaa.gov]
Sent:
Monday, August 02,20103:54 PM
To:
Christine Blackburn; Jane Lubchenco
Cc:
Margaret.spring@noaa.gov; Sally Yozell
Subject: RE: budget appeal

Jane,
Just wanted to check on the status of the memo.
Also I talked to Margaret and she is good without making edits here based on her comments - but just
wanting to keep these issues in mind for the presentation and discussions. She did think we should add
a summary statement about the Gulf along the lines of ... "As legislation passes through Congress or
based on the findings of the Oil Spill Commission, expectations of NOAA's role in oil spill leasing review
may change. We want to make sure we are able to rise to these expectations."
Thanks,
Chris
From: Christine Blackburn

Sent: Monday, August 02,20103:05 PM
To: 'Jane Lubchenco'
Cc: 'Margaret.spring@noaa.gov'; Sally Yozell
Here is the version with Margaret's comments included. I am not sure we have the time to adequately
address some of the large issues she noted.
Also, is it possible that once you review it, to surpass the normal review process and just have you OK it
for the autopen? Maureen is extremely worried that we will miss the 4pm deadline.
Chris

Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 2:07 PM
To: Christine Blackburn
Thanks; I'll plan on working on it at 3pm EDT, so will need her comments by then.
From: Christine Blackburn [mailto:Christine.Blackburn@noaa.gov]
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 1 :35 PM
To: Jane Lubchenco
9/27/2010
003911
Page 2 of2
Ijust called her to see what is up. She is reviewing it now and will send to all of us shortly.
Chris
Sent: Monday, August 02,20101:32 PM

To: Christine Blackburn; Jane Lubchencoi Margaret.spring@noaa.gov
Cc: Yozell, Sally

Chris - Dr. Lubchenco would like to know if Margaret had the opportunity to review? If so, does this copy
include her comments? Thanks
Pat
From: Christine Blackburn [mailto:Christine.Blackburn@noaa.gov]
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 12:52 PM

To: Jane Lubchencoi Margaret.spring@noaa.gov; Christine Blackburn
Cc: Yozell, Sally

Attached is a version with a number of edits. Let me know how you would like to proceed .... especially in light of
the fact that this is due to Commerce at 4pm.
Please ignore the couple of comments I have in there for the budget office to answer.
Chris

To: Margaret.spring@noaa.govi 'Christine.Blackburn@noaa.gov'
Cc: Vozell, Sally
Subject: budget appeal

Margaret and Chris,
Please help out here with some topic sentences and compelling arguments for as much as you can, then kick
this back to me. thanks
.
9/27/2010
003912
Page 1 of5
Timothy Bagley
From:
Sent:
To:
Jane Lubchenco; Anastas.Paul@epamail.epa.gov
Cc:
mark.w.miller@noaa.gov
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. EP A 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.govlbpspill). 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 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
(0)2025644711
(c) 202 368 8193

Sent: 08/02/2010 01 :24 PM AST
Cc: "mark. w .miller@noaa.gov" <mark. w.miller@noaa.gov>
9127/2010
003927

Government Estimates - Through August 01 (Day 104)
Dispersed Naturally
763,948
1,243,732
~,O93,374
408,792
Burned
265,450
43,900
Dispersant Used
Inland Recovery (Cumulative)
35,818 tons
All unlabeled values in barrels. See end notes for assumptions .

* Government estimate of discharge ranged from 62.200 bbi on April 22, 2010 to 52.700 bb, on July 14, 2010.
Deepwater Horizon rv1C252 Guif Incident Od Budget
Report ~!ene'ateci by sbr:sto!@LJsgs,~;ov on 08!02.r2()1 () 0530 P:\:1 MOT.

See end notes section of the report for reference mate~lC:1i on report e!();llents.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provicJ(')cJ by tlie U.S GeoiD~]ica: Su:vey in c;oop(nC}tlon
OC8cmic and Atrnosp!1(orIC Adrnlllis[ration.
\\<[t', tr,,~
.\)
003928

1.500,000
j,
I
1,250,0001
t/)
1,000,000
Q)
::co
.0
750,000
r
500,000
250,000
May-2010
Jun-2010
Expected Value -
Jul-2010
Aug-2010
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf InCldent Oil Budget

Report generated by sbristol@usgs.gov on 08/02!201 005:30 PM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.s. Geologica! Survey in cooperation
~:w
003929

Higher Flow Estimate - Through August 01 (Day 104)

Dispersed Naturally
o
21
.-21
Dispersant Used
43,900
35,818 tons
All uniabelecJ vaiues in barrels. See end notes for assumptions .

~ Higher Flow Estimate is based on the government discharge estimate plus 10% uncertainty .
w.
Maximum discharge ranged from 68,390 bbi on April 22. 2010 to 58,022 bbl on July 14,2010.
Deepwater Horizon I'v1C252 Gulf Incident Oil

F<eport
by sbristo:@usqs.gov on 08!02i20 1005:30 PM MDT.
Application operated by tile U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. GeologIca! Survey in cooperClt:on with 1:'(: 1\;:(
Oceanic and Atrnospheric Administration.
003930
Higher Flow
Estimat~
- Through August 01 (Day 104)
Cumul~tive
Remaining
I,
I
1,750,000 i,
1,500,000 i .
i"
1,250,000
tb
1,000,01
750,000
500,000
j
i
j
250,000 i
I
..
OJ~~.==~========~~=========_=_~.~==._=-==_=_=_~=-=-==._==,_=_~
May-2010
Jun-2010
Jul-2010
Expected Value -
Aug-2010
Deepwater Horizon rvlC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budge!

Report generated by shristol@usgs.gov on 08102/2010 05:30 PM MDT.
See end notes section of the report for reference n1"lterral on report eiernenls.
Application operated by the U.S, Coast Guard and provided by the U.S, Geological Survey in cooperation \;Viti' \I,,' kit :r~,
003931

Lower Flow Estimate Through August 01 (Day 104)
Dispersant Used
43,900
35,818 tons
- Ali unlabeled valLles in barrels. See end notes for assumptions.

-* Lower Flow Estimate is based on the government discharge estimate minus: 0';" uncertainty .
... Maximum discharge ranged from 55,956 bbl on April 22, 2010 La 47.472 bbi on July 14, 2010.
Deepwater Horizon Iv1C252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

F-;eport ~enerated by sbnsto!@usgs,gov en 08!02!201 0 05:30 PM MDT.
See end notes section of the report for reference material on report eiemHnts.
Application ope~ated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided 1), the u.S. Geologlcs! Survey in
Oc:~an!c and Atmospheric Adminis\ratlon
003932
Lower Flow Estimate - Through August 01 (Day 104)

1,300,0001
1,200,000 i
1,100,000~
1 ,000,000 ~
900,0001
800,000
700,000
600,000
I
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
_=. _. .
oj,::.:=::::::::;::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:::::::::======:;:,::-~~==_::::'=-=-=__:-::::::. =.".___
.==.._::-...=_.
May-2010
Jun-2010
Jul-20 10
Aug-2010
Expected Value -

F--~eport ~;enerated by sbristol@usgs.gov on 08/021201005:30 PM MDT.
Application operated by the U,S, Coast Guard and provided by the U.s, Geological Survey in cooperation 'tAh
Oceanic and Atmosplleric Administration,
003933
Reference Notes
Chart - Cumulative/Daily Volume Remaining on the Surface

The volume of oil that each day is added to the volume of oil already on the surface is computed. taking
into account the effective discharge (total discharge minus volume collected via the Riser Insertion tool
or the Top Hat), and the volume that is evaporated or dissolved, skimmed, burned, or dispersed (either
chemically or naturally).

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

Previous versions of the Oil Budget Tool used a constant low and high tlow estimate based on
estimations from the Flow Rate Technical Group Plume Team PIV measurements. This method was
chosen at the time as the best available process and because the same measurement method was
Report generated by sbristol@usgs,gov on 08/02/2010 05:30 PM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U,S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
003934
used pre- and post-riser cut. On June 15, 2010, an improved estimate of how much oil is "!lowing from
the leaking BP well wa$ 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
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 sbristol@usgs.gov on 08/02/201005:30 PM MDT.
003935


.-Calculated amount of evaporation and dissolution
Skimmed
factored estimation of net oil content in oily water.
Burned
. cumulative totals.

003936
Dispersant Used
personnel. It is an actual measurement ofthe total dispersant used via all methods employed.
Oil Remaining

Report generated by sbristol@usgs.gov on 08/02/2010 05:30 PM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey In cooperation with the National
003956
DRAFT 8.1v7pm
DP Deepwater Horizon,. Oil Budget:
. Deleted: IBP

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.
burned. contained. evaporated and dispersed n'om the HI' D~cpwat<?r I lori.l.ol1 Ilil :-;pill. They developed a
tool. called the Oil Budget Calculator! to determine where the oil went. The numbers in the calculator
are based on best estimates of how much oil was released and how this oil is moving and degrading.
~';'Mt[z1]: Can WCJust say. Oil clther at the
.~~~~-=~:..~~.~~~~p_:~~~~~~"i~!r

Based Or'/ higher flow rare e.<;timare
'RemJiring oil is
"i:her 3: thE' s(.rtace
3S liert sheen or
w<ltrerec t:r b<llls, _ _ _ _
h~>
I",,,,,
b.:>:I~!lr~deC,
or ras
-.Ir,,')I1-, elm" ."hor(',
......--""
~'---4
Federal
Response
Operations
kimmcd
3%
1\
)
/
,...
.. _-_._--..
..
Figure I: Oi I Budget Calculator- Shows current best estimates of what has happened to the oil.
''''-''~-~--''-'-----''-'-'---
~,---
-~

Flow Rale: The Oil Budget Calculator starts with an estimate of the cumulative amount of oil released
over the course of the spill. This number is based on f10w 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
Horizon/BP wellhead. the uncertainty on this estimate is 10% (cite: Flow RUle Tedmicul (iroup.
II cbsitc OJ' rcpo!'!). 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.
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.
, Comment (z2]: This .s.imate is fRTG . DOl'
! folks
\Ve are referring. to
tt
, estimate m the press release

, so i(s consistent
..
as the "US science team"

Sugg~st
changll'lg thIS
'
Comment [j3]: USGS team hope, to have .no

actual government estimates h""nollt !h~
uncertainly) programmed by COB tOIm,'fro\\ Hhil! !~
MDT) They plan to have a report ""mat that has all

three scenanos actual esllmales. ' lO~o. ano _100
Then our Pie n'l3n could be updated t,') !\!H,)\\ the
4 9M barrel scenano
003957
reports. The skimming numbers were also based on.daily reported estimates. The rest of the numbers
analysis.
chart (Figure I), response efforts w:ere successful in dealing with 30% of the spilled oil. This includes
(J 5%), burning (5%), skimming (3%) and chemical dispersion (7%). Direct capture, burning and
Dispersion: Based on estimates, 16% ofthe oil dispersed naturally into the water column and 7% was
dispersed by the application of nearly 50,000 barrels of chemical dispersants on and below the surface.
water column, which caused some of the oil to spray offin small droplets (less than 100 microns the
diameter of a human hair). Chemical dispersion also breaks the oil up into smaller droplets which keeps
it from coming ashore in large surface slicks and. makes it more readily available for biodegradation.
However, until it is degraded, dispersed oil, even in dilute amounts, can be toxic to'vulnerable species in
the water column.
. Much of the dispersed oil remained below the surface. Previous analyses have shown evidence of
diffuse clouds of dispersed oil between 3300 and 4300 feet. (citation: Federal Joint Analysis Group
Report I and 2, http://ccowatch.ncddc.noaa.gov/JAGlreports.html).Asdescribedbelow,this oil appears
to be in the process of natural biodegradation.
Comment [%4]: Can we explain what we mean

here so people reading this don't read inlo Ih. fear of
massive, dangerous plume, Suggest pulling from
JAG rePort findings explaining what we know about
subsurface oil and its threats e.g. "ppm at y distance
from wellhead, etc
Evaporation: It is estimated that 26% of the oil volume quickly evaporated or dissolved into the water
column . .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.
Deleted: 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
"I he l:ompol1cnts that arc not volatile and do not evaporate ultimatelv dissolve into the water column or
form residut:$ such as tar balls. The residual is indudcd in the category of ft:maining oi I dbclIsst:d
Comment [ZSJ: Can we give beUer explan.tion

ofwbat's in the water column andlor how pOlent it
h\Q.'!~
After accounting for recovery operations, chemical and natural dispersion and evaporation, an estimated
28% remains. This oil is either at the surface as light sheen or weathered tar balls. or it has biodegraded
or already come ashore. Of the oil that has washed ashore, some has been removed by clean-up teams.
some remains on beaches and marshes, and some is buried in sand and sediments and may resurface
through time.
Is this the whole the residual or
~';;;t[Z7];Ple~-;;&I~;';;i~~;~ "from NIC

about amt of oil that has been removed/collected
from sho'.~:~.:.:n.~.,:!,_th:.~~_ ..__...
003958
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.
one quarter of the 4.9 m barrels of oil. Around a quarter ofthe total naturally evaporated or dissolved
and less than one quarter dispersed (either naturally or as a result of operations) into Gulf waters. The
. remaining amount, just over one quarter is either on the surface, in tar balls, on the shore, already
Continued monitoring and research: Our knowledge ofthe oil, dispersants, ecosystem impacts and
human impacts will continue to evolve. Federal agencies and many academic and independent scientists
are actively pursuing better understanding of the fate, transport and impact of the oil. The federal
government will continue to report activities, results and data to the public as soon as possible.
(www.restorethegulgov).
NOAA continues to track the movement ofthe oil still on the surface and in the water column. NOAA
distribution and impact of oil there. 001, NASA and NOAA continue to refine understanding of
amounts of remaining surface oil. NOAA responders are working with the Unified Command to
develop monitoring strategies for tar balls and near shore submerged oiL EPA continues to monitor
coastal air and water, with special attention to human health impacts. Numerous NOAA- and NSFfunded academic researchers are investigating rates of biodegradation, ecosystem and wildlife impacts.
<DOl monitoring and research on wildlife?)
ofthe BP wellhead, federal scientists remain extremely concerned about the impact ofthe spill to the
Comment [zS]: Can we say on a regular basis as

it becomes available?
Comment [rill Might be helpful to mention that

you have vessels in the Gulf doin!l._~:~~~~
Comment [jl0): Awaiting input from olher

I, agencies to round out this paragraph.
Comment [zl1]: Might be worth plugging

ERMA here to show how we are making info
available on the location of the oil. etc
Attachments
'~"-~---'--"-"-~""-""
"
003959
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.
003960
Deepwater HorizoDlBP Oil Budget:

Autbors
Stephen Hammon<;l, USGS, DOl
Credits
Steve Hale, Kent Morgan, Kevin Laurent, and Jerry McFaul (USGS) Technical advisors
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
A I Allan, SpiiTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
003971

o
o
o
o
10
o
35,818 tons
An uniabeied 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 1'+, 2WO,
Honion MC252 Gulf Incident 0:1 B~Jdget

by sbnstol@usgS.gov on 08[03/2010 OSi:43 AM tvlDT.
Report
See Hnd notes section of the report for reference rnatena!on reporl elements.
ApP!'cation operated by the U.s, Coast Guard and provided by the U.S, Geoiog!ca' Survey i;;
O~:eanic and Atmospheric Administration,
003972
Governm.ent Estimates - Through August 02 (Day 105)

Ir---~~----~~------~--------------~~-------------------'
1,500,000
1,250,000
1,000,000
750,000
500,000
250,000
~;;..~~:::::::::::::::~:;::::::::::~~~=====.====____==___. . _.~
aj
-
_::::::::=.,
...
.... _ ....
May-2010
Jun-2010
Jul-2010
Expected Value -

Report generated by sbristol@usgs.gov on 08103;2010 09:43 AM MOT.
See end notes section of the report for reference material on report e!ements.
Application operated by the US. Coast Guard and provided by the US \J"'\JiUU
Aug-20 10
Survey :n cooperation
003973

43,900
Dispersant Used
35,818 tons
- AI! ul1fabeled values in barrels. See end notes for assumptions,

-k Higher Flow Estimate is based on the government discharge estimate plus 10'':., uncertainiy .
" Maximum discharge ranged from 68,390 obi on April 22,2010 to 58.022 bbi on July 14,2010.
D(:epwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

Report gener8t8ci
sbnsto!@usgs.gov on 08!O3/2010 09:43 AM MDT.
See end notes section of the report for reference matenal on report elements.
f-\pplication operateci by tile U.s. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in
003974
Higher Flow Estimate

. Through August 02 (Day 105)
.
1,750,000 1
1,500,000
j.
1 ,2~0,000
1I
en
1,000,000
750.0001
500,000
250,001
oJ~==~======~~======~==~==~,~_.=_ _
-
l'v1ay-2010
Jun-2010
Expected Value -
Jul-2010
Aug-2010

Report S~E)!1erated by sbristol@usgs.gov on 08/03!2010 09:43 AM MDT.
SHe enc notes section of the report for reference material on report elements.
operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation
'Nit!l [l'f.': ,\.,j,:.
003975

Burned
Skimmed
nt Used
43,900
35,818 tons
, All unlabeled values jn barrels. See end notes for assumptions.
'. Lower Flow Estimate is based on the government discharge estimate minus 1(J'}:, uncerteinty .
.. , Maximum discharge ranged from 55,956 bb: on April 22, 2010 to 47,472 ob! on July 14.2010.
HOriZOIl
fI.r1C252 Gulf Incidenl Oil Budget
;)(;)nerated by stmstol@usgs.gov on 081.03/2010 09:43 AM MDT.

See end notes section of the report for reference materiai on report eiements.
Appiication operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S.
Oceanic and Atmospheric AdmlnistratiDn.
003976

1,200,000
1,100,000
1,000,000 1
900,000
(J)
800,000
(I)
:s...
:s...
('G
.c
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
_.
100,000
,",
May-2010
Jun-2010
Expected Value -
Jul-2010
Aug-2010
Ceef,JvVClter Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

Report generated by sbristol@usgs.gov on 08103/2010 0943 AM MOT,
See end notes section of the report for reference material on report eiel11cnts.
Application operated by the U,S. Coast Guard and provided by the U,S. Geological Survey in cooperation
Oce;mic and Atmospheric Administration.
\'."~;:
t"(, N.:'
003977
Reference Notes

The yolume of oil that each day is added to the volume of oil already on the surface is computed, taking

clicking on the labels in the table) for further information on the individual calculations and additional
reference material.
Discharged On July 31,2010, the U.S. scientific teams charged by National Incident Commander Thad Allen with
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

Previous versions of the Oil Budget Tool used a constant low and high flow estimate based on
. Report generated by sbristol@usgs.gov on 08/03/2010 09:43 AM MDT.
003978
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

RID and Top Hat are mechanical devices that British Petroleum (SP) has used to recover oil from the
Dispersed Naturally
_~hemical
dispersion multiplied by a factor of natural dispersion eff~ctiveness derive~ from a scientific
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
003979


Skirnmed
-The actual amount of skimmed oiLshould ultimately be based on actual measurement
Burned
cumulative totals.
Cherrlically Dispersed

Report generated by sbristol@usgs.gov on 08/03/201009:43 AM MDT.
003980
as estimate for successful chemical dispersant app1ication
Dispersant Used
Oil Remaining

Report generated by sbristol@usgs.gov on 08/03/2010 09:43 AM MDT.
004006
Page 10f2
Timothy Bagley .
From:
Sent:
To:
Steve Murawski; Jane Lubchenco
Subject: RE: text on monitoring and research for pie chart document
Thanks, Steve.
' "
~q
_,
"~
.. _".,,
_""N"
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'
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 effects of submerged oil. NSF research has focused on the
distribution and concentration of deep submerged oil and gas (in the fonn 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 midAugust.
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
(202) 482-3436
From: Mark Miller <mark.w.miller@noaa.qov>

Cc: Jennifer.Austin@noaa.qov <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>; William Conner
<William.Conner@noaa.gov>; Steve Murawski <Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov>; IVlarqaret.sprinq@noaa.gov
9127/2010
004007
Page 2 of2
<Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>; Kris Sarri (ksarri@doc.gov) <ksarri@doc.gov>

.
Sent: Sun Aug 0118:57:19 2010
1. Unless Bill has a strong desire I'll volunteer to coordinate getting short descriptions from the other
agencies of their monitoring and research (I sit next to USGS and DOl). In particular I understand we
want DOl, USGS, and DOE and the text is 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 to do justice to the diversity without having this become a huge laundry list. I've asked Bob
Perciasepe to send a few sentences on what EPA is doing. What is the best way to get comparable
information from the other relevant agencies? Marcia McNutt is out of touch for the week. Is Ann
Castle the next best person?
.
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 DOl monitoring and research on wildlife;
DOE?) ??
9127/2010
004008
Page 1 of2
Timothy Bagley
From:
Steve Murawski [Steve.Murawski@noaa.Qov]
Sent:
T6:
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 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 effects of submerged oil. NSF research has focused on the
distribution and concentration of deep submerged oil and gas (in the form of methane hydrates), .
impacts on dissolved oxygen at depth and the rate of bacterial composition. NSF is planning a
new research effort involving two ships to examine these aspects that is set to depart in midAugust.
Steve

Thanks, Markl Plz proceed w getting short descriptions as you indicated.
The text I drafted for NSF may suffice. Steve: do you think so? Plz add more if needed.
I think what is needed is a simple explanation of what dissolution and dispersion mean and
how they are different.
Cheers, .
Jane
Jane Lubchenco
Jane. Lubchenco@noaa.gov
(202) 482-3436

To: Jane Lubchenco <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.qov>
Cc: Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>; William Conner
<William.Conner@noaa.gov>; Steve Murawski <Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov>;
Margaret.spring@noaa.gov <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>i Kris Sarri (ksarri@doc.gov)
<ksarri@doc.gov>
Sent: Sun Aug 01 18:57:192010
9/27/2010
004009
Page 2 of2
1. Unless Bill has a strong desire I'll volunteer to coordinate getting short descriptions from
the other agencies of their monitoring and research (I sit next to USGS and DOl). In
particular I understand we want DOl, USGS, and DOE and the text is directed toward oil
and oil impact related work. Is that true?
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
 
<! --[if !supportLists]--> 1) <1 --[endifJ--> Here is the short text (below) I
started to capture in a single paragraph for the oil budget document which
agencies and other researchers are doing what by way of monitoring and
research. The trick is to do justice to the diversity without having this
become a huge laundry list. I've asked Bob Perciasepe to send a few
sentences on what EPA is doing. What is the best way to get comparable
information from the other relevant agencies? Marcia McNutt is out of
touch for the week. Is Ann Castle the next best person?
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?
2) 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 DOl monitoring and research on wildlife; DOE?) ??
<! --[if! supportAnnotations]-->
<! --[ endifJ-->
9/27/2010
004010
Page 1 of2
Timothy Bagley
From:
Sent: . Sunday, August 01, 2010 6:57 PM

To:
Jane Lubchenco
Cc:
Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov; William Conner; Steve Murawski; Margaret.spring@noaa.gov; Kris Sarri
(ksarri@doc.gov)
1. Unless Bill has a strong desire I'll volunteer to coordinate getting short descriptions from the
other agencies of their monitoring and research (I sit next to USGS and DOl). In particular I
understand we want DOl, USGS, and DOE and the text is directed toward oil and oil impact
related work. Is that true?
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
 
 1)  Here is the short text (below) I started
to capture in a single paragraph for the oil budget document which agencies
and other researchers are doing what by way of monitoring and research. The
trick is to do justice to the diversity without having this become a huge laundry
list. I've asked Bob Perciasepe to send a few sentences on what EPA is doing.
What is the best way to get comparable information from the other relevant
agencies? Marcia McNutt is out of touch for the week. Is Ann Castle the next
best person?
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?
2) <l--[endif]-->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-
9/27/2010
004011
Page 2 of2
and NSF-funded academic researchers are investigating rates of biodegradation, ecosystem

and wildlife impacts. (need DOl monitoring and research on wildlife; DOE?) ??


9/27/2010
004026
Page 1 of7
Timothy Bagley
From:
Perciasepe. Bob@epamail.epa.gov
Sent:
Sunday, August 01, 2010 5:06 PM
To:
Jane. Lubchenco@noaa.gov
Subject: Fw: Oil Budget - EPA Comments -
Jane, here is my last note to Steve and copied to Mark Miller. FYI
I will work on research write up. Short and sweet
Bob Perciasepe
(0) +1 202 564 4711
(c) +1 2023688193
--- Forwarded by Bob Perciasepe/DC/USEPAlUS on 08/0112010 05:03 PM-From:
Bob PerciasepelDCIUSEPAlUS
To:
Stephen E Hammond <sehammon@usgs.gov>
Cc:
"bililehr" <biILlenr@noaa.gov>, "mark w miller" <mark.w.miller@noaa.gov>. "Mark K Sogge" <mark_sogge@usgs.gov>. "Sky

Bristol" <sbristol@usgs.gov>, "sean k o'brien" <sean.k.obrien@uscg.gov>, Stephen E Hammond <sehammon@usgs.gov>
Date:
08/01/201004:17 PM
Thanks Steve:
I appreCiate the consideration. I know that Bill Lehr has spoken with AI Venosa at EPA as well.
I recognize the responsibility that NOAA has in this regard.
Bob Perciasepe
(0) +1 2025644711
(c) +1 2023688193
From:
To:
Cc:

Bob Perciasepe/DC/USEPAlUS@EPA
"billlehr" <bill.lehr@noaa.gov>. "mark w miller" <mark.w.miller@noaa.gov>, "Mark K Sogge" <mark_sogge@usgs.gov>, "Sky
Bristo'" <sbristol@usgs.gov>. "sean k o'brien" <sean.k.obrien@uscg.gov>. Stephen E Hammond <sehammon@usgs.gov>
Date:
08/01/201002:51 PM
Subject: Re: Oil Budget EPA Comments - follow up and a request
9/2712010
004027
Page 2 of7
Thanks Bob,
Your opbservations are noted. I'm sure this will be discussion topic in the NIC tomorrow. USGS has been asked
to collaborate on the development and implementation of the web-based tool. We're looking to .NOAA and USCG
for gudiance on exactly how to proceed. I'm happy to help facilitate the discussion so that we can get a product
that meets as many expectations as possible; The final decision belongs to our colleagues atr NOAA and USCG .
.Stephen E. Hammond
Reston, VA
703-e48-5033 (w)
(c)
703-648- 5792 (fax)
----Perciasepe.Bob@epamail.epa.gov wrote: - To: Stephen E Hammond <sehammon@usgs.gov>
From: Perciasepe.Bob@epamail.epa.gov
Date: 08/01/2010 01:59PM
cc: "billlehr" <bill.lehr@noaa.gov>, "mark w miller" <mark.w.miller@noaa.gov>, "Mark K Sogge"
<mark_sogge@usgs.gov>, "Sky Bristol" <sbristol@usgs.gov>, "sean k o'brien" <sean.k.o'brien@uscg.gov>,
OK
Here is a little more from Paul Anastas and AI Venosa.
Regarding Suggestion 1, EPA agrees that the ultimate message to the public will likely be that the oil was.
successfully dispersed with chemical dispersants, but until we know with some degree of certainty how much was
chemically dispersed vs. physically dispersed, we are hesitant to assign distinct percentages at this time. The
existing evidence shows that the droplet size from deep sea dispersant injection is very small, which is usually
consistent with chemical dispersion under normal circumstances of surface application. However, the deep sea
injection is unique to us all due to the extreme turbulence at the wellhead, and EPA feels the evidence is currently
not sufficient to enable us to distinguish accurately chemical from physical dispersion mechanisms.
Regarding Suggestion 3, EPA indeed feels strongly that biodegradation will turn out to be an extremely important
ultimate oil fate mechanism in the oil budget calculations. We would be happy to take the lead in writing the story
on this in the planned follow-on report, and a simple mention at this juncture seems appropriate.
Regarding Suggestion 2, EPA feels that USGS and NOAA have enough information from their models to enable
distinct descriptions of oil fate due to dispersion and evaporation/dissolution. We think it would be more accurate if
someone from USGS or NOAA write this section because the modeling effort was not conducted by EPA
scientists.
.
I recognize we have suggested additional explanation here on this matter (number 2). so I am going to have to
leave it in your judgement
Bob Perciasepe
9/27/2010
004028
Page 3 of7
(0}+12025644711
(c) +1 2023688193
From:

Bob Perciasepe/DCIUSEPAlUS@EPA
Cc:
"mark w miller" <mark.w.miller@noaa.gov>, "bililehr" <bill.lehr@noaa.gov>, "Sky Bristol" <sbristol@usgs.gov>, "Mark K Sogge"
<mark_sogge@usgs.gov>, "sean k o'brien" <sean.k.o'brien@uscg.gov>, Stephen E Hammond <sehammon@usgs.gov>
Date:
08/01/201008:32 AM
To:
Bob,
Thanks for the feedback, greatly appreciated Based on areprot I received, it sounds like we have another day or
two before the WH makes a press release on the subject. We may have a bit more time now to discuss how to
improve documentation.
Steve
Stephen E. Hammond
Reston, VA
703-648-5033 (w)
703-648- 5792 (fax)

---Perciasepe.Bob@epamail.epa.govwrote: ---To: "Stephen E Hammond" <sehammon@usgs.gov>
From: Perciasepe. Bob@epamail.epa.gov
Date: 07/31/2010 10:10PM
cc: "mark w miller" <mark.w.miller@noaa.gov>, "billlehr" <bill.lehr@noaa.gov>, "Sky Bristol"
<sbristol@usgs.gov>, "Mark K Sogge" <mark_sogge@usgs.gov>, "sean k o'brien" <sean.k.o'brien@uscg.gov>
Thanks Steve.
I will try to get some language but NOAA science folks like Steve Murawski know this better than I. The basic idea
is that this will be the first govemment input into the fate of the oil issue and biodegradation is a big part of that.
That should be pretty easy to discuss. I will think how I can help on the other item 2. I agree it is a tough one.
I think you are making a mistake on the separate estimates of dispersal but I have no additional arguments other
than it is not verifiable and we will be trying to explain it for the rest of our time on this. I will take it up with white
house.
Bob Perciasepe
(0)2025644711
(c) 202 368 8193
9/27/2010
004029
Page4of7
From: Stephen E Hammond [sehammon@usgs.gov}

Sent: 07/31/2010 07:53 PM AST
To: Bob Perciasepe
Cc: mark.w.miller@noaa.gov; bilLlehr@noaa.gov; Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>; Mark K Sogge
<mark_sogge@usgs.gov>; sean.k.o'brien@uscg.gov; Stephen E Hammond <sehammon@usgs.gov>
Subject: Fw: Oil Budget - EPA Comments - follow up and a request
Hi Bob,
I'm with USGS and serve asa member of the Interagency Solutions Group as a liaison between the FRTG and
the the NIC. USGS spent some time this afternoon with NOAA and USCG discussing the three suggestions you
made below in preparation to update and modify the oil budget tool that has been developed. I'll give you a quick
update on the discussion of suggestion 1 & 3, then ask you to provide some additional feedback on suggestion 2.
Suggestion 1 - combine natural and chemical-iRto one catgory of dispersed oil on charts and in narrative.
Decision - Based on how NOAA is developing a commmunication product with the WH, the dispersion types
(Natural & Chemical) will not be combined. 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. They indicated that they tried to make this
explanation as robust as possible. We believe that a second document will be prepared in the near future that
addresses biodegradation as the primary focus. It 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. We'd like to
ask you to provide a short write-up that we can consider for thsi explanation in the oil budget tool.
We are working to get tell toll updated by this evening. Any feedback you can offer quickly is greatly appreciated.
Steve
Stephen E. Hammond
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/USGSIDOI
Date: 07/31/2010 04:19PM
Mark
----- Forwarded by Mark K Sogge/DO/USGS/DOI on 07/31/2010 03:19 PM ----From:
9/2712010
004033
Page 1 of7
Timothy Bagley
From:
Mark Miller [mark,w,miller@noaa.govl
Sent:
Sunday. August 01.20105:15 PM
To:
Jane lubchenco
Cc:
Sam. Kristen; Austin. Jennifer; Conner, William; Spring. Margaret
Su~ject:
Dr. Lubchenco,
I had a chance to talk with the USGS team lead and he said that they hope to have the 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%, and -10%.
I think that simplifies our issue quite well.
Mark

Yes.
-----Original Message----From: Sarri, Kristen (mailtC':KSarri@d()c~aC'v]
To: Lubchenco, Jane; Austin, Jennifer
Subject: RE: Fw: Oil Budget Tool Update Complete - Draft Final with Repor
Do we still want to do 3:30 pm phone call to discuss internally?
Sent: Sunday, August

To: Austin, Jennifer; Sarri, Kristen
Subject: RE: Fw: Oil Budget Tool Update Complete
Draft Final with Repor
Jen - r have some additional edits, but I've made them on the previous dr
Jane
-----Original Message----From: Jennifer Austin
Sent: Sunday, August
To: Sarri, Kristen
Subject: Re: Fw: Oil Budget Tool Update Complete - Draft Final with Repor
Hi Team,
The report that it draws from is also attached (same one Mark sent this m

Jane and Bill One outstanding issue and that is with EPA re: dispersant numbers.
Jane, how did you want to handle with EPA?
* From*: william. conner <{I>:illtarn. Cejnner@nt"..aa ge,'!;"

#
'To': Sarri, Kristen

Cc: Miller, Mark; Lubchenco, Jane; Spring, Margaret; Austin,
Jennifer
'Sent': Sun Aug 01 12:19:45 2010
Subject: Re:, Fw: Oil Budget Tool Update Complete - Draft Final wit
Report
Kris I ~poke with Mark to make sure that I got my head straight on these
questions.
The short answer is that we used the 4.9M bbl total flow from the
seabed PLUS the error estimate of 10%, giving US a total flow of 5.4
bbls.
9/27/2010
004101
Reference Notes

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

The Cumulative Disposition of Oil "Barrel G~aph" provides a representation of the total 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'
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
Oeepwater Horizon incident based on the best available data. The FRTG estimated that the discharge
rates ranged from 62,000 bbl/day at the start of the incident to 53,000 bbl/day when the well was
capped on July 14 with an uncertainty factor of 10%. The uncertainty factor in the best government
estimate was used to create a Higher Flow Estimate and a Lower Flow Estimate report in the Oil Budget
Tool.
the FRTG estimate begins on April 22, 2010. In general, the discharge rate trended down over time due
- to decreasing pressure observed after the well was capped. Severing the riser on June 4 (Day 45),
resulted in an estimate of discharge increase of approximately 4%.

Previous versions of the 011 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.mlller@noaa.gov on 07/31/2010 08:38 PM MDT.
004102
Dispersant Used
Oil Remaining

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07(31/201008:38 PM MDT.
004103

Higher Flow Estimate - Through July 30 (Day 102)
Burned
Skimmed
Dispersant Used
* All units in barrels. See end notes for assumptions .
.. Higher Flow Estimate is based on the government discharge estimate pius 10"(0 uncertainty
Maximum discharge ranged from 68.390 bblon April 22, 2010 to 58.022 bbl on July 14.2010.
Iiniand Recovery
Deepwatf)r Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

Report generated by mark.w.mliler@noaa.gov 011 07i31!201 00838 PM MDT.
?ppiication operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
35,818 tons
004104

ir---------~-------------------------------------------------,
1,750,000
1,500,0001.
.;
1,250,000
1,000,000 i
!
co
I
s..
s..
.c
750,000 ~
500,000
J!
250,000 i
=_
__
o i ~~_=======_=="=-_==_=__=
___=_.:::::.__===_=_===___=__=.:::::
..._=-_=
__=__===__ .=___=___
J
__
May-2010
-
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
_=. _=...=
. . =.-:--:-----.J
=_.=.__=
.
Jul-2010
Aug-2C
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oli Budget

~;epOi't generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/31/2010 08:38 PM MDT.
See end notes section of the report for reference matenal on report elements.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.s. Geologica: Survey in cooperation with
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administratioll.
\ui
004105

Lower Flow Estimate Through July 30 (Day 102)
, An units in barrels. See end notes for assumptions.

*. Lower Flow Estimate is based on the government discharge estimate minus 10':4, uncertainty.
Maximum discharge ranged from 55.956 bbl on April 22. 2010 to 47A72 bbl on July 14.2010.
Inland Recovery
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident 0:1 Budget

by rnark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/31/2010 0838 PM MDT
RepOii
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in
35.818 tons
004106
Lower Flow Estimate - Through July 30 (Day 102)

1,400,0001
1,300,000 i
1,200,000 i
1,100,0001
1 ,000,000
900,0001
800,000
iI
700,0001
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
-1
200,0001
100,0001
o ! _ .___.__--,---_.
May-2010
-
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Jul-2010
Aug-2C
Deepwaler HOrizon fv1C252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

~)enerated
by mark.w.milier@n038.gov on 07/31/20100838 PM MOT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geolo~J:cal Survey in cooper3t'~m hi\h
004107
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.

calculation' of remaining oil. Cumulative totals are a sum of all daily values entered.
Dispersed Naturally
-Droplets smaller than 100 micron are considered dispersed'
-Subsurface natural dispersion based upon plume turbulent energy disSipation

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/31/201008:38 PM MDT.
004108


Skimmed
Skimmed oil is a rough calculation based on the daily reported amount of 'oily water multiplied by a
Burned
cumulative totals.
Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov.on 07/31/2010 08:38 PM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the I''-lational
004157

Dispersed Naturally
Burned
Skimmed
o
** Higher Flow Estimate is based on the government discharge estimate plus 10% uncel1ainty.
Maximum discharge ranged from 68.390 bbl on April 22, 2010 to 58.022 bbl on July 14.2010.
Inland Recovery
35,818 tons

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov,on 07/31/2010 08:38 PM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in
coope~8t;on \yU~
the
N~:,t;();;.:l;
004158

I
1,750,0001
I
1,500,0001
1,250,000
t/)
Q)
1,000,000
750,000
j
i
I
500,0001
250,0001
. ._
Oj~==~========================~========~~_=_~_~
May-2010
-
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Jul-2010
Aug-2C

Report generated by mark.w.mil!er@noaa.gov on 07!31/2010 08:38 PM MDT.
Application operated by ihe U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation wth
li~<~
i\.:,h,,,:
004159

* All units in barre!s. 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 bb! on July 14.2010.
Inland Recovery

Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geoiogicai Survey in cooperation w:ti1lhc Natic;,~;::
004160

1,400,0001
1,300,000
1,200,000 ,
1,100,000
1,000,000
900,000
I
800,0001
700,0001
I
600,0001
500,0001
400,000
300,0001
200,000 !
100,000~j
o J~====;:::============:::;:::=:============:;:======-======~
May-2010
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Jul-2010
Aug-2C
Deepwa[er Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

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 \viti: i.he )\2\<;r:"
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
004161
Reference Notes

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

reference material.
Discharged
On July 31, 2010, the Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG) released new government estimates for the
Deepwater Horizon incident based on the best available data. The FRTG estimated that the discharge
rates ranged from 62,000 bbl/day at the start of the incident to 53,000 bbl/day when the well was.
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),

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/31/2010 08:38 PM MDT.
004162
time.

spill 'flow. Values for the amount recovered by the vessels Helix Producer, Discoverer Enterprise and
Dispersed Naturally
documentation. The foltowing assumptions and factors apply:
by removirig the following from the total discharge:
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Ojl Budget

.
004163


. -Calculated amount of subsurface dispersion
Skimmed
Burned
cumulative totals.
004164
Dispersant Used
Oil Remaining
Volume of oil remaining after other known volume totals are removed
fro~
the total discharged.
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf fncident Oil Budget

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov.on 07/31/2010 08:38 PM MDT.
004165

Burned
Skimmed
* 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.
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oi! Budget

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 08i01!2010 04:23 AM MDT.
See end notes section of tile report for reference materia! on report e:ernents.
Application operated by Hie U.S. Coast Guard and provided by tile U.S. Geological Survey :n
Ocean;c and Atmospheric Administration.
004166
1,750,000
1,500,000
1,250,000
f/)
(1)
10..
10..
1,000,000
ns
..c
750,000
500,000
250,000
May-2010
-
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Jul-2010
Aug-2C

Aopiication operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with
lhC
,v
004167

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

** Lower Flow Estimate is based on the government discharge estimate minus 10% uncertainty.

Report generated by mark.w.miiler@noaa.gov on 08/01/2010 04:23 AM IVIDT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation
Oceanic and Atrnosphenc Administration.
\.V;;!1
the
004168
Lower Flow Estimate .. Through July 30 (Day 102)
Expected Value -Upper/Lower Confidence Bounds

Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation \;v:th ;:he r<a!.;
004169
Reference Notes

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

.The Cumulative Disposition of Oil "Barrel Graph" provides a representation of the total amou.nt of oil
released over time based on low and high dts-charge estimates, the relative amounts of oil recovered or.
reference material.
Discharged
On July 31, 2010, the Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG) released new government estimates for the
De~pwater
Horizon incident based on the best available data. The FRTG estimated that the discharge
rates ranged from 62,000 bbl/day at the start of the incident to 53,000 bbl/day when the well was
Tool.
. to decreasing pressure observed after the well was capped. Severing the riser on June 4 (Day 45),

estimations ffom the FRTG Plume Team PIV measurements. This method was chosen at the time as
004170
barrel$ per day. This improved estimate was based on more and better data that was available after the
riser cut -- data which helped increase the sci,entific confidence in the accuracy of the estimate at that
time.

Dispersed Naturally

004171
current .observations conducted on the Deepwater Horizon incident.

Skimmed
Burned
cumulative totals.
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Bupget
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation witll the National
004172
Dispersant Used
Oil Remaining

004173
Page 1 ofS
Timothy Bagley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Sunday, August 01,20106:44 AM
Jane Lubchenco; Margaret Spring; William Conner; Jennifer Austin; Kristen Sarri (doc) (KSarri@doc.gov); Scott
Smullen; Parita Shah (Pshah@doc.gov); Kevin Griffis (kgriffis@doc.gov); 'Sgilson@doc.gov'
Oil Budget Tool Update Complete - Draft Final with Report
Attachments: Oil Budget description 7.31 v 11pm.docx; DeepwaterHorizonOilBucjget20100730.pdf
Dr. Lubchenco,
USGS completed the update late last night. Here is a draft final from Jen and I. The only thing
missing from the Where is the Oil paper is the citation for the flow rate estimates.
Mark
Mark Miller wrote:

From: Perciasepe.Bob@epamail.epa.gov
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 22: 10:55 -0400
To: Stephen E Hammond <sehammon@usgs.gOv>
To: Stephen E Hammond <sehammon@usgs.gov> .
CC: mark w miller <Mark.W.Mi1Ier@noaa.gov>, billiehr <BiIl.Lehr@noaa.gov>, Sky Bri:
<sbristol@usgs.gov>, Mark K Sogge <mark sogge@usgs.gov>, sean k o'brien
<sean.k.o'brien@uscg.gov>
Thanks Steve.
I will try to get some language but NOAA science folks like Steve Murawski know tltis better than I.
The basic idea is that this will be the first government input into the fate of the oil issue and
biodegradation is a big part of that. That should be pretty easy to discuss. I will think how I can help
on the other item 2. I agree it is a tough one.
I think you are making a mistake on the separate estimates of dispersal but I have no additional
arguments other than it is not verifiable and we will be trying to explain it for the rest of our time on
this. I wi II take it up with white house.
Bob Perciasepe
(0)202564 4711
(c) 202 368 8193
From: Stephen E Hammond [sehammon((('lusgs.gov]

Sent: 07/3112010 07:53 PM AST
To: Bob Perciasepe
Cc: mark.w.miller'ii:noaa.gov; bill.lehr(i4noaa.gov; Sky Bristol <sbristo!rci;usgs.gOv>; Mark K
Sogge <mark soggeta1usgs.gov>; sean.k.o'brien(i/luscg.gov; Stephen E Hammond
<sehammon!aJ,tlsgs.gov>
Subject: Fw: Oil Budget EPA Comments follow up and a request
Hi Bob,
9/27/2010
004174
Page 20f5
I'm with USGS and serve as a member of the Interagency Solutions Group as a liaison between the
FRTG and the the NIC. USGS spent some time this afternoon with NOAA and USCG discussing the
three suggestions you made below in preparation to update and modify the oil budget tool that has
been developed. I'll give you a quick update on the discussion of suggestion 1 & 3, then ask you
to 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, the
dispersion types (Natural & Chemical) will not be combined. 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. They indicated that they tried
to make this explanation as robust as possible. We believe that a second document will be prepared
in the near future that addresses biodegradation as the primary focus. It 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. We'd like to ask you to provide a short write-up that we can consider for thsi explanation
in the oil budget tool.
We are working to get tell toll updated by this evening. Any feedback you can offer quickly is greatly
appreciated.
Steve
Stephen E. Hammond
Reston, VA
703-648-5033 (w)
(c)
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
Date: 07/31/201004: 19PM
Mark
----- Forwarded by Mark K Sogge/DO/USGS/DOI on 07/31/2010 03: 19 PM -----
From:
To:
Sky BristoIjRGIO/USGS/DOI@USGS
Date:
07/31/201003: 16 PM
Subject:Fw: Oil Budget - EPA Comments
9/27/2010
004184

* All un!abeled values in barrels. See end notes for assumptions.

*' Higher Flow Estimate is based on the government discharge estimate plus 10% uncertainty.
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf incidenl Oil Budget

Report generated by mark.w,milier@noaa,gov on 08/01/2010 04:23 AM MDT,
See end notes section of the report for reference m~teria! on report elements,
Application operated by the U,S, Coast Guard and provided by the U,S. Geological Survey in cooperatlon with ih;
004185
Higher Flow Estimate - -rhrough July 30 (Day 102)

1,750,000
1,500,000
1,250,000
VI
......cu
I
1,000,000
.Q
750,000
500,000
250,000
May-2010
-
Expected Value -
Jun-201
Jul-201
Aug-2C

Report generated by mark,w.miller@noaa.gov on 08/01/2010 04:23 AM MDT.
Application operated by the U,S, Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geologica! Survey in cooperation w;lh the N.';tior:;;
004186

Burned
Skimmed

AI! unlabeled values in barrels. See end notes for assumptions.
*. Lower Flow Estimate is based on the government discharge estimate minus 10% uncertainty.
Deepwaier Horizon MC252 Gu!f Incident Oii Budget

Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by tl,e U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the '\at!(Jr1i"
004187

1,400,000
1,300,000
1,200,000
1,100,000
1,000,0001
900,000
tJ)
Q)
800,000
"'"'-
700,000
.c
600,000
ca
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
I
--------,.".
..l
May-2010
-
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Upp~r/Lower
Jul-2010
Aug-2C
Confidence Bounds

Hepor! generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 08/01/2010 04:23 AM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S, Geological Survey in cooperation Wi t:1 :he N(31iO,:c'i
004188
Reference Notes

into account the effective discharge (total discharge minus volume col/ected via Top Hat), and the

reference material.
Discharged
Qeepwater 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 bbllday when the well was
Tool.
to decreasing pressure observed after the well was capped. Severing the riser on June 4 (Day 45),

004189
,
time.

spill flow. Values for the amount recovered by the vessels Helix Producer, Discov~rer Enterprise and
Dispersed Naturally

004190


Skimmed
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
004191
Dispersant Used
Oil Remaining
Volume of oil remaining after otner known volume totals are removed from the total discharged.

Report generated by mark.w.miUer@noaa.gov on 08/01/2010 04:23 AM MDT.
004192
Timothy Bagley
Subject:

Saturday, July 31,201010:15 PM
Jane Lubchenco; Margaret Spring; William Conner; Jennifer Austin; Kristen Sarri (doc)
(KSarri@doc.gov); Scott Smullen; Parita Shah (Pshah@doc.gov); Kevin Griffis
(kgriffis@doc.gov); 'Sgilson@doc.gov'
[Fwd: Re: Oil Budget - EPA Comments - follow up and a request]
Attachments:
Re Oil Budget - EPA Comments - follow up and a request.eml
From:
Sent:
To:
~e
Oil Budget EPA

Comments ..
EPA's response to the teams decisions.
Mark
004193
Timothy Bagley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
.Anastas. Paul@epamail.epa.gov
Jane Lubchenco; mcnutt@usga.gov
Jane and Marcia :

I am I correct in assuming the BobPerciasepe's comments for EPA have been accepted?
Best
Paul
Original Message ----From: Jane Lubchenco [Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov]
Sent: 07/30/2010 06:26 PM AST
To: Paul Anastas; Bob Perciasepe
Cc:
; Marcia K McNutt <mcnutt@usgs.gov>; "jacquee.wright@dhs.gov"
<'jacquee.wright@dhs.g6v'>;
n
"
>;
; "David Hayes@ios.doi.gov" <David Hayes@ios.doi.gov>
Subject: oil budget calculations
-
Hi, Paul,
to the public on where the oil went.
Please note that EPA has already been at the table
of USGS) is working to finalize a flow rate; I'm told they expect to be through tomorro~
afternoon.
developed to use internally to understand what fraction of the oil is where. [EPA (Albert
budget calculator.]
It will be finalized
as soon as the flow rate is ready.
Information about how calculations were done is described briefly in the documents.
others.
Jane
004199
From: Jennifer Austin [Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov]

To: Margaret Spring
Cc: Mark Miller: William Conner; Scott Smullen; Jane Lubchenco;
Shannon Gilson (SGilson@doc.gov); Kevin Griffis (kgriffis@doc.gov);
Kristen Sarri (doc) (KSarri@doc.gov); Parita Shah (Pshah@doc.gov)
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Fw: Oil budget tool update ~ coordination]
Will send the latest document shortly.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
. >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Am on phone with Jane now - can we have a call with Jane, Mark, Jen,
try to'work on better representing uncertainty.
Mark -
- can we do 2 pm?
From: Margaret Spring [margaret.spring@noaa.gov]

Cc: Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Jane Lubchenco;
(HQ)
Sogge
Adm Jackson said: (1) she was concerned about the level of
certainty implied in the
and cylinder charts (adding to 100%)
non-pie chart?);
him as a reviewer (this one you should probably check with Alan) :
Note we will need to vet the product with EPA HQ (Perciasepe) to
From: Mark Miller [mark.w.miller@noaa.gov]

To: Margaret Spring
Shannon Gilson (SGilson@doc.gov); Kevin Griffis (
ffis@doc.gov);
8
004200
> Kristen Sarri (doc) (KSarri@doc.gov); Parita Shah (Pshah@doc.gov)
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Fw: Oil budget tool update - coordination]
> .
> Margaret,
>
> Bill and I have talked several times this morning so I feel that we
> have captured all his thoughts (his and Al Venosa from EPA).
He and
> Al talked multiple times last night going over the methodology (AI
> apparently was giving a presentation this AM to someone). Bill sent
> me an email at midnight PDT and then called my at 3:00 AM PDT. 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
. Bill Lehr
> is contacting Dr. Possolo to discuss and address this. Bill is on
> his way to the Sand Point
in order to set up for the FRTG
> meeting
in approximately an hour.
>
> Mark
>
>
> Margaret Spring wrote:
>
>
Circling in shannon, paritaf kevin, kris

To: Mark Miller: Jennifer Austin: Margaret Spring: William Conner:
Scott Smullen
Cc: Jane Lubchenco
Mark,
Jennifer
between epa (paul anastas) and noaa (bill lehr) last night related
to the dispersed oil and pie charts.
reworked at your end?

Are you in that loop and is that document

To: Jennifer Austin: Margaret Spring: William Conner; Scott. Smullen
Mark
Jennifer Austin
202-302-9047
9
004201
>
www.noaa.gov
www.climate.gov
10
004202
Timothy Bagley
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Thanks Mark.
Sarri, Kristen [KSarri@doc.gov]

Miller, Mark; Austin, Jennifer
Spring, Margaret; Conner, William; Smullen, Scott; Lubchenco, Jane; Gilson, Shannon; Griffis,
Kevin; Shah, Parita
RE: [Fwd: Fw: Oil budget tool update - coordination]
I am on standby for when we get the final document and will send forward.
I have 2 edits to suggest to document.

Best Estimates vs. "versus"?
First, are we better to say Direct Measures AND
Second, and this is a picky junior high english teacher edit, when we use % in the text of
a sentence, can we change to "percent"?
From: Mark Miller [Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov]
To: Austin, Jennifer
Cc: Spring, Margaret; Conner, William: Smullen, Scott; Lubchenco, Jane; Gilson, Shannon:
Griffis, Kevin; Sarri, Kristen: Shah, Parita
Dr. Lubchenco,
Here is the latest copy (prior to final numbers from the Oil Budget tool). As soon as
provide the okay my understanding is that Kris will forward to Bob Perciasepe and
McNutt. Then as soon as the Oil Budget tool team completes their update then Jen and I
will update our document and send it on to continue with the clearance process.
Mark
>
, attached is the latest document.
>
>
>
From: Jennifer Austin [Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov]

To:
Spring
Cc: Mark Miller; William Conner: Scott Smullen: Jane Lubchenco:
Shannon Gilson (SGilson@doc.gov): Kevin Griffis (kgriffis@doc.goV)i
Kristen Sarri (doc) (KSarri@doc.gov): Parita Shah (Pshah@doc.gov)
> Am on'
with Jane now -' can we have a call with Jane, Mark,
> Bill Conner on this? 2 pm?
Jen,
>
>
>
>
>
>
try to work on better representing
11
004203
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Mark -
can we do 2 pm?
~----~----~~~~--~------~~--~--=-

To: Mark Miller: Margaret Spring
Cc: Jennifer Austin; William Conner: Scott Smullen: Jane Lubchenco;
(HQ)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Sogge
Adm Jackson said: (1) she was concerned about the level of
implied in the pie and cylinder charts (adding to 100%)
instead bar chart with ranges for each bar instead
's discuss what to make of this - are we going with a
non-pie chart?);


To:
Spring
Cc: Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen: Jane Lubchenco;
Shannon Gilson (SGilson@doc.gov): Kevin Griffis (
.gov);
have captured all his thoughts (his and Al Venosa from EPA). He and
Al talked mult
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
presently
to be done approximately 2:00 PM EDT. We will
also
the Oil Budget Report which is included as an appendix.
communication with the USGS Oil
team. The one
question is the appropriate level of QA/QC from NIST (Dr.
Possolo). NIST performed the statistical analysis which provides the
. Bill Lehr
Upper and Lower Confidence lines in the Oil Budget
Dr. Possolo to discuss and address this. Bill is on
is
in approximately an hour.
meeting
12
004204
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Mark
Circling in shannon, parita, kevin, kris Also, what is timeline for incorporating those changes?
From: Margaret Spring
To: Mark Miller; Jennifer Austin; Margaret Spring; William Conner;
Scott Smullen
Cc: Jane Lubchenco
ect: RE: [Fwd: Fw: Oil budget tool update - coordination]
Mark,
Jennifer-

To: Jennifer Austin: Margaret Spring; William Conner; Scott Smullen
So it looks like we should have a new Oil Budget tool
Mark
Jennifer Austin
202-302-9047
www.noaa.gov
www.climate.gov
->;>
>
13
and
004205
Timothy Bagley
From:
Subject:

Jennifer Austin
Margaret Spring; 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]
Attachments:
Oil" Budget description 7.31 v 4pm.docx
Sent:
To:
Cc:
~.
Oil Budget
jescription 7.31 v ..
Dr. Lubchenco,
Here is the latest copy (prior to final numbers from the Oil Budget tool). As soon as you
provide the okay my understanding is that Kris will forward to Bob Perciasepe and Marcia
McNutt. Then as soon as the Oil Budget tool team completes their update then Jen and I
will update our document and send it on to continue with the clearance process.
Mark
> Apologies, attached is the latest document.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
From: J~nnifer Austin [Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov]

Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2010 1:40 PM .
To: Margaret Spring
Cc: Mark Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Jane Lubchenco;
Spring wrote:
Am on phone with Jane now - can we have a call with Jane, Mark, Jen,
to work on better representing uncertainty.
the same page, go back to EPA with a revis
and how we tried to
Mark
>
14
- can we do 2 pm?
004206
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Shannon Gilson (SGilson@doc.gov);Kevin Griffis (kgriffis@doc.gov):
Subject: RE: (Fwd: Fw: Oil budget tool update - coordination]
Mark
>>> (HQ)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
want to make sure you have these ocmments from USGS and EPA
dispersed oil is handled, pls 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 100%)
and
instead bar chart with
for each bar instead
-(Jane, let's discuss what to make of
- are we going with a
non-pie chart?);
Note we will need to vet the product with EPA HQ
(Perciase~e)
to

To:
Spring
Cc: Jennifer Austin; William Conner: Scott Smullen; Jane Lubchenco;
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Fw: Oil budget tool update
coordination]
Bill and I have talked several times this

so I feel that we
have
all his thoughts (his and Al Venosa from EPA).
He and
Al talked multiple times last night going over the methodology (AI
me an email at midnight PDT and then called my at 3:00 AM PDT. I
presently
to be done approximately 2:00 PM EDT. We will
also update the Oil Budget Report which is included as an appendix.
Upper and Lower Confidence lines in the Oil Budget Report. Bill Lehr
is contacting Dr. Possolo to discuss and address this. Bill is on
Mark
Spring wrote:
Ci
in shannon, parita, kevin, kris 15
004207

Scott Smullen
Cc: Jane Lubchenco
Mark,
Jennifer-

To: Jennifer Austin; Margaret Spring; William Conner; Scott Smullen
Mark
Jennifer Austin
>
202-302-9047
www.noaa.gov
www.climate.gov
16
004208
Timothy Bagley
From:
Sent:
Subject:

Saturday, July 31, 2010 3:28 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]
Attachments:
Re Oil budget tool update - coordination.eml
To:
~./
Re Oil budget tool

update - co...
Bill Lehr sent this from the FRTG meeting. I wiil see if USGS can give us a
time weighted average flowrate with Report.
Mark
17
004209
Timothy Bagley
From:
Sent:
Subject:

Margaret Spring
Mark Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Jane Lubchenco; Shannon Gilson
Attachments:
Oil Budget description 7.31 v 2pm.docx
To:
Cc:
Oil Budget
jescription 7.31 v .

> If anyone else needs to be on the call, we have a different call in number than I sent
outlet me know.
>
>
> From: Jennifer Austin [Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov]
> Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2010 1:40 PM
> To: Margaret Spring
> Cc: Mark Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Jane Lubchenco;
> Shannon Gilson (SGilson@doc.gov); Kevin Griffis (kgriffis@doc.gov);
> Kristen Sarri (doc) (KSarri@doc.gov); Parita Shah tPshah@doc.gov)
>
~ I can be on at 2 pm.
>
>
Am on phone with Jane now - can we have a call with Jane, Mark, Jen, Bill Conner on
this? 2 pm?
She wants to understand what was agreed to at EPA last night. And work out why this is
a better approach than the bar chart idea, but try to work on better representing
uncertainty.
Then we need to loop in Marcia, then Heather, and then if we are on the same page, go
back to. EPA with a revision and how we tried to work on their concerns.
Jane is available between now (lpm) and 5 EST - can we do 2 pm?
Mark - do we have a call-in we can use?

(HQ)
18
004210
Marcia.McNutt said that whatever EPA and NOAA work out on how
Sogge
Adm Jackson said : (1) she was concerned about the level of certainty
implied in the pie and cylinder charts (adding to 100%) and suggests
instead bar chart with ranges for each bar instead -(Jane, let's
discuss what to make of this - are we going with a non-pie chart?);
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?

To: Margaret Spring
Shannon Gilson (SGilson@doc.goV)i Kevin Griffis (kgriffis@doc.gov);
Margaret,
Al talked multiple times last night going over the methodology
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.
is contacting Dr. Possolo to discuss and address this. Bill is on his
way to the Sand Point
in order to set up for the FRTG
Mark
>Circling in shannon,
, kevin, kris >
> Also, what is timeline for
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,
Jennifer19
004211
>
> there were conversations about changes to the oil budget document between epa (paul
anastas) and noaa (bill lehr) last night related to the dispersed oil and pie charts ..
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Mark
>
>
> Jennifer Austin
>
>
>
>
>
202-302-9047
www.noaa.gov
www.climate.gov
Jennifer Austin
202-302-9047
www.noaa.gov
www.climate.gov
20
004212
Timothy Bag ley
From:
Sent:

Jennifer Austin; Margaret Spring
To:
Cc:
Subject:
If anyone else needs to be on the call, we have a different call in number than I sent
outlet me know.
From: Jennifer Austin [Jenniier.Austin@noaa.gov]
To: Margaret Spring
Cc: Mark Miller: William Conner; Scott Smullen; Jane Lubchenco; Shannon Gilson
(SGilson@doc.gov);Kevin Griffis (kgriffis@doc.gov); Kristen Sarri (doc) (KSarri@doc.gov);
Marg~ret
Spring wrote:
> Am on phone with Jane now - can we have a call with Jane, Mark, Jen, Bill Conner on
this? 2 pm?
>
> She wants to understand what was agreed to at EPA last night. And work out why this is a
better approach than the bar chart idea, but try to work on better representing
uncertainty.
>
> Then we need to loop in Marcia, then Heather, and then if we are on the same page, go
back to EPA with a revision and how we tried to work on their concerns.
>
> Jane is available between now (1pm) and 5 EST - can we do 2 pm?
>
> Mark - do we have a call-in we can use?
>
>
> From: Margaret Spring [margaret.spring@noaa.gov]
> To: Mark Miller; Margaret Spring
> Cc: Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Jane Lubchenco;

> Subject: RE: . [Fwd: Fw: Oil budget tool update - coordination]
>
> Mark - want to make sure you have these ocmments from USGS and EPA
> (HQ)
>
> Marcia McNutt said that whatever EPA and NOAA work out on how
> dispersed oil is handled, pIs communicate to Sky Bristol and Mark
> Sogge
>
> Adm Jackson said : (1) she was concerned about the level of certainty
> implied in the pie and cylinder charts (adding to 100%) and suggests
> instead bar chart with ranges for each bar instead -(Jane, let's
> discuss what to make of this - are we
with a non-pie chart?);
>
>
(2) she said Al Venosa did not revierw the calculations for the oil budget calculator
till last
so she is concerned about listing him as a reviewer (this one you should
>
21
004213
> Note we will need to vet the product 'with EPA HQ (Perciasepe) to clear. When can we send
it over?
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Mark Miller [mark.w.miller@noaa.gov]
> To:
> Cc: Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Jane Lubchencoi
> Shannon Gilson (SGilson@doc.goV)i Kevin Griffis (kgriffis@doc.gov);
>
> Margaret,
>
> have captured all his tnoughts (his and Al Venosa from EPA).
He and
> 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
communication with the USGS Oil Budget team. The one
>Possolo). NIST performed the statistical analysis which provides the
> Upper and Lower Confidence lines in the' Oil Budget Report. Bill Lehr
> is contacting Dr. Possolo to discuss and address this. Bill is on his
> way to the Sand Point facility in order to set up for the FRTG meeting
> starting in approximately an hour.
>
> Mark
>
>
>
Circling in shannon, parita, kevin, kris

Scott Smullen
Cc: Jane Lubchenco
Mark,
Jennifer-
there were conversations about changes to the oil budget document between epa (paul
anastas) and noaa (bill lehr) last night related to the dispersed oil and pie charts.
.gov]
11:00 PM
So it looks like we should have a new Oil Budget tool

numbers for the
chart tomorrow afternoon.
22
and
004214
Mark
Jennifer Austin
202-302-9047
www.noaa.gov
www.climate.gov
23
004218
Timothy Bagley
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Jennifer Austin
Mark Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Jane Lubchenco; Sh nnon Gilson
Pants Shah(Pshah@doc.gov)
here is a call in number

You can use this number
From: Jennifer Austin [Jennifer.Austin@noaa.govj

Sent: Saturday,
31, 2010 1:40 PM
To: Margaret
Cc: Mark Miller;
Conner; Scott Smullen; Jane Lubchenco; Shannon Gilson
(SGilson@doc.gov); Keyin Griffis (kgriffis@doc.govl; Kristen Sarri (doc) (KSarri@doc.gov);

this? 2 pm?
>
better approach than the bar chart idea, but try to work on better
uncertainty.
>
>
> Jane is available between now (lpm) and 5 EST - can we do 2 pm?
>
> Mark - do we have a call-in we can use?
>'
>
> To: Mark Miller; Margaret Spring .
> Shannon Gilson (SGilson@doc.goV)i Kevin Griffis (
ffis@doc.gov);
> Subject: RE: [Fwd: Fw: Oil budget tool update >
>
>
>
(HQ)
> Sogge
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Adm Jackson said: (1) she was concerned about the level of certainty
instead bar chart with ranges for each bar instead
(Jane, let's
discuss what to make of this - ~re we going with a
chart?) ;
27
004219
>
> Note we will need to vet the product 'with EPA HQ (Perciasepe) to clear. When can we send
it over?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
From: Mark Miller [mark.w.miller@noaa.gov)

To: Margaret Spring
Cc: Jennifer Austin; William Conner: Scott Smullen; Jane Lubchenco;
> Shannon Gilson (SGilson@doc.gov): Kevin Griffis (kgriffis@doc.gov):
> Subject~ Re: [Fwd: Fw: Oil budget tool update - coordination)
>
> Margaret,
>
He and
> have captured all his thoughts (his and Al Venosa from EPA).
> Al talked multiple times last
going over the methodology (AI
> apparently was giving a
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
> Oil Budget Report whiCh is included as an appendix.
>
> I am in regular communication with the USGS Oil Budget team. The one
>
>
>
>
>
way to the Sand Point facility in order to set up for the FRTG meeting
> Mark
>
>
>
Circling in shannon, parita, kevin,
Also, what is timeline for
kris
those changes?

Spring; William Conner;
To: Mark Miller; Jennifer Austin:
Scott Smullen
Cc: Jane Lubchenco
Mark,
Jennifer-
there were conversations about

to the oil budget document between epa (paul

To: Jennifer Austin;
Spri~g; William Conner; Scott Smullen
Subject: [Fwd: Fw: Oil budget tool
- coordination]
28
004220
Se it leeks like we sheuld have a new Oil Budget tool report and
numbers fer the pie chart temerrew .afterneen.
Mark
Jennifer Austin
NOAA Cemmunications & External Affairs
202-302-9047
www.noaa.gov
www.climate.gov
29
004221
Timothy Bagley
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
,Jennifer Austin [Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov]

Margaret Spring

this? 2 pm?
>
better approach than
bar chart idea, but try to work on better representing
uncertainty.
>
>
> Jane is available between now (lpm) and 5 EST
- can we do 2 pm?
>
> Mark
>
>
> Cc: Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Jane Lubchencoi
>
> (HQ)
>
> Sogge
>
> implied in the
and cylinder charts (adding to 100%) and suggests
> discuss what to make of this - are we going with a
chart?);
>
> (2) she said Al Venosa did not revierw the calculations for the oil budget calculator
till last night so she is concerned about list
him as a
(this one you should
>
) to clear. When can we send
> Note we will need to vet the product with EPA HQ (
it over?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

To:
30
004222
> Kristen Sarri (doc) (KSarri@doc.goV)i Parita Shah (Pshah@doc.gov)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Margaret,
have captured all his thoughts (his and Al Venosa from EPA).
He and
Al talked
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 Jenni
a marked up copy of the doc and we are poised to enter
targeted to be done approximately 2:00 PM EDT. We will also update the
Oil Budget Report which is included as an appendix.
Upper and Lower Confidence lines in the Oil Budget
. Bill Lehr
>
>
> Mark
>
>
> Margaret
>
wrote:
in shannon, parita, kevin, kris

Scott Smullen
Cc: Jane Lubchenco
Subject: RE: [Fwd: Fw: Oil budget t60l update - coordination]
Mark,
Jennifer-
there were conversations about changes to the

anastas) and noaa (bill lehr) last night related
document between epa (paul

oil and pie charts.

Subject: [Fwd: Fw: Oil budget tool update -
Mark
Jennifer Austin
2.02-302-9047
www.noaa.gov
www.climate.gov
31
004223
32
004227
Timothy Bagley
From:

Mark Miller
Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Jane Lubchenco; Shannon Gilson
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Am on phone with Jane now - can we have a call with Jane, Mark, Jen, Bill Conner on this?
2 pm?
She wants to understand what was agreed to at EPA last night. And work out why this is a
better
than the bar chart idea, but try to work on better representing
uncertainty.
Then we need to loop in Marcia, then Heather, and then if we are on the same page, go back
to EPA with a revision and how we tried to work on their concerns.
Jane is available between now (1pm) and 5 EST
Mark -
- can we do 2 pm?

Cc: Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Jane Lubchenco; Shannon Gilson
Subject: RE: [Fwd: Fw: Oil budget tool update - coordination)
Mark - want to make sure you have these ocmments from USGS and EPA (HQ)
Marcia McNutt said that whatever EPA and NOAA work out on how dispersed oil is handled,
pIs communicate to Sky Bristol and Mark Sogge
Adm Jackson said : (1) she was concerned about the level of certainty implied in the
and cylinder charts (adding to 100%) and suggests instead bar chart with ranges for each
bar instead -(Jane, let's discuss what to make of this - are we going with a non-pie
chart?) ;
(this one you should
t i l l last night so she is concerned about listing him as a reviewer
Note we will need to vet the product with EPA HQ (Perciasepe) to clear. When can we send
it over?
From: Mark Miller [mark.w.miller@noaa.gov)

To: Margaret
Cc: Jennifer Austin: William Conner: Scott Smullen: Jane Lubchencoi Shannon Gilson
(SGilson@doc.gov); Kevin Griffis (kgriffis@doc.gov): Kristen Sarri (doc) (KSarri@doc.gov);
Margaret,
36
004228
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
in apprOximately an hour.
Mark
> Circling in shannon, parita, kevin,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
kris -
Also, what is timelinefor incorporating those changes?

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-
>
> Are you in that loop and is that document being reworked at your end?
>
>
> Sent:
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
> numbers for the pie chart tomorrow afternoon.
>
> Mark
>
37
and
004229
Timothy Bagley
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Mark Miller; Margaret Spring
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,
pls 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 100%) and suggests instead bar chart with ranges for each
bar instead -(Jane, let's discuss what to make of this - are we going with a non-pie
chart?) ;
it over?

To: Margaret Spring
Cc: Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Jane Lubchenco; Shannon Gilson
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 (Al 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
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
FRTG meeting starting in approximately an hour.
Mark
> Circling in shannon, parita, kevin, kris >
> Also, what is timeline for incorporating those changes?
>
38
004230
>
> Sent: Saturday, july 31, 2010 11:21 AM
> To: Mark Miller; Jennifer Austin; -Margaret Spring; William Conner;
> Scott Smullen
>
> Mark,
Jennifer>
> there were 'conversations about changes to the oil budget document between epa (paul
>
>
>
> Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 11:00 PM
> Subject: [Fwd: Fw: Oil budget tool update - coordination]
>
> So it looks like we should hav.e a new Oil Budget tool report and
>
> Mark
>
39
004249
Timothy Bagley
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Thanks Mark!
, Margaret Spring [margaret.spring@noaa.gov]

Mark Miller; Margaret Spring
Sounds like 2 pm EDT, plus or minus - assuming we can get NIST ok.
what a way to spend (another) weekend - thanks to you, Bill Lehr and the ,entire team for
this great work!
Sent: Saturday, July
, 2010 11:45 AM
To: Margaret Spring
Cc: Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Jane Lubchencoi Shannon Gilson
Parita Shah (pshah@doc.gov)
Margaret,
Bill and I have talked several times this morning so I feel that we have
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
and Lower
Mark
> Circling in shannon, parita, kevin, kris >
>
>
> To: Mark Miller; Jennifer Austin: Margaret Spring: William Conner;
> Scott Smullen
> Subject: RE: [Fwd: Fw: Oil budget tool update
coordination]
>
> Mark,
Jennifer>
to the oil budget document between epa
> there were conversations about
related to the dispersed oil and
charts.
anastas) and noaa (bill lehr) last
>
>
58
004250
>
> Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 11:00 PM
>
> So it looks like we should have a new Oil Budget tool report and
>
> Mark
>
59
004260
Timothy Bagley
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Saturday,. July 31,201011:46 AM
Margaret Spring
Re: [Fwd: Fw: Oil budget tool update - coordinationJ
Margaret,
Bill and I have talked several times this morning so I feel that we have
all his
thoughts (his and Al Venosa from EPA). He and Al talked multiple times last night
over the methodology (AI apparently was giving a presentation this AM to someone). Bill
Possalo). NIST performed the statistical analysis which provides the Upper and Lower
Mark
> Circling in shannon,
, kevin, kris -
>
> Also, what is timeline for incorporating those
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Scott Smullen
Cc: Jane Lubchenco
>
> Mark, Jennifer>

anastas) and noaa (bill lehr) last night related to the
oil and pie charts.
>
and is that document being reworked at your end?
> Are you in that
>
>
> Sent: Friday, July 3D, 2010 11:00 PM
>
> So it looks like we should have a new Oil Budget tool
and
>
> Mark
>
69
004269
Timothy Bagley
From:
Margaret Spring
Saturday, July 31, 2010 11 :24 AM
Margaret Spring; Mark Miller; Jennifer Austin; Margaret Spring; William Conner; Scott Smullen
Jane Lubchenco; Shannon Gilson (SGilson@doc.gov); Kevin Griffis (kgriffis@doc.gov);
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:


To: Mark.Milleri Jennifer Austin; Margaret Spring; William Conner; Scott Smullen
Cc: Jane Lubchenco
Mark,
Jennifer-
there were conversations about changes to the oil budget document between epa
Sent:
July 30, 2010 11:00 PM
So it looks like we should have a new Oil Budget tool report and numbers for the pie chart
tomorrow afternoon.
Mark
78
004270
Timothy Bagley
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Mark,
Margaret Spring
Saturday, July 31, 2010 11 :21 AM
Mark Miller; Jennifer Austin; Margaret Spring; William Conner; Scott Smullen
Jane Lubchenco
Jennifer -
there were conversations about 'changes to the oil budget document between epa (paul
.gov]
Sent: Friday, July 30,
11:00 PM
So it looks like we should have a new Oil Budget tool report and numbers for the pie chart
tomorrow afternoon.
Mark
79
004279
Timothy Bagley
Marcia K McNutt [mcnutt@usgs.gov]
Saturday, July 31,201011:06 AM
Windsor Richard; Jane Lubchenco
jacquee.wright@dhs.gov; Bob Perciasepe; David Hayes; Anastas Paul;
Allen; Holdren, John P.; Mark K Sogge; Sky Bristol
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Thad
Thanks for the comments! USGS will definitely try to make whatever changes to the program
necessary to make it scientifically defensible and accurate. As NOAA is taking the lead
for this and we rely on their input (and I am about to be incommunicado for 5 days) I
suggest NOAA and EPA work out what they would like to see for dispersed oil and
evaporation/dissolution and communicate it to Sky Bristol who did the programming and Matk
50gge who is my deputy for flow rate.
Thanks.
Marcia
Original Message ----From: Windsor.Richard
Sent: 07/31/2010 09:28 AM AST
Cc: "jacquee.wright@dhs.gov" <'jacquee.wright@dhs.gov'>;
.Bob@epamail.epa.govi
David Hayes; Marcia McNutt; Anastas.Paul@epamail.epa.gov; "s
"
>i
"t
i "Holdren, John P." <John P.
Holdren@ostp.eop.gov>
Subject: Re: oil budget calculations
J~ne
and colleagues,
Bob and Paul sent in more specific comments but I have 2 concerns.
1 I think the pie chart and some of the supporting tables and "cylinder charts" may
imply a much, much
level of certainty for some areas than we actually have (the
amount chemically dispersed or
skimmed are but wo examples) .
A bar chart with ranges for each bar
would be better.
That way, things don't add to 100% as they do on a pie char't or the
charts.
2 - We are tracking down information but Al Venosa has stated that he did not review the
calculations in the oil budget calculator for this exercise until last night.
So I am
concerned about
his name in the
I
think we could fix the graphics
and other issue quickly.
Thanks, Lisa
1------------>
1
From:
1------------>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------1
IJane Lubchenco <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
88
004280
------------>
I To:
1------------>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
IPaul Anastas/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Bob Perciasepe/DC/USEPA/US@EPA
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
1------------>
I Cc:
1------------>
K McNutt <mcnutt@usgs.gov>,
"jacquee.wright@dhs.gov" <'jacquee.wright@dhs.gov'>,
I
Hayes@ios.doi.gov" <David_Hayes@ios.doi.gov>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------~----------
-----------------------------------------1
1------------>
1
Date:
1------------>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------~---------I
107/30/2010 06:27 PM
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
1------------>
I Subject:
1------------>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
loil budget calculations
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
Hi, Paul,
I'm
to bring you up to speed on the interagency scientific efforts to report
to the public on where the oil went. Please note that EPA has
been at the table
on parts of the
. The Flow Rate Technical Group (interagency, led by Marcia McNutt
afternoon. That flow rate feeds into the Oil Budget Calculator (see attached) that was
developed to use internal
to understand what fraction of the oil is where. [EPA (Albert
Venosa) was on the team
created and reviewed the calculations methods used in the oil
budget
calculator.]
It will
be finalized as soon as the flow rate is ready.
Information about how calculations were done is described brie
in the documents.
should you have
ions. Marcia can answer some of them, NOAA scientists can answer
others.
89
004281
Jane
(attachment "DeepwaterHorizonOilBudget20100728.pdf" deleted by
[attachment "Oil Budget description 7 30.docx"
deleted by
90
004282
A~LJ\~j
~~v..~s-\- 't0e>
I
~? N\ST\;s tlf\,~t +O~ (.:Ol\C\

2-C \D - DO S ~ \ t='-rc\'Y\
D\ V\~ G;~\>\\lL\
\0
1~C'v-J.\~ ~-Lai \ ~u.c\.~~+ Cc\CJA\c.~ r~~. \'f'\

10\--; c. .J", VCJ<'vv- 0 ~ ,'<:.,.'-t.. ~ j -\-h-L l"1.O\. cO ; ~GtS'~
\ '{\.c..,\V\J-t<.. ~\S\ \; r'~.:5\b()S~ \. \ (\ ~\A+ \f'\ %-L ~~,'~
Cl~~8-0;"" ~ rt.s00Y'S'~
-\-u
*"'.JL' ~
\A~'S
~ev-;
. r.f: ~ blft- C\V'va- qLA.e'S-\-\<~\. ~ \~~ (~+

lY\VL
$ Y\(j \AI ,
--
~-.e. CL'V,",
60$~ (~-~s<+o
004283
~.;
.:;
August 6, 20 10
MEvl0RANDUM FOR:
Catherine Fletcher
FOIA Officer, NIST
FROM:
Brenda Dolan
Departmental FOIA Officer
Office of Management and Organization
SUBJECT:
FOIA Request from Dina Cappiello, Associated Press

CRRIF 10-351 Consolidated with NOAA's Request
Number 2010-0531
Note - Antonio PossoIo is listed as federal Scientists from NIST on the

Acknowledgements page - Deepwater HorizonlBP Oil budget report.
[ am forwarding a copy of the attached FOIA request for your inlmediate attention.
Please produce two sets of photo copies (retain your original) of all documents that may
be responsive to the request. This would include, in addition to final documents, drafts,
notes, inf01111al records, and electronic records. You must search every place that could
reasonably be expected to have responsive documents.
Please make sure that you identify any documents or portions of documents that
originated with another office, agency or bureau that need to be referred for
disclosure determinations.
'
One set of copies (not original documents) should be producedwithout additional
annotation; on the second set, please identify whether you believe the document, or any
portion of it, should be withheld from disclosure because it is not an agency record,
outside the scope of the request, privileged, confidential, an invasion of personal privacy,
or for any other legitimate reason recognized by FOIA. You must include the FOIA
exemption next to any information you identify as protected from disclosure. Please
contact me at 482-3258 if you have any questions. The office that originated a document
must make disclosure determinations for that document.
The cut-off date for the search is August 5, 2010. Documents created after this date
are not responsive to the request. If the search is delayed for any reason, please
notify me immediately, but no later than 24 hours from the date listed.
Attached is a list ofFOIA exemptions for your use in making disclosure determinations.
In order to be responsive to this request in a timely manner, we need any responsive
documents by C.O.B. August 19, 2010. Provide your results to Jean Carter-Johnson,
National Oceanic & AtmospheriC Administration, NOAA Centra] FOIA FaCility,
1315 East-West Highway, Room 10730, Silver Spring, MD 20910 - 301-713-1169
004284
-2-
When providing your response, please attach written documentation of:

1) Which office(s) originated the documents.
2) \Vho made disclosure determinations, showing that the originating
office is the office that made the disclosure determinations

THIS RESPONSE MUST BE SIGNED BY A SENIOR OFFICIAL IN YOUR OFFICE.
Please contact me if you have any questions about the scope of this request or the FOlA
exemptions, at 202-482-3258.
Please sign this sheet of paper and check all of the appropriate boxes
Transmitted herewith are all documents in the possession of my office which are
responsive and can be released in entirety .
..if"'
,.!
.j
Transmitted herewith are all documents within the possession of my office which are
responsive and we have found reason to partially withhold, copies were made and
exemptions were noted.
responsive and we have found reason to withhold entirely, each document to be withheld
entirely has been noted .
responsive and must be referred to the originating office, bureau, or federal agency for
disclosure determinations.
My office has found 110 responsive documents.

All disclosure determinations have been made by the Commerce Office that originated or
has control of the documents.
A foreseeable ham1 review and analysis has been completed for all withheld documents'
and portions of documents and it has been determined that disclosure of the withheld
material would result in harm to an interest protected by the asserted exemption or that
disclosure is prohibited by law~ Name of person most knowledgeable with the issue of
foreseeable harm
lnteri m response
7'
Final response
.-'
.'
,/
~;.;.~../~-~";~'/~~.'-~ ,;-":
Signature (Senior Official)
Date
"
004285
FORM CO-Z44
(Rev.7-as1
OAO 20514
U.S. OEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
FOIA REQUEST AND ACTION RECORD

(Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552 and 15 CFR 4)
3. Name. address. (phone) of requester
1. DOC/FOI facility
Z. Request No.
2010-00531
4. Description of records requested
Dina Cappiello
The Associate Press
.1100 13th Street NW
Washington DC 20005
Copies of all communications related to the production

and disclosure of the report uBP Deepwater Horizon Oil
Budget: What happened to the oil? released August 4,
2010.
Expedited Processing ...
5. Request
Received
! Date
I-
=
e.<t
.1
9. Due Date. By law.

this request must
be answered no
later than:
08/19/2010
I.
11. Received
in Action
Office
IBy
Time
S. ACTION ASSIGNED TO;
Lead PA. input USAO. NOS DOC/NISr\ t:(:)
08/05/2010
Please return response letter and completed CD-244 to NOAA FOIA Office. SSMC3 Rm 10654. If
more than 20 days are needed, please contact the Requester directly and inform the NOAA FOIA
Staff of the new date.
I Date
t By
ITime.
13. Tolling of time Provisions (see 4.9,(d))
a. Without further notice. requester agrees to pay:

_ _ full amount. or _ _ up to $
a.
b.
b. _ _ Fees reduced or waived. and by whom; attach explanation; 4.9(b)

applies.
c. Notification
Date:
10. Comments or Instructions:
12. Fee Provisions
Jean Garter Johnson
6. ___ request returned or requester contacted: to clarify, or for other reason. Explain.on reverse side of White Copy.
7. Request t Date
fulfilled
I
by facility
IBy
Time
08/05/2010
c.
estimated fee exceeds authorization.

estimated fee exceeds $250 and lacks
authorization.
requester delinquent in past payments.
of fees sent to requester on:

.19/20
d. Payment of $
received on
14. Initial Determination (Summarize per subparagraph 7.04d.3 DAO 205-14; attach another sheet if necessary; 4.6 applies.)
Id
[= 1
Ie.
II
~ 14.a. Clearance QffiCISl(S)
I,
!I
Name:
Office Title:
Date:
15. Coliectible Cost per Fee Schedule (4.9(b)}
16. Non-collectibJe Costs
I,
Estimated
Search fee
COP~ing fee
Review
Tota; Colleclible
0.00
II
17. Action
Office
Actual
'1 Signature
0.00
Position title
..
White Copy - To be returned to FOI Facility; Yellow Copy - To be retained by Action Office: Pmk Copy -
I Date
..
To be retamed .In FOI Facility.
004286
\
Ap
Associated Press
Dina Cappiello
The Associated Press

1100 13th Street NW
Wa...hington. DC 20005
202-641-9446
August 4, 2010
Marie Marks
Team Leader. NOAA FOIA staff
Jean Carter-Johnson, NOAA FOIA officer
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Public Reference Facility (OFAS6)
1315 East West Highway (SSMC3)
Room 10730
SIlver Spring, Maryland 2091 0
FOM REQUEST
Dear Ms. Mal'kslM~. Cilrter-lohn.'\on:
Pursuant to the federal Freedom of information Act, 5 U.S.C, i 552, I request acc:ess. to and copi~ of all
commtlrtications related to tbe product-ion and disclosure of the '/'efIOrt "BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Budget:
. What Happened 10 the OW'/" released Augusl4. 2010, including aU communications with the New York
Times.
The cnmmunicl1ti()n~ shuuld inc1Lldc email!>, (axes. and writLen oorrc..'lpondcnce relal.Cd to the report's
production and disclosure from anyone in NOAA's Communications and External Affairs Office as wellzu.
the office of NOAA Administrator Jane l..ubchenco. and federal scientists Bill Lehr, R()ix:rl Junes, Mark
Mll1er. William Conner.
Please consider this an expedited rcqw.."St Ul1d(..T the FOTA. ~ lhi8 infonruation is w-gently required to. inform
the public about an actual or alleged federal government activity. namely the response to the GuJr oillo.1>in
and the disscm.inalion of data regarding the spill to the news media. I certify that I am a futl-time employee
for The Associated Press. the world's largest news-gathering organiz..1rion with more than I billion readers,
listeners SlId viewe.rs.
Whether an "urgency to infor~" exists depends on several factors: (1) whether the information relates to a
currently unfolding story; (2) wbether delaying release or !he information harms dIe public interest; and (3)
whether the reque...t concerns federal govemmentulactivily (sec AI-Faycd v. CIA. 245 F.3d 300 (D.C. Cir.
200J )). In addition. <'the l,..'redibiJity of a requester" is also a relevant consideration.
Please release any information pursuant to my requests a.~ it i~ received and/or reviewed by your officc,
rather than waiting to send me all the material Thave requcsted. 1f you hove questions or m:ed to contact
me, I can be reached at 202-641-9446 and 4Gi!RPiello~ap.org.
As Tam making Ibis request on behalf of the AP for use in reporting the news, no fees may lx: ao,;sessed fOl'
seiU'ching or reviewing documents SO\l~t by this request. and no duplicntion fees should be charged to the
1100 13m St. NW~ Suite 700, Washington, DC 20005-4076
T: 202.641.9000 voice; www.ap.org
hCIT. ts:'T.) tl'\>=''tR : 0 I
004287
AP for the first 100 pages ofmateriaI (see 5 U.S.c. 552(a)(4)(A)(ii)(/J. AP bereby consents to pay.
duplication charges up to a lutld IlQt to exceed $200. Please notify me in advance before incurring any
duplication charges in excess of this amount
As you know, the Act permits you to reduce or waive tbe fees when tbe release of the information is
considered 8S "primarily benefiting Ihe public." , believe that. tbill rcquc.'It fits that categmy and I thl..'1'Cfmc
:I.'Ik that you waive any fees.
If aU or any part of this request is denied, pJf!3.SC cite the 3pecific exemption(s) that yO\1 think justif'lCS your
refusal to reJease the ioformlltion and inform me of your agency's administrative appeal procedures
available to me tmder the law.
To t!'Ie extent that. you affum, in whole or in part. the denial of disclosure. we ask that you provide us witb a
list describing with specificity the ciltegories of dncumcnL'I1hlll have been withheld and explaining the
gro\11lds for the withholdin& (see. Vaughn II. Rosen. 4841':2d 820 (D.C. Clr.1973).
I would appreciate your handling this request as quickly as pos.<rible, and I look forward to hearing from .
you.
I look forward to your'R..'PJy within 20 bu.'Iinc.'i!i days. 11.'1 Ihe statute require'i.
Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely.
Dina Cappiello
691: tl:.!..10tS: 01
004288
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY

FOIA #CRR- \ l~ 10- ~'5 )
c{ _ Documents consisting of_ 5
(fill in the number)
pages to be released in their entirety
004289
From:
Possolo, Antonio
To:
Sky Bristol; Mark Miller
Cc:
Stephen Hammond; .6ill..l.ehr; Sean CDR O"Brjen; Iim..Kem;

RE: Oil budget tool update - coordination
Saturday, July 31, 2010 2;20:43 PM
. Subject:
Date:
Emina,
Pedro I.
Sky,
Just to let ,you know that NIST is standing by ready to help.
'Next I'll send a message to Tim Kern with a couple of
technical suggestgions about how the cod,e in the R engine that
we provided should be modified to accommodate a time series of
daily values of discharge.
- Antonio
- Antonio Possolo, PhD -- Chief
Statistical Engineering Di~ision
Information Technology Laboratory
National Institute of Standards & Technology
Telephone: 301-975-2853
004290
Friday, August 20, 2010 8:02 AM

Subject: RE: oil budget tool update - coordination.
Date: Saturday, July 31,2010 2:20 PM
From: Antonio Possolo <antonio.possolo@nist.gov>
To: Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>, 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>, Tim Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>, "Pedro I. Espina" <pedro.espina@nist.gov>
Sky,
Just to let you know that NIST
help.
1S
standing by ready to
Next I'll send a message to Tim Kern with a couple of

technical suggestgions about how the code in the R
engine ihat we provided should be modified to
accommodate a time series of daily valu'es of discharge.
Antonio
Antonio Possolo, PhD -- Chief

Statistical Engineering Division
National Institute of St~ndards& Technology
Telephone: 301-975~2853
Page 1 of 1
004291
From:
Possolo, Antonio
To!
Cc:
"Tim Kern"
Sui:)ject:
RE: myUSGS Ac.cess
Date:
Monday, August 02, 2010 8:27:00 AM
Sky Bristol
Tim,
Many thanks for granting me access.
It all works fine now.
- Antonio
Information Technology L~boratory
Telephone: 301 975~2853
004292
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Possolo, Antonio
"Sky Bristol": lill!..!&tlr.
Fspjna Pedro I ; Guthrie, William F
RE: 'Org Chart"
Tuesday, August 03, 2010 4:46:00 PM
Sky,
All three of us listed for NIST should appear as equals, with no one singled out as "Principal
Investigator".
Many thanks.
- Antonio
National Institute of Standards & Technology'
Telephone: 301-975-2853
004293
Friday. August 20, 2010 8:02 AM

Subject: RE: "Org Chart"
Date: Tuesday, August 3, 20104:46 PM
To: Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>, BiIIlehr <biILlehr@noaa.gov>
Cc: "Pedro L Espina" <pedro.espina@nist.gov>, "Guthrie, William E" <william.guthrie@nist.gov>
Sky,
All three of us listed for NIST should appear as equals, with no one
singled out as "Principal Investigator".
Many thanks.
-Antonio
-Antonio Possolo, PhD - Chief
Information Technology laboratory
Telephone: 301-975-2853
Page 1 of 1
004294

FOIA # eRR \ c::: , IO<YS,
__ 1 _
Documents consisting of
''d--
NIST portions may be released in entirety, but other portions of documents require review
outside NIST.
.
Signature
Printed Name
Date
004295

Subject: RE: Oil budget tool update - coordination
Date: Saturday, July 31, 2010 2:26 PM
From: Tim Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>
To: Antonio Possolo <antonio.possolo@nist.gov>
Cc: BiIIlehr <bill.lehr@noaa,gov>} Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>} "Pedro I. Espina" <pedro.espina@nist.gov>}
Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>, Sean CDR O'Brien <sean.k.o'brien@uscg.mil>} Stephen Hammond
<sehammon@usgs.gov>
Thanks Antonio. Standing by....

Tim Kern
Information Science Branch
USGS Fort Collins Science Center
2150 Centre Ave, Build,ing C
Fort Collins, CO 80526-8118
970-226-9366
970-226-9230 (fax) .
. RE: Oil budget tool update - coordination

Passolo, Antonio to: Sky Bristol, Mark Miller 07/31/10 12:24 PM
Cc: Stephen Hammond, Bill Lehr, "Sean CDR O'Brien", Tim Kern, "Espina, Pedro 1."
Sky,
Just to let you know that NIST is standing by
ready to help.
Next I'll send a message to Tim Kern with a
couple of technical suggestgions about how the
Page lof2
004296
code in the R engine that we provided should be

modified to accommodate a time series of daily
values of discharge.
- Antonio
. Statlstical Engineering Division
Telephone: 301-975-2853
Page 2of2
004297

FOIA # Cl~.R..' F /o,sC; )
l-z....
Documents to be withheld in their entirety & require other agency review
NIST portions should be withheld in their entirety, portions from other agencies will require their
review.
FOIA Exemption
o B5: _ _2__ documents _7---"="3"---_ pages

5 U.S.c. 552 (b)(5) - Inter-agency or intra-agency memorandum or letters which would not be
available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency. The three primary,
most frequently invoked privileges are: (1) deliberative process privilege, (2) the attorney workproduct privilege, and (3) the attorney-client privilege.
004298

Subject: RE: Reconciling the teams
Date: Monday, July 26, 20104:52 PM
From: Marcia McNutt <mcnutt@usgs.gov>
To: "Pedro I. Espinal! <pedro.espina@nist.gov>
Pedro Suppose three different methods came up with the following flow rates:
52,000-55,000 barrels per day
What would be the best estimate and uncertainty? Please keep this confidential for
r
now.
Thanks.
Marcia
USGS USGS USGS UsGsUsGSUsGsUsGSUsGs USGS

12201 Sunrise Valley Drive MS' 100
Reston, VA 20192
(703) 648-7411 (office)
(703) 648-4454 (fax)
(571) 296-6730 (bb)
(831) 915-4699 (cell)
www.usgs.gov
USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS
. From: Espina, Pedro I. <peclro.espina@nist.gov> [mailto:Espina, Pedro 1.

<pedro.espina@nist.gov> ]
To: III mcnutt@usgs.gov"'. <mcnutt@usgs.gov>
Subject: Reconciling the teams
Page lof2
004299
Dear Marcia,
I hope that you are doing well.
As you are probably aware, NIST has been asked for statistical support by the Nodal and Mass
Balance teams. We have supported them like we supported the Plume team.
Our concerned is that the results we have seen are quite disperse. Thus, we wonder if a
meeting of the team leaders might help reduce the dispersion of the estimates (Le. make sure
that we are counting apples).
I spoke to Bill Lehr this morning and he said that he would talk to you about this in the near
future. If you decide that such a meeting might be valuable, we offer to host it at NIST.
I wish you a great 4th of July in the company of your family_
Kind regards, Pedro
Page 2of2
004300

D"te: Monday, July 26, 2010 4:58 PM
To: "Pedro I. Espina" <pedro.espina@nist.gov>
All three estimates used similar methods and observations with the same sensor, so
yes.
, Thanks.
Marcia

Dr. Marcia K. McNutt '
Reston, VA 20192
(703) 648~7411 (office)
(703) 648-4454 (fax)
(571) 296-6730 (bb)
(831) 915-4699 (cell)
www.usgs.gov
,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: Espina, Pedro 1. <pedro.espina@nist.gov> [mailto:Espina, Pedro!.

, Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 4:55 PM
To: Illnicnutt@usgs.govtU <mcnutt@usgs.gov>
Subject: Re: Reconciling the teams
Marcia,
Are we'to threat all the same? Responce forethcoming by morning.
Pedro
Page lof3
004301
From: Marcia K McNutt <mcnutt@usgs.gov>

To: Espina, Pedro I.
Sent: Mon Jul 26 16:52:41 2010
Subject: RE: Reconcilin"g the teams
now.
Thanks.
Marcia
USGSUSGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS

Reston, VA 20192
(703) 648-7411 (office)
(703) 648-4454 (fax)
(571) 296-6730 (bb) "
(831) 915-4699 (cell)
www.usgs.gov
From: Espina, Pedro I. <pedro.espina@nist.gov> [mailto:Espina, Pedro I.

To: "'mcnutt@usgs.govUl <mcnutt@usgs.gov>
Page 2 of 3
004302
Dear Marcia,
meeting of the team leaders might help~reduce the dispersion of the estimates (i.e. make sure
I spoke to Bill Lehr this morning and he said that he would talk to you about this in the near
I wish you a great 4th of July in the company of your family.
Kind regards, Pedro
Page 3 of 3
004304

Subject: Re: Deepwater - New Idea
Date: Tuesday, August 3, 2010 1:21 PM
Cc: TIm Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>, "Pedro I. Espina" <pedro.espina@nist.gov>, "Guthrie, William F."
<william.guthrie@nist.gov>, Bill lehr <bill.lehr@noaa.gov>
This looks like a really positive direction with numbers that are well within the overall range of
the "official story" numbers being prepped for a major press release coming out shortly. The
percentage numbers in the pie charts seem not to match, but the figures line up with what I
get when running the numbers in your table through a charting engine. This is th~ one piece
we've been missing: a thorough look at all the "best case/biggest cleanup impact" factors and
the "worst case/smallest cleanup impact" factors all together. The Higher Flow and Lower Flow
things we have now are certainly a bit less than the full story.
The two sets of numbers on which I think it is important to remain consistent from this point
forward are the total discharge (at least at the 4.9M bbllevel of detail) and the percentages
associated with cleanup. I think the powers that be really do want to try to come up with a
single set of numbers, but I believe the various science teams have been holding the line on
making sure that somewhere in the mix we talk about the uncertainty surrounding t~ose
numbers. It looks to me like you've come up with a much more elegant way of doing that than
we have in the tool right now.
I'll float a line out to Mark Milier, Sean O'Brien, and others onthis to see if we can scheQule a
call to discuss. I'm about to have to present something on another meeting, but I'll get
something out to everyone on this afterward.
We should also get together with Tim Kern to discuss the computing resource implications.
Increasing the runs through the Monte Carlo simulation with three report runs did slow things
down a bit on the R processing end, but wecan probably free up resources as necessary to
throw at this. Tim and his group need to understand what we might be looking at to
implement this and weigh in on feasibility.
<.( ({<""'''''I'V''''<.{ <""I'V''''''<.

Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
Office: 303-202-4181
<.( <"''''''''''<.( <"'I'V"''''<.( <
On Aug 3, 2010, at 10:59 AM, Possolo, Antonio wrote:
Page lof2
004305
> Sky and Tim,

>
> The attached 2-pager describes a novel approach to the uncertainty analysis for the mass
balance calculations.
>
> It solves this problem that we have been plagued with: how to preserve mass balance and
talk about the IIbest" and Ifworst" case scenarios that the USCG likes, while doing uncertainty
analysis the right way, which is to treat all sources of uncertainty equitably.
>
> In this new approach, the full uncertainty of the daily discharge is treated just like the
uncertainty of all the. other variables: we no longer need to do a "low flown calculation
separately from a "high flowll calculation, but still can describe, in fair detail, IIbest" and
Itworst lt case scenarios corresponding to our low and high confidence bands.
>
> I find this a very exciting development that has the potential of pleasing everybody. The code
is still an alpha pilot and I have not polished the narrative. But given your very clear
understanding of the problem that I'm trying to solve here, this may suffice for you to decide
whether you'd like to see it developed further.
>
> Since this is such a rush job, we've not refined it or reviewed it internally here qt NIST. For
this reason I'm leaving out the names of my two usual"co-conspirators", Pedro Espina and Will
Guthrie, but they'll be included once we produce something that they've inspected and that is
actually deliverable and satisfies you.
>
> Many thanks for your continuing interest in our ideas and products.
>
> -Antonio
>
> - Antonio Passolo, PhD -- Chief
> Statistical Engineering Division
> Information Technology Laboratory.
> National Institute of Standards & Technology
> Telephone: 301-975-2853
>
>
> < Possolo Bristol2010Aug03-N ewldea. pdf>
Page 2of2
004306
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject::
Date:
Passolo Antonio
Sky Bristol; Iim..Kem.; Esojoa pedro I ; Guthrie WiUiam E.
Re: Deepwater -- New Idea

Tuesday, August 03, 2oio 3:19:18 PM
Antonio,
I am looking at the (Rev A) discharges. If the high and low daily
estimates are plus or minus 10 %, I wQuld expect that the total
discharge would reflect this. I am not sure we can treat the daily flow
as a stochastic variable that can fluctuate between high and low values.
If the group estimates were too high, they were probably too high every
day. Same with low estimates. While there was uridoubtably some daily
fluctuation, it would have been less than this global uncertainty.
Bill
On 8/3/10 9:59 AM, Passolo, Antonio wrote:
> Sky and 11m,
>
> The attached 2-pager desaibes a novel approach to the uncertainty analysis for the mass balance
calculations.
.
>
> It solves this problem that we have been plagued with: how to preserve mass balance and talk about
the "best" and "worst" case scenarios that the USCG likes, while doing .uncertainty analysis the right
way, whicl"! is to treat all sources of uncertainty equitably.
>
> In this new approach, the full uncertainty of the daily discharge is treated just like the uncertainty of
all the other variables: we no longer need to do a "low flow" calculation separately from a "high flow"
calculation, but still can desaibe, in fair detail, "best" and "worst" case scenarios corresponding to our
low and high confidence bands.
>
> I find this a very exciting development that has the potential of pleasing everybody. The code is still
an alpha pilot and I have not polished the narrative. But given your very dear understanding of the
problem that I'm trying to solve hcrc, this may suffice for you to dedde whether you'd like to see it
developed further.
>
> Since this is such a rush job, we've not refined it or reviewed it internally here at NISf. For this
reason I'm leaving out the names of my two usual "co-conspirators", Pedro Espina and Will Guthrie, but
they'" be induded once we produce something that they've inspected and that is actually deliverable
and satisfies you.
>
>
> - Antonio
>
> - Antonio P6ssolo, PhD -- Chief
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

National Institute of Standards& Technology
Telephone: 301-975-2853
004307

To: Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>
Cc: Antonio Possolo <antonio.possolo@nist.gov>, Bill Lehr <bilLlehr@noaa.gov>, "Pedro I. Espina"
<pedro.espina@nist.gov>, "Guthrie, William F." <william.guthrie@nist.gov>
We are testing performance now. We will. keep everyone posted as we get results.
Tim Kern
2150 Centre Ave, Building C
Fort Comns, CO 80526-8118
970-226-9366
970-226-9230 (fax)

To: "possolo, Antonio" <antonio.possolo@nist.gov>
Cc: Tim Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>, "Espina, Pedro 1." <pedro.espina@nist:gov>, "Guthrie, William E"
<william.guthrie@nist.gov>, Bill Lehr <BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov>
Date: 08/03/201011:21 AM
This loo~ like a really positive direction with numbers that are well within the overall range of
get when running the numbers in your tab.le through a charting engine. This is the one piece
things we have now are certainly a .bit less than the full . story.
Page 1 of 3
004308
making sure that somewhere in the mix we talk about the uncertainty surrounding those
numbers. It looks to me like yourve come up with a much more elegant way of doing that than
Irll float a line out to Mark Miller, Sean OrBrien, and others on this to see if we can schedule a
call to discuss., '1m about to have to present something on another meeting, but 1111 get
We should also get together with Tim Kern to di:;cuss the computing resource implications .
. Increasing the runs through the Monte Carlo simulation with three report runs did slow things
down a bit on the R processing end, but we can probably free up resources as necessary to
<.( ((<"''''''''''<.( ((<;''''''''''''<.( ( <

Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
Office: 303-202-4181
<.( <""""''''<.( {( <"''''''''''<.{(
On Aug 3,2010, at 10:59 AM, Possolo, Antonio wrote:
> Sky and Tim,

>
>
talk about the Hbest" and Hworst" case scenarios that the USCG likes, while doing uncertainty
analysis the right way, which is to treat all sO,urces of uncertainty equitably.
>
uncertainty of all the other variables: we no longer need to do a Hlow flow" calculation
separately from a Uhigh flown calculation, but still can describe, in fair detail, Hbest" and
Uworst" case scenarios corresponding to ollr low and high confidence bands.
>
Page 2 of 3
004309
understanding of the problem that I'm trying to solvehere, this may suffice for you to decide
>
> Since this is such a rush job, we've not refined it or reviewed it internally here at NIST. For
this reason I'm leaving out the names of my two usual "co-conspirators", Pedro Espina and Will
Guthrie, but they'll be included once we produce something that thev've inspected and that is
>
>
> - Antonio
>
> - Antonio Possolo, PhD -- Chief
> Information Technology Laboratory
> Telephone: 301.,.975-2853
>
>
"> <PossoloBristoI2010Aug03-Newldea.pdf>
Page 30f3
004310
Friday, August 20,2010 8:02 AM

Subject: Re: Deepwater -- New Idea
From: Bill Lehr <bill.lehr@noaa.gov>
Reply-To: <BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov>
Cc: Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>, Tim Kern <i<ernt@usgs.gov>, "Pedro I. Espina" <pedro.espina@nist.gov>, "Guthrie,
William F." <william.guthrie@nist.gov>
Antonio,
I am looking at the (Rev A) discharges. If the high and low daily
estimates are plus or minus 10 %, I would expect that the total
day. Same with low estimates. While there was undoubtably some daily
fluctuation, it would have been less than this global uncertainty.
Bill
On 8/3/109:59 AM, Possolo, Antonio wrote:
> Sky and Tim,
>
> The attached 2-pager describes a novei approach to the uncertainty analysis for the mass
.
>
talk about the "b~stll and "worst ll case scenarios that the USCG likes, while doing uncertainty
>
uncertainty of aU the other variables: we no longer need to do a "Iow flowl l calculation
separately from a IIhigh flow" calculation, but still can describe, in fair detail, "best" and
"worst" case
scenarios
corresponding to our low and high confidence bands.
.
. '
>
whether you'd like to see it developed further..
>
Page 1 of 2
004311
this reason I'm leaving out the names of my two usual "co-conspirators fl Pedro Espina and Will
l
>
>
> -Antonio
>
> . Statistical Engineering Division
> Information Technology laboratory
> National Institute of Standards& Technology
> Telephone: 301-975-2853
>
>
>
Page 2of2
004312
From:
To:
cc:
Subject:
Date:
.enLLehl:
P9SSQIQ, Antonig
Sky Bristol; l1rrl...Kem.; [soina Pedro I.' Guthrie Wmjam E,

Tuesday, August 03, 2010 3:'18:45 PM
AntoniO,
I would assess the flow uncertainty as global (time independent). That
is, if we were 3% too low, then we were 3% too low every day, not 3% low
on day 1 and 5% Iowan day 2 etc.. I think it is reasonable (although
Chu specifically said this was not the case) to take the flow
uncertainty as a Gaussian with one or two sigma at 10%.
Bill
On 8/3/10 12:39 PM, Possolo, Antonio wrote:
> aill,
>
> I modeled the uncertainty about the discharge as a value uniformly distributed between nominal plus
10% and nominal minus 10%. Other models may be more appropriate: for example, a normal
distribution with mean at nominal,. and 10% of nominal being twice the standard deviation, say.
>
> But your comment relates to the meaning of the 10% uncertainty (whichever way one may model it).
Currently we are considering a low flow (-10%), and a high flow (+10%) situation separately. This could
be in line with your observation: that we are always 10% too high, or 10% too low. But how realistic
would this be? And are we then saying that the bias will be exactly 10%, but We don't know whether it
is high or loW, so we consider both separately?
>
> If the +/-10% are to be taken as an uncertainty that expresses 'plain lack of knowledge about the
discharge, then values in between the extremes should be entertained, and modeling the actual
discharge as a random variable would be the way to do it, the same way we model the uncertainty
about the rate constants.
>
> The "solution" in the outline I sent out earlier is for this .last, stochastic approach. ObviouslYr it will be
up to the sdence team to dedde what is best
>
> Antonio
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Telephone: 301-975-2853
004313
Subject: Re: Deepwater- New Idea

Date: Tuesday, August 3,20103:59 PM
Reply-To: <BilI.Lehr@noaa.gov>
Cc: Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>, Tim Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>, "Pedro I. Espina" <pedro.espinq@nist.gov>, "Guthrie, "
Antonio,
" is, if we were 3% too low, then we were 3% too low every day, not 3% low
on day 1 and 5% low on day 2 etc .. I" think it is reasonable (although
Bill

> Bill,
>
> I modeled the uncertainty about the discharge as a value uniformly distributed between
nominal plus 10% and nominal minus 10%: Other model$ may be more appropriate: for
example, a normal distribution with mean at nominal, and 10% of nominal being twice the
standard deViation, say.
>
" > But your comment relates to the meaning of the 10% uncertainty (whichever way one m"ay
model it). Currently we areconsidering a low flow (-10%), and a high flow (+10%) situation
separately. This could be in line with your observation: that we are always 10% too high, or
10% too low. But how realistic would this be? And are we then saying that the bias will be
exactly 10%, but we don't know whether it is high or low, so we consider both separately?
>
> If the +/-10% are to be taken as an uncertainty that expresses plain lack of knowledge about
the discharge, then values in between the extremes should be entertained, and modeling the
actual discharge as a random variable would be the way to do it, the same way we model the
uncertainty about the rate constants.
>
>The "solution" in the outline I sent out earlier is for this last, stochastic approach. Obviously,
it will be up to the science team to decide what is best.
>
Page 1 of 2
004314
> - Antonio
>
> - AntonioPossolo, PhD -- Chief
> Telephone: 301-975-2853
>
>
>
Page 2of2
004315
Subject: Re: "Org Chart"

Date: Tuesday, August 31 20105:06 PM
You can call me now at 303-202-4181.

<.( ((<""''''''''''''<.( (( <"""'''''''<. ((
Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
Office: 303-202-4181
<.( ((<....."""'''''<.( (( <''''...". . '''<. ((
On Aug 3, 2010, at 2:50 PM, Espina, Pedro I. wrote:
> Sky,
>
> Is there a number where I can call you on this matter?
>
> Thanks, Pedro

>
:>
> ----- Original Message ----:> From: Possolo, Antonio

> To: Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>; Bill Lehr <BilI.Lehr@noaa.gov>
> Cc: Espina, Pedro I.; Guthrie, William F.
> Sent: Tue Aug O~ 16:46:54 2010
> Subject: RE: "Org C~art"
>
> Sky,
>
> All three of us listed for NIST should appear as equals, with no one singled out as "Principal
Investigator" .
>
> Many thanks.
>
> - Antonio
>
Page 10f2
004316

> Telephone: 301-975-2853
>
>
Page 2 of2
004317
Subject: Re: "Org Chart'"

To: "Pedro!. Espina" <pedro.espina@nist.gov>
Cc: Antonio Possolo <antonio.possolo@nist.gov>
Greatl Thank you. This makes better sense all around. I'll get a new version of this out once I
talk with the folks in USGS with whom I need to coordinate.
< ({_. . ..-<. .........,. . . .-<.{<

Sky Bristbl
sbristol@usgs.gov
Office: 303-202-4181
Cell: 303-241-4 i 22
'
< . . . . . . ---.<.({ . . . . . .---.<.

On Aug 3,2010, at 3:25 PM, Espina, Pedro I. wrote:
Dear Sky,
It was very nice talking to you today.
like I mentioned, the NIST Director would like to acknowledge the contribution of
all NIST personnel involved in this effort regardless their level of participation. In
alphabetical order, those individuals are:
.,
Pedro Espina
William Guthrie
Aaron Johnson
Michael Moldover
Antonio Possolo
Blaza Toman
John Wright
Antonio Possolo is the Chief of the N1ST Statistical Engineering Division and thus all
statistics inquiries should be addressed to him. I am the NIST Point of Contact for
the DWH incident and all other inquiries should be addressed to me.
We hope that this is helpful to you.
Many thanks, Pedro
, Page 1 of 3
004318
On 8/3/10 5:06 PM, "Sky Bristol" <sbristol@usgs.gov<x-msg://170/

sbristol@usgs.gov> > wrote:
<.( (( <"'''''''''''<.( (( <"'...."''''<.( ((<
Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov <x-msg://170/sbristol@usgs.gov>
Office: 303-202-4181
<.( {( <""""'''''<.( (( <""'''''''''''<.( ({<
On Aug 3,2010, at 2:50 PM, Espina, Pedro I. wrote:
> Sky,
>
>
> Thanks, Pedro

.>
>
> ----- Original Message --> From: Possolo, Antonio
> To: Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs;gov <x,..msg://170/sbristol@usgs.gov> >;
Bill Lehr <BiII.Lehr@noa~.gov <x-msg://170/BilI.Lehr@noaa.gov> >
> Cc: Espina, Pedro L; Guthrie, William F.
.
> Sent: Tue Aug 03 16:46:54 2010
> Subject: RE: "Org Chart!!
>
>Sky,
>
. > All three of us listed for NIST should appear as equals, with no one
>
> Many thanks.
>
> - Antonio
>
Page 2of3
004319

> Telephone: 301-975-2853
>
>
Pedro I. Espina, Ph.D.

Program Analyst
Program Office, Office of the Director
Tel: +1 301 975 5444
Page 3 of 3
004320

Subject: Re: Oil Budget Calculator Science and Engineering Team
Date: Wednesday, August 4, 20104:29 AM
From: Espina, Pedro I. <pedro.espina@nist.gov>
To: Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>, Mark Miller <mark.w.miller@noaa~gov>, Mark KSogge <mark_sogge@usgs.gov>, Bill
lehr <bil!.Iehr@noaa.gov>, Antonio Possolo <antonio.possolo@nist.gov>, Stephen Hammond <sehammon@usgs.gov> .
Priority: Highest
Dear Colleagues,
Sorry that I did not get before to you but I needed to consult.
NIST supports the position stated below by Sky-that is '(indicate that USCG, USGS, NOAA, and
NIST worked together to produce the tool". In the absence of that, NIST would like for Antonio
Possolo to be named as the NIST team lead for the Oil Budget Calculator Science and
Engineering Team.
We hope that either of these approaches meets the requirements of the reporting mechanism.
We would appreciate an indication as to your final decision.
Kind regards,
Pedro
On 8/3/107:14 PM,"Sky Bristol" <sbristol@usgs.gov> wrote:

Given the note I just saw from Steve Hammond about sensitivities in sharing
individual names, here is a third option stripped to the bone with just a few people
listed. Our core development team in USGS is probably okay with names attached
unless there is some good advice not to do so. Personally, I don't really see the
point in doing something like this bare bones approach other than to indicate that
USCG, USGS, NOAA, and NIST all worked together to produce the tool, which could
be done in much simpler prose.
:>edro!. Espina, Ph.D.

)rogram Analyst
)rogram Office, Office of the Director
rei: +1 301 975 5444
Page 1 of 1
004321
fV\6S
t: (' c)
V0 i+h "'-0

FOIA# _ __
=:-:-:-~----:-~
Documents to be released with redaction
FOIA Exemption
o B2: _ _-+-_ documents
l'
.pages
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(2) - Related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency.
~r
\c> ,1.')
004322

Subject: New inyUSGS Account
Date: Friday, July 2, 2010 9:00 PM
From: myusgs@usgs.gov
Pedro,
This account has been created for you to access the online oil budget tool you helped build
with the R program.
https://my.usgs.gov/oilBudget/
You can change your password once you login via the link near the upper right of the screens.
1 of 1
004323

FOIA # c.(2t2.. ~ ~ /o->S "\
'8'
Documents to be withheld in their entirety
FOIA Exemption
D B5: _ _~
_ _ documents _ _
J>__ pages
5 U.S.c. 552 (b)(5) - Inter-agency or intra-agency memorandum or letters which would not be
004324
From:
To:
Cc:
. Subject:
Date:
Possolo, Antonio
Tim Kern
Sky Bristol
myUSGS Access
Monday, August-02, 2010 8:09:00 AM
TIm,
. I have access only to htt;ps;!lmv-beta.usgS.OQV/oilBudget, not to https:UmY,usos.gov/oilBudget. Are
these two sites showing ~he same thing?
Based on what I see at my-beta.usugs.gov, I suggest that the vertical axis (barrels) for"Cumulative
Remaining" should have exactly the same range both for the lower flow estimate and for the higher flow
estimate --this will fadlitate comparing the two graphs when the corresponding tabs both are selected
on the same page.
- Antonio
- Antonio Passalo, PhD -- Chief
Telephone: 301-975-2853
004325
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Possolo, Antonio
"Tim Kern; SkI:' Bristol
Oil Budget Tool Suggestions
Sky and lim,

Two small suggestions regarding the web presentation of the results:
(1) The information about the amount "Dispersant Used" should be removed from the tables because
someone who looks at the table for the first time might think that,this amount is being added or
subtracted to get the amount "Remaining". You may like to consider moving it to the white space above
. "Discharged".
(2) To avoid possible confusion created by the negative numbers that may appear in the rightmost cell
of the row labeled "Remaining", you may like to write "Daily Increment" inside the same cell that has
the pull-down menu with dates, and immediately above the little window with the selected date.
I'm still thinking about ways in which we could get rid of the two separate displays (low and high flow),
and show a single set of results that would take into account the +/-10% uncertainty in "Discharged",
together with all the other sources Clf uncertainty, and still be generally similar to what we show now. If
you believe that such thinking is a waste of time, please let me know..
- Antonio
- Antonio Passolo, PhD - Chief
Telephone: 301-975-2853
004326
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Possolo, Antonio
'Sky Bristol"; Steohen E Hammond
Marda K McNutt' aill..L.ehr:; Marl< K Sooge; hunsakeml ;
RE; oil budget
Monday, August 02, 2010 2;10:00 PM
Ilm..Ke!I!.
I agree that the approach that Sky just described, to accommodate

a variable daily discharge, is the simplest and most direct way of
incorporating the guidance from Director McNutt, requiring minimal
or no changes to the rest of the computing machinery.
I will point out that the rates of decrease in daily discharge
implied by the numbers in the spreadsheet 'that Sky shared on
Saturday, July 31 st , is just under 0.19% per day, except for day
45 (June 3rd), when it increased 4%.
We stand by ready to be of assistance to Sky and to Tim on any
matters relating to the R engine and on any matters of substance
concerning the uncertainty analysis.
- Antonio
- Antonio Possolo, phD -- Chief
National 'Institute of Standards & Technology
Telephone: 301-975-2853
004327
From:
Possolo, Antonia
To: _
Cc:
Subject:
"BiILlehr@noaa ooy'
Sty Bristol; IiJIl.Kem; Esoina. pedro I.; Guthde William f
RE: Deepwater -- New Idea
Date:
Bill,
I modeled the uncertainty about the discharge as a value uniformly distributed between nominal plus
distribution with mean at nominal, and 10% of nominal being twil4:e the standard deviation, say.
But your comment relates to the meaning of the 10% uncertainty (whichever way one may model it).
would this be? And are we then saying that the bias will be exGctly lO%,but we don't know whether it
is high or low, so we consider both separately?
If the +/-10% are to be taken as an uncertainty that expresses plain lack of knowledge about the
discharge, then values in between the extremes ?hould be entertained, and modeling the actual
about the rate constants. The "solution" in the outline I sent out earlier is for this last, stochastic approach. Obviously, it wilt be
up to the sdence team to dedde what is best.
.
- Antonio
- Antonio Possolo, PhO -- Chief
Telephone: 301-975-2853
004328
Friday, August 20, 2010' 8:02 AM
Subject: RE: Deepwater - New Idea

To: BiIIlehr <bill.lehr@noaa.gov>
Cc: Sky Bristol <spristol@usgs.gov>, Tim Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>, "Pedro I. Espina" <pedro.espina@nist.gov>, "Guthrie,
Bill,
. I modeled the uncertainty about the discharge as a value uniformly
distributed between nominal plus 10% and nominal minus 10%. Other models
may be more appropriate: for example, a normal distribution with me,,!n at
nominal, and 10% of nominal being twice the standard deviation, say.
But your comment relates to the meaning of the .10% uncertainty
(whichever way one may model 'it). Currently we are considering a low
flow (-10%), and a high flow (+10%) situation separately. This could be
in line with your observation: that we are always 10% too high, or 10%
too low. But how realistic would this be? And are we then saying that
the bias will be exactly 10%, but we don't know whether it is high or .
low, so we consider both separately?
If the +/-100...6 are to be taken as an uncertainty that expresses plain
lack of knowledge about the discharge, then values in between the
extremes should be entertained, and modeling the actual discharge as a
random variable would be the way to do it, the same way we model the
ur:tcertainty about the rate constants.
The "solution in the outline I sent out earlier is for this last,
stochastic approach. Obviously, it will be up to the science team to
decide what is best.
It
-Antonio
- Antonio Possolo, PhD - Chief
. Telephone: 301-975-2853
Page 1 of 1
004329
Fl:om:
Passala, Antonia
To:
Subject:
RE: "Org Chart"
Date:
Tuesday, August 03, 2010 4:05:00 PM .
"Sky Bristol"
Here is a list of the NIST players, and their points of engagement with the FRTG, in alphabetical order
of last names in each case:
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST, U.S. Dept. of Commerce)
Pedro Espina (Program Office)
William Guthrie (Statistical Engineering Division, Information Technology Laboratory)
Antonio Possalo (Statistical Engineering Division, Information Technology Laboratory)
FRTG Plume Team: Pedro Espina, Antonio Possalo
FRTG Mass Balance Team: Pedro Espina, William Guthrie, Antonio Possolo
FRTG Nodal Team: Pedro Espina, William Guthrie, Antonio Possalo
I'll still have to send you the names of a few NIST internal reviewers and contributors.
- Antonio
- Antonio Possalo, PhD -- Chief
Telephone: 301-975-2853
004330
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Possolo Antonio
aill.Leh[@noaa,gQv; Sky Bristol
Mark Miller; Mark K Scgpe; Stephen Hammond; Esoioa Pedro I
RE: Oil Budget Calculator Science and Engineering Team
Given the desire of the NIST director -- to acknowledge all

from NIST who have helped with this task -- I'believe it is
inappropriate to single out a single person, be it Pedro
Espina or me, as some sort of "lead" for NIST.
Therefore, either list all those who have contributed, like
Bill Lehr has suggested, _Qr merely state that NIST helped,
mentioning no staff membe~ in particular.
This instance of effective collaboration between USGS, NOAA,
USCG, NIST, etc. is a much more important fact to bring to
the attention of the public, than the names of any individuals
who happened to have been in the right place at the right
time.
Antonio
Antonio Possolo, ~hD -- Chief
Stat~stical Engineering Division
National 'Institute of Standatds & Technology
Telephone: 301-975-2853
004331
~u.bj~tt:RE: (>(1. &~tjg~t catci.datof: $~ie~~e. ~:o~ ,~nglri~eri.og

Q~te; :l~~sQay;: Atigu~ .~(~O:i~liQ:o~ PM':":.
.:. :. ';' ..... ;:.
team: .': :.,: :; :,:..'.:'. ::' .:.: :.: .,.. . '. "'. ". .:. .:.' :',': :' '.':.
. '. '.-::'.
froni:.Aotor:lio Pos~olq<;a.ntonjo,pol?soip.@nist.,gov>. .: .'.:: ... :.'

TO:Bin:Lehi<d)ilfjeh.~@n6a.a~gQv>iSkV Bristol ;<~biistbl@usgs.gbv>
'..
. . . . : > ; : . '.
. :':
,: .. , .'
..
..
. ,"':" . . . '
". ..... ..... ..... ::...
'.'
......:..
Ct: Ma~k. Mili~F<Mar~.w,r\iiilleJ:@~Qa~.go.~>, MarJ{K:So~ge.<m~'rk...:.scigge@l~$gs~gov>;.$tep'~en H~.mmond

~ehartliri~ri@'~~gs~~p0/: ~,p~dfpI:.EsPJn~ii.~p'edrci~spirja@nist:goV;:: ':
. . ....
. ..
..
. .
. ..'
.
. : :. '::
'. - : : . :: :
. ."..
: .. '. . . . .. ,':,
:'
,
"
',',
'.
,".
... '.. ,:-:.:

:.....
:.:: :.':":.
..
...
.
"
'.'
.:
','
'.
'.
:...... .
:' ..:": .: .': ..
. ....,.. :". : : .. .' ."
..' .
'
.:: .; .
"
'. - .
f!ii~~~~~!fi~ii~~~i!!i;fi~;~!:~i~~~~~1;~z~;:~I~i~:;:!Ir.,
fO:,r,.,,:.N;IST..
,.. '.,. . .
. '.
,
..
'.:
. ::'.':.
'
.... ':, . ' , , '

'.: ,',:,:'
; '..
"
"",""
'.
" '.., . :,'.'

.............:. ..: ........
<.:'.'.": .
: . . ..
: .. :
::.
'
:"':' , : .
:.
" ' ,
"
'-
'.
.
.
.'.:
"
". ",
-.
'."
~:
..
. ,: . . :
'. '... : . - .
'.'
-,
'.
".
".,
. . .. ' , . :. ,',:" . .
.' ,
.'
.. ' "
.:
.. : '.
...
','
.....
Tiie:r;e= fo~:e:: ~':e i ttiej-j,'" ii,s t: :aT l-:: :tho:s'e:::who ,:'h2die ::: :corit-ri:but'ed :'. :"::,::
.
..
"
"
.",'.', .
'.
.'
.'
'.'.','. '
"
.'
,.
.'.
'
. ' , .f
.i:i-'ke:,B-iil 'L,ehr. has -' ,,$'ugge:st'~d~', 'qr. . :tn~rely 's tate :. tiiEit", ':Nt sr' ,
he:i.p'.ed', 'rrtentlC;'nirig' Ilo>st?t.f.'::~eTEi.b,er. 'i:n: pa.rtiG=Ui-at.~. . '.'.. ', '.' . '
'.
':
: .. ...
..
.... .
".
'.' . '
'.
'
',
'
,:
"..
','
.'
: ~'::
, '
,,""
,'.
. . . ..... ",
: ,: . -: .': ..... '.
.. '
'
."
'
f:h1:~;:: irtsici:nC.e'.':':o t '. Ed:feGfi-V~.' :'6:ol't;b.o:f.~.t'i.:()h :'b~t:~'~'~rt ;,-,h:s~s.,: ,:' '. '::.
milch::
~6M'i .U8,8(;,;:: ':W'J:'$>:',,:::~:tc-,,;~:':"i:$ ,:':,q'.:

:ttto~;e :', :irnpb::rt'aht,:;-:f~tq,t:,:'t:6 ':':
b~i:h~:i:to:,:t:he :::'attieri-'tidri'.'q:~>:tlie,:.publi:c';::thari . . ::the::ji;am.e<s:i::o't-:'.'
'EiIiY: ,tti-di :VidtiCt1.',$:':::::~q.6 :., h~'pp,e:~:,~'ti/t:Q'<h4'y~;:'b~~'p::' 1i1:'=t:p.~:::r:i'ght;::: '.'<='
p;L~s.e ;. . ~~t:ht/'.~i,gh f:' time:.~,,:, ~:,<
:=:';,::::.... :::>::':':.=:'::,, ... , ' : . , :':' ::"',."" . :
,. .::'::...:.
,-.
"-.'
,
.' . . .
'
":','
~~::i\.rit6,'n,:lo,':
..
'.
'
""
'
..
."
..
".
'
'
..
'"
'
::. :.-.
..... "
.'
..
..... -.
"
''':',':'': :.,:::.
. ~: ,',:,
. :, : :.,' : -
.,
'
.'
'.
". "'.'
" " : : "'. ,: ......:.'" ::' .;. .. :",'

:":;: " :' .....
::.. .'.
'. :
..
,
. '. .':"
....
'.
.
"
-.'
. , . . . .. "
: .',
..
.'
"
"
'. -:.':: '." .
'
-.
'
'.'
",.
".'
,"
.. .'....
"
'
..
".
"
'
'.,'
.:"': .
, "
..
".::;.': ':
:: .. ::'
..'
.-
~i~~~~~i~:~S!ti~~;t~~~~L~~~:~~~~iii
"':, Nat.ional Insti tut'e . of stfa'nchird.s:, &:,',T:echn'ology' "

:,;~te~,ephdh~'~,3'6'~:~.=9~i5:': 2:8:5:3.,'::::::. :'::),,::'.,::::,':
"""' ... :,::' '. ".' ,'.

.- .
-
. .,:"
. .';-.
'.:, ,
.';
"
.'
,
"
'
..
::, .. :.
"
'
. .' '
.....,
".
"
:,
"
..
,',
'
".,
"
. :":.:
','
"
. '::,
.. ' .
,',
'
':'
,
"
.".
. '.
., ...
,
','
::.
-'.
..
,
"
. '.,
",'
'.,'
';.'
,
,
.'
"
.' ':
:.
...
.:
,,"
'
",
' ,
'.
...
'
,
"
,-,'.
"
.'
.. : ":'
Page 1 of 1
'
004332
f\"oS~ed
%r
FOIA# - - - -
~;--:,-_"
\).J\
+-\A,~ \d,'2J
(fill in the numbe;)
FOIA Exemption
D B5: _ _ br
I'~_ pages
documents _ _ _
5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(5) - Inter-agency or intra-agency memorandum or letters which would not be
004333

Subject: Deepwater - New Idea
From: AntonioPossolo <antonio.possolo@nist.gov>
To: SkY Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>, TIm Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>
Cc: "Pedro I. Espina" <pedro.espina@riist.gov>, "Guthrie, William E" <william.guthrie@nist.gov>,BiIIlehr
<bill.lehr@noaa.gov>
Sky and TIm,
The attached :i-pager describes a novel approach.to the uncertainty
analysis for the mass balance calculations.
It solves this problem that we have been plagued with: how to preserve
mass balance and talk about the "best" and "worst" case scenarios that
the USCG likes, while doing uncertainty analysis the right way, which is
to treat all sources of uncertainty equitably.
In this new approach, thefull uncertainty of the daily discharge is
treated just like the uncertainty of all the other variables: we no
longer need to do a "low flow" calculation separately from a "high flow"
calculation, but still can describe, in fair detail, "best" and "worSt"
case scenarios correspondingto our low and high confidence bands .
. I find this a very exciting development that has the potential of
pleasing everybody. The code is still an alpha pilot and I have not
polished the narrative. But given your very clear understanding of the
problem that I'm trying to solve here, this may suffice for you to
decide whether you'd like to see it developed further.
Since this is such a rush job, we've not refined it or reviewed it
internally here at NIST. For' this reason I'm leaving out the names of my
tw.o usual "co-conspirators", P~dro Espina and Will Guthrie, but they'll
be include~ once we produce something that they've inspected and that is
Many thanks for your continuing interest in our ideas and products.
-Antonio
- Antonio Possolo, Ph D - Chief
National Institute of Standards.& Technology
Telephone: 301-975-2853
Page 1 of 2
004334
P.n!$em:ing Resahs fi:um Complete Una:tmlnty Analysis

for Ma.-;s Bahmce QIknl aOons
Goal 'Ib prc:>dIt<:c .. ~ mreroal (V.... ~..) dla, 'Irido_ ~
~ lndudes the vat.iooe alall-=z
partkular:cby.
n.&~iludval ~eanrrib\lClMl hm aII:~_
of~ ..,~~ tbc_al!!ly-.:faoed-wilh the.
V."".
~~IKIW~at:l:lO"'.
PnoIlIIom. 'tbe Mmbl CIrdc> ~ ;bat " ..., bam beer> ~ 1$ based ...
.,~."",.... of~ ~ ~ "Pt'n>p<fate ptQbabillrr~
tlamtbal>:tGea fhdt~t..s~
We "'" I&osem~ .. wide""",,'" 1ibI)'~ cf.a, ~ WIll>
die ........ olilroosl; ~dIat:ar.; ~.............s dlft::a!y{li>r-pk.
"""""" cl all. ~ VIa IU'IT ar'lbp au. ......",., DloiI)t_ alcImoocd,
__).d~"""pniasbrr:lnll>""""'cl.':IiItIes..tV..
It~,
zre d.t!ClImtbIJ.eo! YalwsoVs b-apaldc:ulzrda,;'Ihe~
. of'lbod: ~ 1nl<:nr.tI ..... dtGoc:n lID . . u. iI>ddde a ~fted ~
ofthl:slo ......... 'l1le 1awctt!l>d'(llOiDt. ~ ~&boIt""""_''''''''
th< lOppCI' ad.po;.otV.,lI~. ",onr_-.ia.
'thepmf>!tmhube= Ib.we.,.;..w_....tlyWvalllt:J ol~"l'f&"
rid<:& ~ play (far ~ 011 ....ben!!. cb<mie:aIIy ~ '" on ........e
~OI'~J.dw~ ...
_ _ an4....ufydl<:_b.:dam:i:o.
v;...
tIoo!Ie_"""'boIt"'*"
Tbk~ ~bec:owst-d!elU.'Urio~"''I'_Ibe''PP''''eII4.
polD1clIheCnalld~~.s- ....t ~ ~ ID "warsr.
ClIiC"VoIluasofall d:icn:kT.ml. ~ aD4 d<niIIuIJfortho""""->liB_
~(DV.....
ScIIafiao1. 1k ~ IIW: I haft dt:\-&ped, md "--.RSIIlu ! iItasu:ale

iD tbc ~ pO: thm; IilId &abIc,. fi1IdJ die _libly I'O.hIIs 01 all ~
~ w~wIsen die ~ of .. nmoIrlbof:;' e!d>eror
aM
~ooia."-=",,sbat~tho_~
V.,. V"'"
'the saIIIIioo ~ .. Wp inIIIIber of ~ ~ (llIe ~ofth<

~ lit r.. die Il.<:r>do): I t - . - d abontlOOODQ ~ "'9S'lIi~
Pag.e 2of2
004335
From:
Possolo, Antonio
To:
"Sky Bristpl"; ~
Fspjna Pedro I.; Gutbde William F ;
Deepwater -- New Idea
Cc:
Subject:
Date: .
Attachments: .
1!ilI...Lehr

Posso)oBdstpI201OAug03-NewIdea odf
Sky and Tim,

The attached 2-pager describes a novel approach to the uncertainty analysis for the mass balance
calculations.
It solves this problem that we have been plagued with: how to preserve mass balance and talk about
the "best" and "worst" case scenarios that the USCG likes, while doing uncertainty analysis the right
way, which is to trea~ all sources of uncertainty equitably.
In this new approach, the full uncertainty of the daily discharge is treated just like the uncertainty of all
the other variables: we no longer need to do a "low flow" calculation separately from. a "high flow"
calculation! but still can describe, in fair detail, "best" afld "worst" case scenarios corresponding to our
I find this a very exdting development that has the potential of pleasing everybody. The code is still an
alpha pilot and I have not polished the narrative. But given your.very clear understanding of the
problem that I'm trying to solve here, this may suffice for you to decide whether you'd like to see it
developed further.
.
Since this is such a rush jobr we've not refined it or reviewed it internally here at NIST. For this reason
I'm leaving out the names of my two usual "co-conspirators"t Pedro Espina and Will Guthrie, but they'll
be induded once we produce something that they've inspected and that is actually deliverable and
satisfies you.
.
- Antonio
Telephone: 301-975-2853
004336
DEEPWATER HORlZON -
MASS BALANCE
AUGUST
2010
Presenting Results from Complete Uncertainty Analysis

for Mass Balance Calculations
GoaL To produce a confidence interval (VS,L> Vs,u) that, with some specified
probability, includes the volume of oil remaining Vs on a particular day.
This confidence interval expresses contributions from all recognized sources
of uncertainty simultaneously, including the uncertainty associated with the
volume discharged, now assessed at 10 %.
Problem. The Monte Carlo approach that we have been using is based on
simulating values of relevant variables from appropriate probability distributions that reflect their associated uncertainty.
We use these to generate a wide range of likely scenarios that, together with
the values of those quantities that are being measured directly (for example,
volume of oil recovered via RlTT or Top Hat, volume of oily water skimmed,
etc.), determine one particular time series of values of Vs.
If VS:l' ... , Vs:m are the simulated values of Vs for a particular day, the endpoints
of that confidence interval are chosen so as to include a specified proportion
of these values, The lower end-point, VS,L represents a best-case scenario, and
the upper end-point Vs,u represents a worst-case scenario.
The problem has been that we could not easily find values of interesting quantities in play (for example, oil volume chemically dispersed, or oil volume
evaporated or dissolved), that correspond to those worst-case and best-case
scenarios ap.d satisfy the mass balance.
This problem arises because the scenario corresponding to Vs,u, the upper endpoint of the confidence interval, does not necessarily correspond to "worstcase" values of all the relevant quantities; and similarly for the scenario corresponding to VSL
, '.
Solution. The solution that I have developed, and whose results I illustrate
in the following pie charts and table, finds the most likely values of all the
relevant variables when. the volume of oil remaining is either Vs,L or Vs,u, and
does so in a manner that preserves the mass balance.
The solution requires a large number of simulated scenarios (the value of the
variable m in the R code): I recommend about 100000 for a 95% confidence
NIST
POSSOLO -
PAGE lOF 2
004337
DEEPWATER HORIZON -
MASS BALANCE
AUGUST 3RD, 2010
interval. Since the machine I'm using for this pilot development does not allow
. accessing enough memory to do this, the following figure and table are based
on only 50000 simulated scenarios.
The figtJre and table pertain to day 102 (July 30th, 201'0): the values are
different from those the tool at https : limy. usgs. gov I oi lBudget reports for
the same day owing principally to the way in which I'm interPreting the 1O %
uncertainty on the daily discharge. The last line in the table. lists the actual
values of Vs ,L and Vs u that the entries in the line labeled REMAINING are trying
to reproduce.
Best Case Scenario
Worst Case Scenario
Oispe<sed
mporaled or
Qissolved
26%
BEST-CASE
DISCHARGED
Recovered (RlTI/TopHat)
Dispersed Naturally
AVAILABLE'
Burned
Skimmed
REMAINING
Actual Percentile
NIST
WORST-CASE
4922738
4931405
-823452
-823452
-988088
-503939
-1275519
-1252445
1835679
2351569
-365301
-470905
-266375
-266375
-169730
-89271
1630623
928669
VS,L = 923251 Vs,u = 1 608563
POSSOLO -
PAGE 2 OF 2
004338

To: Sky Bristol.<sbristol@usgs.gov>
Cc: Tim Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>, "Pedro I. Espina"<pedro:espina@nist.gov>, "Guthrie, William E"
<william.guthrie@nist.gov>, BiIIlehr <bill.lehr@noaa.gov>
Sky,
Many thanks for your supportive assessment.
Yes, the percentages in the figure are incorrect because I included the
wrong figure - the attachment here fixes that.
I'll await further news of a possible conversation.
Best regards,
-Antonio
-Antonio Possolo, PhD - Chief
Telephone: 301-975-2853
Page lof2
004339
Pre$enl;iDg RemllS &am CQmp!(.m ~ Anal;ysis

for litis Balance CalculIIii<>n$
Goi&1. "Ib ~ a ~ Inrerftl ("h.~) tba, 1<kb _
spcd1ie:4
~ 1Dd:asdf!lldv!""""""ofClil ~ v" ..... ;, P"~d:oy.
'I1t!o~-''II ~tcatri&tl(ioou from all ~ . . . of ~ tirllaIi.........!Jl. Iodod&:l,g !be IIJ>.=tIIrII7 _oed YIiIh """
........ ~_-.-.d .u:HO'tIo.
P:l'oWem. The _
Coda ~ Ihar .... haw. bceIt ~ to -....! .,..
clmlllarir>g wI ..... ofJelo:v.nl....w.t.s fmm ~ ptob;Ibi8!y~
c;.,..stb:ltJdka Ibc& .....a.1.:6 ~
. Wi:""'~lO~a~~aflikely~D>.:It.~wIlb
u.. ..... C!fl1lOlOl: ~<har_ bebIj: dir=!yDl><-pk
.."........ 01. 04 ~ 'OIa IU1T ot1bp flu. """"""ooiIy_f1!t ~
_).d~.-putkIII.ar ~oed<s olfthtelrot~.
.
It~,.. ~_Ibc:._b1ed-...h.lgcofl!sfi>rDp1I2tIeubrdaJr;lbc:~
.,(Umt~w..v..! i.lC.dw:eD
so,., ID II>doIk a~,....~
otlh8e _ _ 'l'belawe:reDdopoomt. ~ . . - . best ....... ~.lIIiId

tbeuppcreDd-poilol:Vt;lt~. ",_-caoe~
nep<l'll>lea:I.bsbealdlal .... c:oulcI_~WYll1"""ol~ qum._

'" play (t..r ~ 011 YGbmIc d>emicaJIy ~ riC GIl. voIuD\!::
_poatIld .... ~.1haI ~..,1II<>$e ~ "nil b<st~
_andnt&fytt.._~CI!:.
Tb&prabIeIn~"--tM~~..,V...,.Ibe"f:'P<!'~
poII>td Ibc: ~ ~ doec 'DOl ~ CDm!SpCII>d ..............
c:u<!'wl_of..nlbc:~~:sod. ~rc.ra.e-'o_
~"'V..,..
~ 'l'he colntiom dIat t have &o.oelQped. ail<! w'base. ~ J IlIuctI:ate
in th fo1law!zI; Ilk dim:. ad Utbk!,. IIa<k (be _
lIhIy ~ ol:r1l Ibc:
~ ~wI!en die ....lumeaf alitemUolII; it:: eI!bI:r' V... or V_ ad
~fOlaz_!bat~d2<:_~
1be ~ ~ a brgel!l11Dlb t:I cim.ttb1eII ~ (till:: ftIDe.of.d><!

'IIIlri:I!IIe lit &11bc: A. c:x>dc): [r~ aboaf 100(11)) r.;.r:t9S ~~
...... -UNA
~-
.a.c.e:rOf'%
,..
Page 2of2
004340
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Possalo, Antonio
"Sky Bristo'"
Iim..Kl:rn; Espjna, Pedro I: Guthde Wjlljam E ;fIill..l.e!lr.
RE; Deepwater -- New Idea

Tuesday, August 03,20101:27:00 PM
EossoloBristolZ01 QAIJQ03 -NewIdea -revA adf
Sky,
Yes, the percentages in the figure are incorrect because I included the wrong figure -- the attachment
here fixes that.
I'll await further news of 'a possible conversation.
Best regards,
- Antonio
Telephone: 301-975-2853
004341
DEEPWATER HORIZON -
MASS BALANCE
AUGUST 3RD, 2010

Goal. To produce a confidence interval (VS,L, Vs,u) that, with some specified
probability; includes the volume of oil remaining Vs on a particular day.
This confidence. interval. expresses contributions from all recognized sources
of uncertainty simultaneously, .including the uncertainty associated with the
simulating values of relevant yariables from appropriate probability distributions that reflect their associated uncertainty.
vohime of oil recovered via RITT or Top Hat, volume of oily water skimmed,
If VS: 1' , Vs:m are the simulated values of Vs for a particular day, the endpoints
of these values. The lower end-point, VS,L represents a best-case scenario, and
scenarios and s;1tisfy the mass balance.
This problem arises because the scenario corresponding to Vs,u, the upper endpoint of the confidence interval, does not necessarily correspond to "worstcase" values of all the relevant quantities; and similarly for the scenario corresponding to Vs LSolution. The solution that I have developed, and whose results I illustrate
relevant variables when the volume of oil remaining is either Vs,L or Vs ,u, and
. variable m in the R code): I recommend about 100 000 for a 95 % confidence
NIST-REV A
POSSOLO -PAGE I OF 2
004342
DEEPWATER HORIZON -
MASS BALANCE
AUGUST
2010
interval. Since the machine rm using for this pilot development does not allow
accessing enough memory to do this, the following figure and table are based
on only 50000 simulated scenari~s.
The figure and table pertain to day 102 (July 30th, 2010): the values are
different from those the tool at https://my. usgs. gov/oi lBudget reports for
the same day owing principally to the way in which I'm interpreting the 10 %
uncertainty on the daily discharge. The last line in the table lists the actual
values of VS,L and Vs,u that the entries in the line labeled REMAINING are trying
to reproduce.
Best Case Scenario
Worst Case Scenario
Dispersed
Chemically 7 %
DISCHARGED
Recovered (RlTT /To'pHat)

Disper~ed Naturally
AVAILABLE"
Burned
Skimmed
REMAINING
Actual Percentile
NIST- REV A
BEST-CASE
" WORST-CASE
4922738
-823452
-988088
-1275519
1835679
-470905
-266375
-169730
928669
VS,L = 923251
4931405
-823452
-503939
-1252445
2351569
-365301
-266375
-89271
1630623
Vs u = 1 608563
POSSOLO -
PAGE 2 OF 2
004343

Subject: Deepwater - New Idea Revised
Date: Wednesday, August 4, 2010 1:19 PM
From: Antonio Possolo <antonio.possolo@nist,gov>
To: Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.-gov>, BiIIlehr<bilLlehr@noaa.gov>
Cc: Tim Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>, "Pedro L Espina" <pedro.espina@nist.gov>, "Guthrie, William E"
<wiUiam.guthrie@nist.gov>
Bill and Sky,
The attachment updates my prior submission on the same topic, but now
consistently with Bill's guidance on how the discharge uncertainty ought
to be applied (same percentage for all the days in each scenario).
I'm also (I hope) explaining things better than before, and summarizing
the results in two figures that I find particularly informative,
inspired from a NOAA figure in today's New York TImes.
The same as before, this is a draft suggestion pending internal NIST
review. If you will wish to see it developed for implementation, I
remain at Sky's and TIm's service to assist in such (induding.R code to
do the new computations and to draw the figures).
-Antonio
- An~onio Possolo, PhD - Chief
Telephone: 301-975-2853
Page 10f2
004344
~g ResaltI' from. ~ l.fru:f:r:tainty Analysis
for Mass Balance CIllailittioM

Gaaf. TQ ~ ".~
1m......, (V,....~}dz..... wiIh ....... <pediicd
~ 1oodudcsll>oe"""""",,,, ..I1~ 1'$ ..... pa~daJ:

n.;.eonfi<!l!tI<.t!:&ltl'tll3l~.-trib~
&om an ~_
of~~~d.cWl~~1IIf1f>.the
.......... ~ . . . ~ot.:l:lO"'~ 'TlII:.1Kc:mIIo Cado ~ IDa I"R bo!ca usmg to ~ &hI>...w;.,.:n!.ucsol~~frmIt.tppt~~~
dJa.alectlbeli'~~
n.: ....tr _bIe$ ~ Jalueo ,<!ala&> iiI:td ~ ....., ~ wloo!

""""""-~bfcUr""'
~Yiarun:
__
f!rir~ d\e;1/CII._fJl~
....'Jl>p Hat. .... dIeYoIIlm.:afoil;_m..._~
(lX"Il>esel'm ~dIdt ~_ ~oJIdlClI1-
"""{ItIaI\ tfIal Ric ~h1~ WItb'({",~U!M:OIber
...ab:'Ioillc~lI ~
1_ ~""'1iI:okd ~ "'~II. Wid,,~ otposs!ble~_
AIoclID each ~.ume-"'Ibe:~oCmo.e.~that1lfl!:rt_

- " " ~ T~2 'dcIl&aieS ol
V..
1l~,(t'), ___ .'i..(r)_W:.~~tJtV.tar4~dayc.(Dt'
' ' '_/It
~ ... mdi&rem~w. m...1be""dpoIIuofdzat~""
lcmIl.att:dIo!::tA,.. ... lOli:Itlade.&~~ o-....~. 95~)of

1h=~1'be:k>wr:tCD4-I'QI=t.V..c)~,,'beo:t_~:m<!
m..~~.paiIIt ~t) ~:lI~ 0P;dWI0 (f<Ictbald:ffl.
S!D<t: ~ ~ """" of IhIo ~ Is (!Oily liS"" (alod.noI l00~.......
a:MhIy ~ _ ~ mat -. botu=r. dw> If>a: 'best. ;mel _
dwt
thh~ H~ dl:ar:aczerit.., W:m. Wldtmil>kM1ly ~ """""'C)'
......met ~im~~III2mbczsJlld~ fb<'dz!s~
V"",ft);mel V..,,(l}~d>!::~I>eot"""" ....zst""~
1'bc p~ ".. "'- tbar I a>vld'lIGt ~ Imd ftIueI of Inlll:l!:ldJ>r. q.-..
ddo::IfD ~ {or ....... r>ilwllm!t: ~ ~ or 011 volume
~tedor~. dzat~!n
~ ..ad.otiIl.u!islydz.e """"",b;da......
dmoe
_......,:md best_
----------------,----
f'QS:SOLO -l"ACE
I OF S
Page 2 of2
004345
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Possalo, Antonio
"Sky Bristol"; ~
'Tim Kern"; Espina Pedro I Guthrie William f

Deepwater -- New Idea Revised
Wednesday, August 04, 2010 1:19:00 PM
possoloBrjstpl20l OAuQ04 -Newldea -revS pdf
Bill and Sky,

The attachment updates my prior submission on the same topic, but now conSistently with Bill's
guidance on how the discharge uncertainty ought to be applied (same percentage for all the days in
each scenario).
.
I'm also (Ihope) explaining things better than. before, and summarizing the results in two figures that I
find particularly informative, inspired from a NOAA figure in today's New York TImes.
The same as before, this is a draft suggestion pending internal NIST review. If you will wish to see it
developed for implementation, I remain at Sky's and TIm's service to assist in such (including R code to
- Antonio
- Antonio Possolor PhD -- Chief
Telephone: 301-975-2853
004346
DEEPWATER HORIZON -
MASS BALANCE
AUGUST
20ro

Goal. To produce a confidence interval (VS,L> Vs,u) that, with some specified
probability, includes the volume of oil remaining Vs on a particular day:
of uncertainty simultaneouslY, including the uncertainty associated with the
Problem. The Monte Carlo approach that I've been using is based on simulating values of relevant variables from appropriate probability distributions
that reflect their associated uncertainty:
.
The only variables whose values remain fixed throughput are those whose
values were obtained by direct measurement (for example, the volume of oil
recovered via RITT or Top Hat, or the volume of oily water that was skimmed)
- for these I'm ignoring their respective measurement uncertainty on the assumption that it is negligible by comparison with the contributions that other
sources make to the overall uncertainty:
I use those simulated values to generate a wide range of. possible scenarios.
And in: each scenario, using also the values of.those quantities that were measured directly, I compute a time series of values of Vs'
If VS~l (t), ... , Vs:m (t) are the simulated values of Vs for a particular day t, corresponding to m different scenarios, then the endpoints of that confidence interval are chosen so as to include a specified proportion (for example, 95 %) of
these values. The lower end-point, VS,L(t) represents a best-case scenario, and
the upper end-point Vs,u(t) represents a worst-case scenario (for that day).
of
Since the confidence level this interval is only 95 % (and not 100 %), conceivably there are scenarios that are better than that best, and worse than
this worst. However; characterizing them with minimally acceptable accuracy
would require impractically large numbers m of simUlations. For this reason,
VSL(t) and Vsu(t)represent the effectively best and worst case scenarios.
.
"
The problem has been that I could not easily find values of interesting quan~
tities in play (for example, oil volume chemically dispersed, or oil volume
scenarios, and still satisfy the mass balance.
NIST -
REV B DRAFT
POSSOLO -
PAGE I OF
004347
DEEPWATER HORIZON -
MASS BALANCE
AUGUST 4TH, 2010
This problem arises because the scenario corresponding to Vs uC t), the upper end-point of the confidence interval, does not necessarily correspond to
"worst-case" values of all the relevant quantities; and similarly for the scenario corresponding to VSL(t). Discharge Uncertainty. The uncertainty associated with the volume discharged
is interpreted as follows: the actual time series of the daily discharge is modeled as the product EVRCt), where VRCt) denotes the nominal discharge on day
t, and E is a Gaussian random variable with mean 1 and standard deviation
0.05.
In these circ:umstances, and with high probability (about 95 %), the actual
discharge is within 10 % of the nominal discharge; however; there is a small
chance -(about 5 %) that it will deviate by more than 10% from nominal.
For example, if we are 3 % too low in one scenario -(meaning that E = 0.97),
then we are 3 % too low every day of that scenario; however; in another scenario we could be 7 % too high; and in this case we would be 7 % too high in
every day of this scenario.
Solution. The solution that I have developed finds the most likely values of
all the rel.evant variables when the volume of oil remaining on day t is either
VS,L(t) or Vs,u(t), and does so in a manner that preserves the mass balance.
The corresponding results are listed in Table 1, and illustrated in Figures 1-2
(which are similar to a figure that appears in today's New York Times, with
attribution to NOM).
A reliable solution requires a large number of simulated scenarios (the value
of the variable m in the R code): I recommend ab9ut 100000 for a 95 %
confidence interval. Since the machine rm using for this pilot development
does not allow accessing enough memory to do this, the results shown here
.
are based on only 75 000 simulated scenarios.
NIST -
REV B DRAFT
POSSOLO -
PAGE 2 OF
004348
DEEPWATER HORlZON -
MASS BALANCE
DISCHARGED
Recovered (RlIT /TopHat)

Dispersed Naturally
Evaporated / Dissolved'
AVAILABLE
Burned
REMAINING
AUGUST
2010
BEST-CASE
EXPECTED
WORST-CASE
4600000
-823000
-'961000
-1090000
1720000
-441000
4930000
-823000
-765000
-1250000
2090000
-409000
-266000
5200000
-823000
-636000
-1320000
2430000
868000
1270000
1690000
Table 1: Where the Oil Went:. Expected volumes (bbl) and best and worst
case scenarios from uncertainty analysis for day 102 (July 30th, 2010). The
last line in the table lists the actual value Qf VS,L(t), the expected value of
Vs(t), and the actual value of Vs,u(t). The entries in the line labeled REMAINING (APPROx:.) attempt to reproduce the corresponding entries in the last
. line by applying ~y "scenario inversion" algorithm, which imputes values for
all the variables listed that are consistent with VSL(t)
and with Vsu(t)
while
,
,
preserving mass balance.
NIST
REV B DRAFf
POSSOLO -
PAGE
3 OF 5
004349
DEEPWATER HORIZON
Best Case
MASS BALANCE
AUGUST
Expected
20IO
Worst Case
li
~
~
;:.
;:-~
Dispersed
Naturally
636000
':.
Dispersed
Naturally
765000
g
8
Evaporated or
Oissohted
1320000
:vacorated or
Dissol',ecl
12S()OOO
;":'.
:.:~r,,: -.~
U!:;',' ",
-:: '" - :,..~; 1 .

J,:
:.',
Burned 266000
St-immed 81400
; .;.
Burned 266000
Skimmed 144QOO
8
8
Remaining
1690000
Remainjng
1270000
Figure 1: Where the Oil \Vent: Expected volume (bbl) and best and worst
vertical scale, indicated at left, is the same for the three bars.
NIST -
REV B DRAFT
POSSOLO -
PAGE
4 OF 5
004350
DEEPWATER HORIZON -
Best Case
Dispersed
Naturally
21 %
MASS BALANCE
AUGUST 4TH. 20IO
Expected
Worst Case
Dispersed
Naturally
16%
EvapOrated or
Evaporated or
Oisso!ved
24%
Dissolve::!,
25%
......
..~.
:
:".
.',
Bumed5%
Remaining
Remaining
19%
26%
Figure 2: Where the Oil Went: Expected volume percentages and best and
worst case scenarios from uncertainty analysis for day 102 (July 30th, 2010).
The height of each baris 100 % (of the total volume of oil discharged in each
of the three cases, which is listed in the first rown of Table 1).
NIST -
REV B DRAFT
POSSOLO -
PAGE
5 OF 5
004351
DEEPWATER HORIZON
MASS BALANCE
AUGUST
2010

'probability, includes the volume of oil remaining Vs on a particular day.
of uncertainty simultaneously, including the uncenainty associated with the
volume discharged, now assessed at 10%.
Problem. The Monte Carlo approach that I've been using is based on sim. ulating values of relevant variables from appropriate probability distributions
that reflect their associated uncertainty.
The only variables whose values remain fixed throughout are those whose
- for these rm ignoring their respective measurement uncertainty on the assumption that it is negligible by comparison with the contributions that other
sources make to the overall uncertainty.
And iIi each scena,rio, using also the values of.those quantities that were measured directly, I compute a time series of values of Vs' .
If VS: 1 (t), ... , V;'m (t) are the simulated values of Vs for a particular day t, corresponding to m different scenarios, then the endpoints of that confidence interval are chosen so as to include a specified proportion (for example, 95 %) of
the upper end-point Vs,u(t) represents a worst-case scenario (for that day).
of
Since the confidence level this interVal is only 95 % (and not 100 %), conceivably there are scenarios that are better than that best, and worse than
this worst. However, characterizing them with minimally acceptable accuracy
would require impractically large numbers m of simulations. For this reason,
VS,L(t) and Vs,u(t) represent the effectively best and worst case scenarios.
The problem has been that I could not easily find values of interesting quan~
tities in play (for example, oil' volume chemically dispersed, or oil volume
NIST -
REV B DRAFT
POSSOLO -
PAGE I OF 5
004352
f"'l!.N. ~e d
,Q, r
(.Ni~h.c.lJ,"~

. FOIA# _ __
=:-:--:--:--..,...--,
FOIA Exemption
DB6:
9-
documents
pages
5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(6) - Personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
004353
From:
pQSSOIQ Antonio
To:
~
Espjna Pedro I
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Oil budget tool update - Discharge llem Series

Saturday, July 31, 2010 2;40:55 PM
.
Tim,
The code will handle a time series of daily values of
discharge just fine as it is.
All you need to do is put the values of. that time series into
the variC!.ble oilFlowRate (which in the version of the code
that I last sent you, file oily~USGS2010Jul09-FixedFlow.Rfwas
set either to 35000 or to 60000, in line 26).
The temporal order must match the order of the other input
time series -- VBU, VDT, etc. -- wherever you may reaciing them
from.
I also should like to recommend that you change the value of
m=10000 (on line 146 of the file named above) to something
bigger, like m=50000 or even m=100000. This is the number of
simulations that the uncerta'inty analysis is based OIL
The motivation for this is the fact that we are computing
pretty extreme percentiles (0.05th and 99.95th) for the
outputs, and a sample of 10000 gives you too little support in
the extreme tails of the distribution.
This increase in the value of m will slow things down. But
maybe the slow-down will still be tolerable, even with
m=100000, given that you are going to do the calculations just
once per day.
If you I d like me to change anything in the R code, or help in
any other way, just ask.
- Antonio'
-Information Technology Laboratory
Telephone: 301-975-2853
br
004354

Subject: Oil budget tool update - Discharge Tiem Series
To: 11m Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>
Cc: "Pedro I. Espina" <pedro.espina@nist.gov>
Tim,
The code will handle a time serles of daily values of .
discharge just fine as it lS.
All you need to do is put the values of that time series
into the variable oilFlowRate which in the version .of
the code that I last sent you, file oily-USGS2010JuI09FixedFlow.R, was set either to 35000 or to 60000, in
line 26).
The temporal order must match the order of the other
input time series -- VBU, VDT, etc. -- wherever you may
reading them from.
also should like to recommend that you change the
value of rn 10000 (on line 146 of the file named above)
to something bigger,. like m=SOOOO or even rn 100000. This
is the number of simulations that the uncertainty
analysis is based on.
I
The motivation for this is the fact that we are

computing pretty extreme percentiles (O.OSth and
99.9Sth) for the outputs, and a sample of 10000 gives
you too little support in the extreme tails of the'
distribution.
This increase in the value of.m will slow things down.
But maybe the slow-down will still be tolerable, even
with m=100000, given that you are going to do the'
calculations just once per day.
If
you~d
like me to change anything in the R code, or

Page 1 of 2
004355
~elpin
any other way, 'just ask.

bb
Antonio

National Institute of Stand,ards & Technology
Telephone: 301-975-2853
Page 2 of 2
004357
Subject:
f>ossolo Antonjo
BHI,Lehr@noaa.oov Sky Bristol
Mark Miller: j'iteOhen Hammond; sean CDR Q"Brien; TIm
RE: Oil budget tool update coordination
Date:
SatlJrday, July 31,2.010 3:04:48 PM
From:
To:
Cc;
Kern' Esojoa Pedro I
Bill and SkyI

I've just now sent lim details about how to modify the R engine code to accommodate a time series of
daily value of discharge.
The uncertainty about the disdlarge is not incorporated other than by possibly running the code for a
time series of "high" disdlarges, and then again for a Series of "low" disdlarges, just like you were
doing until now with a single value for "'ow" and another single value for "high".
If you'd like to incorporate the uncertainty in the time series of daily discharges we certainly can do it
similarly to how we incorporate the uncertainty in the rate constants, For example, you might say that,
with 90% probability, you believe the time series of actual disdlarges is within 10% of the time series
of nominal disdlarg~.
But we've been there before, for single values of diS!=harge, as you may remember, and the approach
was abandoned beqluse it was incompatible with a presentation of results focussing on "worst" and
"best" cases for all the outputs of interest. Nonetheless, that would be the "right" approach.
If you'd like to see the uncertainty in the time series of daily disdlarge taken into account, then I'd have .
to modify the R code.
And it.-a per telephone conversation could help,
- Antonio
~
Antonio Possalo, PhD -- Chief

Information Technology Laboratory .
Telephone: 301-975-2853
From: BiILLehr@noaa.gov [BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov]

Sent: Saturday, July 3~, 2010 2:56 PM
To: Sky Bristol
Cc: Mark Miller; Stephen Hammond; Sean CDR O'Brien; Possolo, Antonio; lim Kem
Sky,
Attached is the agreed flow rate estimate with 10% uncertainty. I have not been able to get hold .of
Antonio.
Bill
004358

Date: Saturday, July 31,20103:19 PM
From: Antonio Possolo <antonio.possolo@nist.gov>'
To: Bill Lehr <l:JiII.lehr@noaa.gov>, Sky Bristol <5bristol@usgs.gov>
Cc: Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, Stephen Hammond <sehammon@usgs.gov>, Sean CDR O'Brien
<sean.k.o'brien@uscg.mil>, Tim Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>, "Pedro I. Espina" <pedro.espina@nist.gov> '
Bill and Sky,

, I've just now sent Tim details about how to modify the R engine code to accommodate a time
series of ~aily value of discharge.
The 'uncertainty about the discharge is not incorporated other than by possibly running the
code for a time series of "high" discharges, and then again for a series of "Iowl! discharges/just
like you were doing until now with a single value for "low" and another single value for "high".
If you'd like to incorporate the uncertainty in the time series of daily discharges we certainly
can do it similarly to how we incorporate the uncertainty in the rate constants. For, example;
you might say that, with 90% probability, you believe the time series of actual discharges ;s
within 10% of the time series of nominal discharges.
But we've been there before, for single values of discharge, as you may remember, and the
approach was abandoned because it was incompatible with a presentation of results focussing
on "worst" and "best" cases for all the outputs of interest. Nonetheless, that would be the
"right" approach.
If you'd like to see, the uncertainty in the time series of daily discharge taken int6 account, then
I'd have to modify the R code.
And if a per telephone conversation could help,
bE>,
- Antonio
Telephone: 301-975-2853
From: BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov [BilI.Lehr@noaa.gov]
Page 1 of 2
'
004359

To: Sky Bristol
Cc: Mark Miller; Stephen Hammond; Sean CDR O'Brien; Possolo, Antonio; Tim Kern
Attach~d
is the agreed flow rate estimate with 10% uncertainty. I have not been able to get
hold of Antonio.
Bill
Page 2 of2
004360

Subject: Re: Oil budget toof update - coordination
Cc: Bill Lehr <bilLlehr@noaa.gov>, Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, Stephen Hammond
<sehammon@usgs.gov>, Sean CDR O'Brien <sean.k.o'brien@uscg.mil>, Tim Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>, "Pedro I. Espina"
<pedro.espina@nistgov>
Okay. MarkSogge is going to send me a table of the underlying values that the FRTG worked
out. We'll see what that looks like in the application and against the modified R code and get
something back out to the group for review.
<.( <"''''''''"''<.(( {<"....,.''',.,<.{ <

Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
Office: 303-202-4181
Cell
v",<.((
On Jul 31, 2010; at 1:19 PM, Possolo, Antonio wrote:
> Bill and Sky,

>
> Irve just now sent TIm details about how to modify the R engine code to accommodate a
time series of daily value of discharge.
>
> The uncertainty about the discharge is not incorporated other than by possibly running the
code for a tim'e series of r'high".discharges, and then again for a series of "low" discharges, just
like you were doing until now with a single value for "Iow" and another single value for "high".
>
> If you'd like to incorporate the uncertainty in the time series' of daily discharges we certainly
can do it similarly to how we incorporate the uncertainty in the rate constants. For example,
you might say that, with 90% probability, you believe the time series of actual discharges is
within 10% of the time ~eries of nominal discharges.
>
> But we've been there before, for single values of discharge, as you may remember, and the
on "worst" and "best" cases for all theoutputs of interest. Nonetheless, that would be the
"right" approach.
>
> If you'd like to see the uncertainty in the time series of daily discharge taken into account,
Page lof2
004361
then I'd have to modify the R code.
>
> And if a per t~lephone conversation could help,
" bb
Antonio
>
> Telephone: 301-975-2853
>
------------------------------~~"> From: BiII.lehr@noaa.gov [Bill.lehr@noaa.govJ
> ~ent: Saturday, July 31, 2010 2:56 PM .
> To: Sky Bristol
> Cc: Mark Miller; Stephen Hammond; Sean CDR O'Brien; Possolo} Antonio; Tim Kern
>
> Sky,
>
> Attached is the agreed flow rate estimate with 10% uncertainty. I have not been able to f5et
hold of Antonio.
>
> Bill
Page 2 of 2
004362

Subject: Re: RE: Oil budget tool update - coordination
From: BiIIlehr <bill.lehr@noaa.gov>
Cc: Sky B.ristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>, Mark Miller <Mark.W.MiJler@noaa.gov>, Stephen Hammond
<pedro.espina@nist.gov>
Based upon the comments from the DOE-FRTG meeting. I would go with exactly those values
shown on the graph for the pie chart that goes to the Whitehouse.
---- Original Message ---From: "Possolo, Antonio" <antonio.possolo@nist.gov>
Date: Saturday, July 31,201012:19 pm
Subject: RE: Oil budget tool update -.coordination
To: "BilI.Lehr@noaa~gov" <BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov>, Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>
Cc: Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, Stephen Hammond <sehammon@usgs.gov>,
Sean CDR O'Brien <sean.k.o'brien@uscg.mil>, Tim Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>J "Espinal Pedro I."
> Bill and SkYI
>
> I've just now sent Ti".1 details about how to modify the R engine code
> to accommodate a time series of daily value of discharge.
>
> The uncertainty about the discharge is not incorporated other than by
>possibly running the code for a time series of "high" discharges{ and
> then again for a series of "Iowl! dischargesl just like you were doing
> until now with a single value for "Iowl! and another single value for "high".
>.
> If you'd like to incorporate the uncertainty in the time series of
> daily discharges we certainly can do it similarly to how we
> incorporate the uncertainty in the rate constants. For examplel you
> might say that, with 90% probabilityl you believe the time series of
> actual discharges is within 10% of the time series of nominal discharges.
>
> But we've be~n there before, for single values of discharge, as you
> may remember, and the approach was abandoned because it was
> incompatible with a presentation of ~esults focussing on "worst'l and
> "best" cases for all the outputs of interest. Nonethelessl that would
> be the. "right" approa~h.
Page 1of2
004363
>
> If you'd like to see the uncertainty in the time series of daily
> discharge taken into account, then I'd have to modify the R code.
>
> And if a per telephone conversation could help,
>
. > - Antonio
>
> Telephone: 301-975-2853
>------------------------------------
> From: Bill.lehr@noaa.gov [Bill.lehr@noaa.gov]

. > To: Sky Bristol
> Cc: Mark Miller; Stephen Hammond; Sean CDR O'Brien; Possolo, Antonio;
> Tim Kern
>Subject: Re: Oil budget tool update - coordination
>
> Sky,
>
> Attached is the agreed flow rate estimate with 10% uncertainty. I have
> not been able to get hold of Antonio.
>
> Bill
. Page 2 of2
004364
Subject: Re: Oil budget tool update - coordimition

From: Marl< Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
To: Bililehr <bill.lehr@noaa.gov>
Cc: Antonio Possolo<antonio.possolo@nist.gov>, Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>, Stephen Hammond
I agree. Anyway to get a time weighted average of the flow?

Mark
BilLlehr@noaa.gov wrote:
> Based upon the comments from the DOE-FRTG meeting~ I would go with exactly those values
.
>
> - - Original Message ---> From: "Possolo, Antonio" <antonio.possolo@ni~t.gov>
> Date: Saturday, July 31, 2010 12:19 pm
> Subject: RE: Oil budget tool update - coordination
> To: "BiII.lehr@noaa.gov" <BiII.lehr@noaa.gov>, Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>
> Cc: Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, Stephen Hammond <sehammon@usgs.gov>,
Sean CDR O'Brien <sean.k.o'brien@uscg.mil>, Tim Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>1 "Espina, Pedro I."
>
>
Bill and Sky, .
I've just now sent Tim details about how to modify the R engine code'
to accommodate a time series of daily value of discharge.
>;>
The uncertainty about the discharge is not incorporated other than by
possibly running the code for a time series.of"high" discharges, and
then again for a series of "low" discharges, just like you were doing
until now with a single value for "low" and another single value for "high".
If you'd like to incorporate the uncertainty in the time series of

daily discharges we certainly can do it similarly to how we
incorporate the uncertainty in the rate constants. For example; you
might say that, with 90% probability, you believe the time series of
actual discharges is within 10% of the time series of nominal discharges.
Page lof2
004365
But we've been there before, for single values of discharge, as you
may remember, and the approach was abandoned because it was
incompatible with a presentation of results focussing on "worst" and
"best" cases for all the outputs of interest. Nonetheless, that would
be the "right" approach.
Ifyou'd like to see the uncertainty in the time series of daily

discharge taken into account, then I'd have to modify the R code.
b6
- Antonio

InformationTechnology laboratory
. Telephone: 301-975-2853
----~~----------------------------
. From: BilI.Lehr@noaa.gov [BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov]

$ent: Saturday, July 31,20102:56 PM
To: Sky Bristol
Cc: Mark Miller; Stephen Hammond; SeaR CDRO/Brien;
Tim Kern
Possolo~
Antonio;
>">Sky,
Attached is the agreed flow rate estimate with 10% uncertainty. I have
not been able to get hold of Antonio.
Bill
Page 2 of2
004366

FOIA #(RQ.I r=== 10 -"3> s 1
d..
DOE
AGENCY or COMPANY name
pages to be sent to the following
004367

Subject: Fwd: Nodal Team: Summary Estimates (addendum)
Date: Wednesday, June 30, 20104:51 PM
From: George Guthrie <george.guthrie@netl.doe.gov>
To: Antonio Possolo <antonio.possolo@nist.gov>, "Pedro I. Espinal! <pedro.espina@nist.gov>, "Guthrie, William F."
<william.guthrie@nist.gov>
Cc: Grant Bromhal <Grant.Bromhal@NETl.DOE.GOV>
Here's the guidance we sent out. I hope to get numbers back later today. Thanks for the call
today.
-George
From: George Guthrie <george.guthrie@netLdoe.gov>

Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 16:26:09 -0400
To: <rajesh@lanl.gov>, <CMOldenburg@lpl.gov>, <buscheckl@lInl.gov>, Grant Bromhal
<Grant.Bromhal@NETLDOE.GOV>, <phillip.gauglitz@pnLgov>
Cc: Darren Mollot <Darren.Mollot@HQ.DOE.GOV>, <Robert.Corbin@hq.doe.gov>, George Guthrie
<george.guthrie@netl.doe.gov>
Subject: Nodal Team: Summary Estimates (addendum)
I would like to thank you. all for participating in such a productive call today. I am very
optimistic that we are close to completion based on the approach we agreed on during the
call. (Thanks, Phil, for prompting the expert elicitation!)
Let's make sure I've got this correct and we're all on the same page:
1. We will base low estimates on our scenarios 1/3; we will base high estimates on our
scenario 2.
1a. (The rationale for this is that all teams found that scenarios 1/3 produced consistently
lower rates than scenario 2 and that scenarios 1/3 were comparable.)
2. We will take estimates from each lab based on #1 for each time period (as available) and
use those to derive a composite estimate.
3. Each lab will provide (as available) low and high estimates using either a direct calculation
or an expert-interpolation/extrapolation, documenting assumption/conditions. The estimates
will be combined using an arithmetic' mean.
3a. On the phone, we defined "low" pnd "high" to be those values representing your 20:1 and
1:20 conditions; this was taken by those teams that conducted M-C analysis to mean the 5th
and 95th percentiles. For those teams who did not do M-C, please use a comparable level of
Page lof2
004368
confidence. All should clarify the level of confidence used in the attached table appropriately.
4. Time period 5 is the period for which everyone has results. For other time periods, we will
use results as available (and duly noted).
Attached is an Excel worksheet for you to use in sending in the values. I've included the values
discussed in the call along with caveats as discussed (I didn't get everything, so please look
over and amend as needed). (Curt, I used your high-end reported value as an input for time
period 5, scenario 2--hopefully that is correct.)
.
I have since spoken with experts at NIST who are working with other parts of the FRTG and will
work with us to interpret the consensus results based on the input noted above.
Please send back by COB today.
Thanks,
-george
Page 2 of 2
004369
Subject: Nodal Team Summary Report

To: Grant Bromhal <Grant.Bromhal@NETLDOE.GOV>, Antonio Possolo <antonio.possolo@nist.gov>
Cc: "Pedro I. Espina" <pedro.espina@nist.gov>, "Guthrie, William E" <william.guthrie@nist.gov>
Attached is the revised summary report. I will be sending it in to Mark Sogge on Tuesday, along
with the compiled reports in the appendix. I've added your report there. You might doublecheck the wording in the executive summary (p. 5) and in the body of the report (p. 13-14). I
think I've captured it.
Also, I hope it is ok to list your names on the summary report. Let me know if that is not ok.
Thanks again for the work and quick turnaround,
-george
Page 1 of 1
004370

FOIA # (~J2.L'\- iO ~c6l
?(fill in the number)
Documents consisting of .
-:>
USGS
004372

Cc: Mark K Sogge <mark_sogge@usgs.gov>, Stephen Hammond <sehammon@usgs.gov>, Bililehr <bilLlehr@noaa.gov>,
Antonio Possolo <antonio.possolo@nist.gov>, "Pedro I. Espina" <pedro.espina@nist.gov>
Given the note I just saw from Steve Hammond about sensitivities in sharing individual names,
here is a third option stripped to the bone with just a few people listed. Our core development
team in USGS is probably okay with names .attached unless there is some good advice not to do
so. Personally, I don't really see the point in doing something like this bare bones approach
other than to indicate that USCG, USGS;NOAA, and NIST all worked together to produce the
tool, which could be done in much simpler prose.
Oil Budget Calculator Science and Engineering Team

!
SteerIng ComntiUee
USCG oCommandlng Officer, Siluatioil Unit (CDR Sean O'Brien)
NOAA Scfence Coordinator and liaison (MaIK Miller)
USGS ScIentific Support uaisOn (Stephen Hammond)
0
Informatics Research and

Development (usGs)
Sky Bristol, team lead
Oil Fare and BehsvlQl' ScIem:e (NOAA

and Multlagency Team)
em Lehr, NOAA team !&ad
Scientffic Programming and MadeJ

Development (NISTJ
Pedro Espina (POe for Incident)
Note: This is not an organizational chart but a representallon of 1he groups end personnellnvotved and their relative fundicns.
.,
Page 1 of 1
OU Budget Calculator Science and Engineering Team

t
Steering Committee
USCG - Commanding Officer, Situation Unit (CDR Sean O'Brien)
NOAA - Science Coordinator and Liaison (Mark Miller)
USGS':" Scientific Support Liaison (Stephen Hammond)
~~'
~.,
W
Ii!
~'
w~
T:
t~
f:
p:~

Development (VSGS)
, ISky Bristol, team lead
Oil Fate and Behavior Science (NOAA

and Multiagency Team)
I IBill Lehr, NOAA team lead
Scientific Programming and Model

Development (NIST)
I IPedro Espina (POC for Incident)
'{' Note: This is not an organizational chart but a representation of the groups and personnel involved
and their relative functions.
,
;:;,:::;.");"I:'';'~r1~N,-~;,. "i.;~: "~"."'.
i;!'I:~!i.'~;~;r~r;;"'~;I:':.I!i:.;.I:i:.J.'i~~:..:t~~IT?1J!-fffJXJ'.'.r:O~,;>~.~~.~:~~Y~.nf!'?D~:"f!t;,r;;:::i!t~rf!lf1.!!1~rJ:!fIh'f.'J!IJf..r_~.Tr....'t;~:;.l1J!,~f:Yf>::.)'f~,~::-::lflr-rr,'~"l_!f.';rtl?i.I;~?(.'!.,\:.
-.:!>'i!~~!~II.~::.'rrJrr!>.~'!!.f1.~!{f..!i'!~:~:}.'fJ~.i!h"!f'~"W'~?-'i~.W~~.~'.;w;'f:~11:~r.~'fI~n::~:r.:'(.~!J~.11~tT"':'.f":f:'JY:".T,":.";r~,,,:;,,,,-,
11: ~
t
~;
t
~'
_:'.r:_'mr'J'!~'~!f:ff:"!~"~;!".'TV71~.~=.m.~, .~/.
004373
~"
~,
004374

FOIA # cJ2.(l. p::... 10" ~s.,
~
=-::-;...,..,..-------:-----:
(fill in "the number)
lJ.
-,
NOAA
AGENCY or COMPANY name'
004375
Friday. August 20,20108:02 AM
Subject: mass balance statistics

Date: Friday, June 25,2010 4:52 PM
From: Bill Lehr <bilJ.lehr@noaa.gov>
Reply-To: <BiII.lehr@noaa.gov>
To: "Pedro I. Espina" <pedro.espina@nist.gov>, Antonio Possolo <antonio.possolo@nist.gov>
See attached
Page 1 of 1
004376
For Pedro and Antonio - Mass balance statistics

?ackground;
Need to calculate realistic bounds on the mass balance from the spill
Mass balance equations are linear but not smooth (Heaviside functions)
Volume functions are time dependent (discrete time step of one day)
Rate constants are random variables with a skewed distribution fuhction, but are time
independent
Table of rate constants ( G+ specifies positive standard deviation (right side): G_

negative standard deviation Oeft sideJ
Rate constant . definition

Initial flow
kOl
Later flow
ko2
Natural dispersion
k;
Chemical dispersion (bottom)
k2
Chemical dispersion (top)
k3
1st day evaporation
k4
2nd day evaporation
ks
Net oil fraction in skimmed oil
k6
~
fA. (mean)
2G+
20_
1
1.5
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.06
0.02
1
'1
0.05
0.3
0.2
0.04
0.04
0.1
4.5
0.15
0.8
0.2
0.37
0.04
0.2
Input variables (time dependent variables that are entered by response team. All units
are bbl and are daily rates (varies by day)
variable
VDT(t)
Vcs(t)
Vcs(t)
Vsu(t)
Vow(t)
definition
Oil recovered at source on day t
Dispersant volume sprayed at bottom
Dispersant volume sprayed at surface
Volume burned on dayt
Volume of oily water recoveredon day t
Calculated daily variables

Flow volume on day t
VR(t) = 1O,000(lGnH(45 - t) + k02H(t - 45
Effective flow volume
His Heaviside function
004377
Oil chemically dispersed on bottom on day t
Oil naturally dispersed on the bottom
total oil dispersed on bottom
Oil chemically dispersed at the surface
total oil dispersed on day t
Volume of oil evaporated on day t
skimmed oil
surface oil
Need to compute ranges (+ or - 2 sigma) for sums( ,\"T variable(t) of the following as
L.Jt=l
a function ofT and input variables

Volume released
Natural dispersion
Chemical dispersion
Evaporation
Skimmed oil
Surface oil
004378
$ubject:'DOE and FRTG estimates

Date: Monday, July 5, 20106:54 AM
From: Bill Lehr <bilLlehr@noaa.gov>
To: Marcia McNutt <mcnutt@usgs.gov>
Cc: "Pedro I. Espinal! <pedro.espina@nist.gov>
Marcia,
Pedro has pointed out that the estimates of the FRTG teams and the estimates of the DOE
teams differ by a significant amount, greater than 20,000 bbl/day. Perhaps we should have a
conference call or meeting (NIST has offered their facillities) of the Team leads to attemptto
reconcile this difference unless the new cap provides a definitive answer. My understanding is
that it will be capable of handling up to 50,000 bbl/day. If, however, it turns out that . 25-30
K
.
bbl is the practical upper limit for recovery, then the discrepancy in estimates will remain
unresolved. If the cap recovers 50 K bbl/day and oil is still leaking considerable oil, then the
FRTG estimates were too small. Do we want to hold off on releasing the FRTG final reports
until the question is answered?
.
Bill
Page 1 of 1
004379

FOIA # Cf2-12 \ 1-;:: ;0 ~ 35)
~
~~
NOAA & USGS

004381
Thank you, and weIll work through this new model as quickly as possible.
<.( (( <""""'''''<.( ( <"""'''''''<.( ( <
Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
Office: 303-202-4181
<.( <"''''''''''''<.( <""""'''''<.(<
On Jun 28, 2010.. at 4:19 PM, BHI.Lehr@noaa.gov wrote:
>
> Sky,
.>
> The NIST statisticians have developed a method to provide reasonable upper and lower
bounds for the oil budget that the simple extremum approach we tried did not. Unfortunately,
because the high low values have to be represented by skewed normal distributions, the
mathematics get quite complicated. They programmed it in R and say that there is a way to link
it to Excel but appararently its quite challenging.
>
> The choice becomes: Should I go back to them and try to work up a simpler approach or
would you like to try and link in the R code into your excel formulas?
>.
> Bill
Page 2 of 2
004382
Friday, August 20, 2010 8;02 AM
Subject: Re: DOE and FRTG estimates
Date: Monday, July 5,201011:59 AM
.From; Marcia McNutt <mcnutt@usgs.gov>
To: Bill Lehr <bill.lehr@noaa.gov>
Bill and Pedro I think this is an excellent idea. Here is a "decision tree" for how we could go about scheduling
such a meeting to reconcile estimates.
The schedule as of this morning for additional containment has slipped again. I am ready to
strangle someone - anyone - in BP. They had days of weather delays to make sure that all was
ready to go for the last two items of the buildout and now that the weather is cooperating, the
crane on the only ship that can perform the procedure isn't working! So several possibilities:
1. Containment happens this week. Rules out lower FRTG estimates. No reconciliation
required.
2. Containment happens this week. Rules out upper FRTG estimates. No reconciliation
required.
3. Containment happens this week, but at too Iowa capacity to rule out lower FRTG estimates.
Reconciliation required.
4. Containment schedule continues to slip, such that relief wells may beat further containment.
Reconciliation essenti-al.
We don't want to be in the situation of having the well killed (a good thing) but with lots of
disagreement on the flow rate.
Marcia
---- Original Message ---From: Bill.Lehr

Sent: 07/05/2010 03 :54 AM MST
To: Marcia McNutt
Cc: "Espina, Pedro I." <pedro.espina@nist.gov>
Subject: DOE and FRTG estimates
Marcia,
Page lof2
004383
Pedro has pOinted out that the estimates of the FRTG teams and the estimates of the DOE.
conference call or meeting (NIST has offered their facillities) of the Team leads to attempt to
reconcile this difference unless the new cap provides a definitive answer. My understanding is .
that it will be capable of handling up to 50/000 bbl/day. If, however, it turns out that 25-30 K
bbl is the practical upper limit for recovery, then the discrepancy in estimates will remain
unresolved. If the cap recovers 50 K bbl/day and oil is still leaking considerable oil/ then the
FRTG estimates were too small. Do we want to hold off on releasing the FRTG final reports.
Bill
. Page 2 of2
004384
Subject: Files
Date: Friday, July 9, 2010 11:28 AM
To: Antonio Possolo <antonio.possolo@nist.gov>, "Pedro I. Espina" <pedro.espina@nist.gov>.

Cc: Tim Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>, David Mack <mackd@usgs.gov>
Bill's latest Mass Balance document and daily values through day 80.
on~(ltS'2:M)tor-_~lI.~Spm .
~_~~I~~tI
"l'besl!thmwIas"""tor~J>~Ol:I.lyoM
slJ.oWd 1Ultl>e1l$cdt ass"""~~t:ll damage.
Page 1 of 1
004385
on Budget (Its 209) lOr the Deep~ter Horizon Spill

Preparecl for the Nationallnddent Comm.and
June 24, 2010
Bill Lehr
NOAA/ORR
These formulas are for response purposes only and

should not be used to assess environmental damage.
004386
Behavior of spilled oil

Cleanup of oils is generally designed to enhance or add to natural removal mechanisms.
Figure 1 shows the processes that can happen to oil on the water surface.
evaporation
photo-oxidation
spreading
oil slick
air
water
dissolution
l~oo
emulsification
Figure 1, Natural weathering processes
This spill has the added challenge of originating from a highly turbulent, two-phase, warm
jet a mile beneath the water surface. Because of its size and peculiar nature, the
Deepwater Horizon Spill is not a~enable to many standard oil fate and behavior
assumptions. Experts in oil spill science and experienced spill professionals were
contacted for their views on how these standard assumptions should be modified for this
incident.
ICS209
The incident Command System (ICS) was developed to provide federal, state, and local
governments, as well as private and not-for-profit entities, with a consistent framework
for the preparation fOf, response to, and recovery from any incident or event, regardless
of the size, nature, duration; location, scope, or complexity. The ICS Form 209 provides
the mass balance informat:ion that the Incident Command needs to assess the size of the
threat. Currently, the information equivalent to the Form 209 is in an Excel spreadsheet.
The recommended structure for the flowchart is shown in Figure 2.
004387
subsurface
subsurface
natural
dispersion
chemical
dispersion
surface 011
burned
SlJrface* 011
eveponliion
surface oil
llme
chemically
dl3pcr3ed
surface oil
CIIIIec:ted
wrface oil
Figure 2. Speadsheet logic diagram
Use of Multiple scenarios:

The program computes a best case, worst case, and, possibly, an expected scenario. The
worst case assumes maximum release and minimum removal. Best case will do the
reverse.. Depending upon the requests of the NIC, most likely values may be wanted and
so are also provided. Most likely scenarios use average release estimates and average
expected removal. Since some of the input terms will have different values depending
upon whether we are looking at best case, worst case or most likely case, they are listed
as
TERM == (likely, best, worst)
Definition ofTenns:
004388
j = day of spilL The riser was cut aune 3) on j = 45
VS(j)= volume in bbl of surface oil on day j

YR(j) = oil release rate in bbl/day on day j
VRE(j) = effective release rate in bbl/day on day j
VDT(j) = volume in bbl of oil directly collected by Top Hat or RITT on day j
VD(j)= total oil volume in bbl dispersed in bblfday on day j
VCO) = total oil volume in bbl of chemically dispersed oil on day j
VDB(j) =oil volume in bbl dispersed at the bottom on day j
VDC(j) = oil volume in bbl chemically dispersed at bottom on day j
VDN(j) = oil volume in bbl naturally dispersed at bottom on day j
VCB(j) =volume in bbl of dispersants used at the.bottomon day j
VCS(j) = volume in bbl of dispersants used at the surface on day j
VDS(j) = volume in bbl chemically dispersed at the surface on day j
VBUO)= volume in bbl burned on day j .
VOWO)= volume in bbl of oily water collected on day j
VNW(j) = net oil volume in bbl collected on day j
VE(j) = volume in bbl of oil that either evaporated or dissolved on day j
Use of Expert advice;
. In order to capture a reservoir oflmowledge and experience on this problem, a wide

variety of experts were consulted and asked to comment on a preliminary version of this
document. As ofJune 23. the follOwing experts had responded
.
Expert
aff.iJ..iat.ion
Ron Goodman
U. of CCilgCiry
Al Allan
!
SpiiTec
James Payne
Payne Env.
Tom Coolbaugh
Exxon Mobil
Ed Overton
LSU
Juan Lasheras
UCSD
Albert Venosa
EPA
Merv Fingas
Env CCinadCi(ret)
Ali Khelifa
Env. CanadCi
Robert Jones
NOAA
Pat Lambert
Env. Canada
VictoriCi Broje
Shell
004389
David Usher
ISCO
Peter Carragher
BP
Michel Boufadel
Temple U.
The degree and detail of the response varied. In many cases the expert simply promised a
more thorough analysis at a later date. One expert was unable to respond due to a
confidentiality agreement with BP. Response by an expert does not indicate agreement
with the assumptions or conclusions in this document'
Leakage
Rules: "
VRG) = (30,000, 20,000, 40,000) ifj < 45
= (40,000,35,000,60,000) ifj ,,45
VREG) = VRO) - VDTG)
Bullets:
Uses flow limits from FRTG Plume Teqm PIV measurements

Chosen because same measurement method used pre- and post-riser cut
Other estimation methods provided higher and lower ~alues
The Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG) Plume Team produced estimates of the total
leakage prior to Top Kill or severing the riser by using variant of Particle Image
Velocimetry (PIV). While difficult in practice, PIV is simple in principle. In this method a
flow event, e.g. an eddy or other identifiable item, is observed at two consecutive video
frames. Distance moved per time between frames gives a velocity, after adjustrnel!t for
viewing angle and other factors. Repeated measurement over time and space give an
estimated mean flow. The spatially adjusted flow field multiplied by cross~section area of
the plume gives a total volume flux. This is then multiplied by liquid fraction. The Team
used the same metho"d to estimate leakage after the riser cut but prior to capping the flow.
Hence, their results provide a consistent method for estimating leakage for the entire spill
duration. The maximum and minimum values representth'e extreme bounds reported.
The Plume Team did not offer a 'best guess' answer but rather gave a range representing
the m"ost likely flow (as opposed to maximum-minimu.m bounds). I have used the upper
limit of that range as likely flow.
Other FRTG and DOE teams estimated the flow either prior to the severing of the riser or
after this operation. Flow values both higher and lower than the suggested ones in this
report were generated by these other teams.
The complete FRTG set of reports should be available shortly.
004390
Dispersed oil
=
=
- Kdl = (0.2, 0.3, 0.1) natural dispersion effectiveness fraction on the bottom
Kd2 = (0.8, 1, 0.5)
=chemical dispersion effectiveness fraction on the bottom
Kd3 (0.25,0.5,0.1) chemical dispersion effectiveness at the surface
VDC(j) = 20*Kd2*VCB(j) but not to exceed VRE(j)
VDN(j) = (VRE(j)- VDC(j))*Kdl
VOB(j) =VDC(j) + VDN(j)
VOS(j) = 20*Kd3*VCS(j) but not to exceed VS(j-l)
VC(j) = VDS(j) + VDC(j)
VD(j) = VDB(j) + VOS(j)
Bullets:
Droplet smaller than 100 micron are considered dispersed

No naWral surface dispersion assumed
Subsurface natural dispersion based upon plume turbulent energy dissipation
ITOPF 'planning purpose' dosage of20:1 used as estimate for successful chemical
dispersant application
The oil and gas leaking out at the Deep Horizon oil spill are all Obuoyant and, therefore would,
neglecting other processes, rise to the 0 surface. However, one cannot neglect other processes.
Originally, the Oescaping plume will be a mixture of gas and oil, with additional gas
Ddissolved Within the oil. According to the Clarkson University model OCDOG, this plume
will maintain its integrity for at most a few hundred Ometers with strong positive buoyancy_
Several competing processes will Ointerfere with this process. The gas will rise faster than the
oil, O'slipping' past the droplets but will also foI'Iil hydrates with the o surrounding water.
Water will be entrained into the plume by turbulence Othat will also contribute to changing
droplet size distribution of the Doil mixed into the plume. These oil droplets will rise to the
surface Obased upon some form of Stokes law, where the rise velocity increases with droplet
size. For small enough oil droplet size, the rise velocity is so 0 small that competing processes
affect it before it can make it to the Osurface. These processes include dissolution,
biodegradation, and Oparticle-oil interaction. These processes will vary in strength
o depending upon where the oil droplet is located. Field measurement may Ohelp to quantify
these processes but, as a standard cut-off value, 70-100 microns is used as the minimum droplet
size below which that droplet Ois considered permanently dispersed. 00 Because oil droplet
formation is the product of multiple shear interactions caused by the turbulent flow, the droplet
004391
size probability distribution is described by a log normal function shown below (x is droplet
size)
. For natural dispersion, Delvigne's. model is the standard approach to estimating the fraction of
oil dispersed into thewater column. Delvigne, in a series of experiments at Delft University,
found that the mean oil droplet size, d, could approximately be related to the energy density
dissipation rate, 8, by the expression
docY-re
so we get pr9portionately more small droplets as the energy density dissipation rate increases.
For most surface spills, the turbulent energy comes from breaking waves. For the conditions in
the Gulf during this incident" this translates to an .8 of about 100 J per cu. m. per sec or larger.
The NOM oil fate and behaVior model, ADIOS2, suggests that if this spill Ooccurred at the
surface under these conditions, less thm 8 % of the oil would disperse. However, it is not
breaking waves but the turbulence at the leak that is fonning these oil droplets. In this case, 8
would be expected to be much larger near the riser exit, causing the mean droplet size to be
smaller and dispersed oil percentage to be larger.
Ifwe attempt to compare this blowout to the Ixtoc 1, different reports for that case claimed that
between 3% to 26% of ended up in the water column or on the bottom. Several of the experts
consulted on this question suggested that the differences between the two incidents were large
enough that estimatingdispersed oil by analogy to Ixtoc would be inappropriate.
Some limited data exists from the RV Brook McCall Survey LISST Omeasurements performed
. by the Bedford Institute of Oceanography. If one, 0 extrapolates their results to the entire spill,
a dangerous exercise with a high degree of Ouncertainty, then one can conclude that perhaps
30% Oofthe oil released during non-dispersant operations were dispersed into Othe water
column. However, since the samples were subsurface, they Omay be preferentially sampling
the droplet distribution formed Oinitially. Payne reports plumes of oil droplets at depth over 2
km. away from the source with larger droplets on thetop of the plume and smaller below. This
would be consistent with a large amount of dispersion and weak buoyancy.
Most of the experts that offered suggestions on natural dispersion. concluded that dispersion
would be higher than the amount predicted for a surface spill because of increased turbulence
in the oil-gas jet and reduced viscosity related to the high temperature of the exiting oiL
.
004392
The droplet size distribution in the plume is greatly affected by viscosity and sUIface tension.
Since some of the lighter ends are lost through dissolution on the oil journey to the sUIface and
since the sUIface oil rapidly emulsifies, the viscosity of the sUIface oil is quite high compared to
the heated oil at the source. The seas were also relatively calm. For oil budget pwposes, the
sUIface oil is assumed to have negligible natural dispersion.
The addition of chemical dispersants significantly lowers oil sUIface tension and hente reduces
mean droplet size. The subsurface dispersant application was ideal for the introduction of .
dispersants; direct contact between oil and the dispersant, fresh oil, and high turbulence. The
ITOPF Technical Information Paper for chemical dispersant usage recommends for planning
purposes to use one part dispersant for 20 parts dispersed oil. They point out that spraying
equipment is often pre-configured to achieve this. Therefore, this ratio was used to define a
fully successful dispersant application.
Some experts were concerned that the entrained gas would reduce the effectiveness of the
dispersant application by preventing contact between oil and surfactant. They also thought that
the time of contact might be insufficient to achieve optimum effect. Their concerns are
captured in the choice for minimum effectiveness ..
Suggested research
More complete sampling of dispersed oil near the source coupled with a subsurface plume
model to translate the sample results into a better estimate of dispersed oil volume..
Characterization of the turbulence energy spectrum for the leak.
Burning Losses
Bullets
ASTM burn rate standards used
Different rates for 110n-emulsified and emulsified oil.
For ignition to occur, the oil film must generally be greater than 2 mm. Since this is
thicker than oil sricks that are allowed to spread naturally, the oil must be contained in
special fire-proof booms. Spilled oil sometimes entrains water, forming a stable emulsion.
Emulsions that contain more than 15% water are difficult to igriite and emulsions that
contain more than 50% water are almost impossible to ignite. High winds and waves may
prevent burn operations. Oil burns with a 'regression rate' of apprOximately 0.05 mm/sec
(slightly more than a tenth of an inch per minute) Part of the oil is turned into smoke. The
actual percentage depends upon the size of the burn and other factors but usually is in the
range of 10-15% of the mass of the oiL Burning is a highly efficient oil removal
mechanism. A successful burn will remove 90-95% of the ignited oil. The reported burn
rates for the Deepwater Horizon oil are 0.04-8 mm/sec for non-emulsified oil and 0.34mm/sec for emulsified oils. While these are in line with ASTM standards, Fingas, based
upon burn studies, suggests that the emulsified oil burn rate should be closer to 0.24.
004393
However, burn volumes are not reported by percentage emulsified oil burned and nonemulsified oil burned. Therefore, without additional data, it is hard to separate out the
two in a spreadsheet
Suggested research
Examine the possibility to specify the amount of emulsified oil fraction that is burned in
any burn operations.
Evaporated and dissolved oil

.Evl = (0.37, 0.44, 0.33) = evaporation rate on freshly surfaced oil (includes dissolution)
Ev2 =(0.04, 0.06, 0) =evaporation on day-old oil
VEO) = (VREO) - VDB(j) - VBU(j))*Evl+(VREO-l) - VDBO-l) - VBUO-l))*Ev2
Bullets:
Evaporation formulas include dissolution as well
'Pseudo-component' approach used in estimate
Figure 3 shows a chromatogram of the fresh oil from the reservoir. Like all crude oils, this
oil is composed of thousands of different hydrocarbons, each with slightly different
physical and chemical properties.
004394
Figure 3 Chromatogram offresh oU
Using Raoult's Law, the vapor pressure of the total oil is assumed to be a weighted
average of the individual components. Most evaporation models assume that the oil can
be treated as a well-mixed fluid so that evaporative losses are not dependent upon any
particular hydrocarbon being impeded to make it to the oil-air interface. This <well-mixed'
assumption allows, with suitable modificatio.n, the use of evaporation estimation
techniques developed for homogeneous liqUids. The driving factor for evaporation will be
the. effective vapor pressure of the oil and the limiting factor will be the ability of the wind
to remove the oil vapor from the surface boundary layer.
The exception is a model proposed by Environment Canada that yields lower estimates
for evaporation based upon diffusion limitations within the oil itself. Figure 4 shows their
estimate for evaporation for this type of crude.
..
L.
t.
.!
:: 10
.~----------------------a
SCCtOOOIW.2OCI02foI:t.t:ll3$CICIIOO
'""~)
Figure 4 Evaporation ofSL crude according to Environment Canada.
According to their model, evaporation is rapid but limited with a total loss of
approximately 30%. Their model, however,' assumes a cohesive slick, not the widely
scattered pieces that make up this spill. Nevertheless Fingas reports that evaporation of
the oil would probably occur in a massive jump as it seems a deep-sea release does this to
the oiL He carried out a series of high pressure water releases during the sub-sea
programs a decade ago and found that roughly 2/3 of the 5-day weathering amount at the
relevant temperature was released nearly immediately. The volatiles are gone rapidly and
the oil quickly emulsifies. This seems to be somewhat confirmed by observations by LSU
experts. Overton notes a subsurface sample appeared fresh but had the naphthalenes
completely missing. He speculated that this sample was deep oil that has never gotten to
the surface and the aromatics have dissolved into the water column. Certainly,
dissolution is a competing process to evaporation for this incident since, in general, the
more volatile hydrocarbons are also the most soluble.
For the purpose of the oil budget calculations, the more standard pseudo-component
method refined by Payne was used. The oil is postulated to consist of a limited number of
components, with each component corresponding to one of the cuts from the distillation
data for the oil of concern. Each component is characterized by a mole fraction and a
vapor pressure. Each component is composed primarily of a few alkanes and the
properties of the components are based on the average of the alkane properties. Based
004395
upon data on the oil composition provided by BP, the method suggests that as much as
46% of the oil can be lost to evaporation over several weeks on the sea surface. However,
the greater portion is lost in the first two days.
LSUjNOAA measured the composition of weathered oil collected from the sea surface on
16 May using GCjMS, and analyzed the results using the pseudo-component evaporation
model. They found that the weathered oil sample had lost 38% of its mass to the
combination of evaporation and dissolution.
For oil budget purposes, it does not matter if a hydrocarbon molecule is lost to
evaporation or dissolution. It is effectively removed from cleanup operations. Thereforl(!,
the suggested evaporation, constants inClude dissolution. While most of the evaporative
losses occur in the first day, there are further losses as the slick ages. The spreadsheet
formulas allow for second day losses.
The evaporation will caU$e changes to the remaini,ng surface oil, increasing density and
viscosity. The oil also shows a strong tendency to emulsifY and to form tar balls. Both of
these mechanisms will slow evaporative. Past spills in the Gulf have produced an "M&M"
phenomena where fresh interior oil is surrounded by a crust of more weathered oil.
Suggested research:
,Samples should be taken and chemically analyzed for oil from above the leak source as it
first surfaces, as well as for weathered oil close to shore. The former provides data on the
extent of dissolution while the latter gives an estimate to the amount lost to long-term
evaporation after surfacing.
Skimmed Oil
Kow= (0.2, 0.4, 0.1) =net oil fraction of oily water
VNWO)=KoW*VOWO)
Bullets:
Very rough estimation
Amount should be based upon actUal measurement
The estimated oil content of the skimmed product was increased based upon suggestions
by oil company experts. However, the original recommendation for actual sampling of the
barge oil remains.
Floating oil
VSO)
=VSG-l) +VREO) - VEO) - VNWO) - VBUO) - VDO)
004396
Bulllets:
Includes both floating and 'beached' oil

Much of the surface oil is near neutral buoyancy
Surface oil category includes not only oil actually on the surface but that oil that has
washed ashore or mixed with sedimerit in the nearshore and sank. It is difficult to
determine the volume of this oi1 directly because standard visual volume estimations are
highly unreliable. The best current method is the NASA ER-2j AVIRIS system but even
.
this instrument is unable to estimate tar ball volume.
004397
o
co
(0
-.
0
,...
0
C\I
:5
0
C\I
"-
'O;f"
0-
II
,...
~
0
.......
~
0
C\I
o
000009~
000009
004398
Best Estimate = 53000 bbl/day

95% Confidence Interval
(48000, 57000) bbl/day
004399
~~bJett:.~e.:Q~1 i$u~get'at(:~la~c?fs~j~rici:! ~:o~ Eng~n~~ri~g T~am:': :'.: . . ::
. .. .<
;?J!:~~i1l;~~i~UM
< ..........
: '.: ':.' '.:
. .... .:: ..: :'. '.: :'. :':. :-:. '::'
<......../. . . . .. .. . . i .. .. ... / . i.i
..
.... : ..... :........:....

." ..... :.. ::-.:-.> .: .... :.::.-.:: :;':.'. =":.::<::. '.:
Cd 'Mc~rk tAiI(er:~Matk.W.Miile:r@~Q~ci~goy>~ :Mark ,j(Sogge' <~~j~k~s(j'gge@osg~,g~v>";' Stepiie'" Aanimo.h<i. ::'. :'., '::' ....::,. :. .
~~h91m~n~4Sg~~~~Y;fAnt~:~!oP.ossql~.:~~~tO.?i,O'P~SSq1:~~rst:~ov;~:"P:e~r~J::E~~in.~.... ~p~~rO:~~"i~a;~i~t:!0'1:,:::,.'.:.'
jO!.~ky~rJstol.<s6ri~ol@tisgs:g~V:>
==.
A,lterti'ati\'iy;:::;.. ::'..:.-".:: .. ::::::,;.i:,::. ::::,.::":,::":':':':-.."

,.
'. '
'. '.
. . : .::.......
'"
. . ',':'
'
::..
-,",
.: '::
..,
....... :.: .. ':': ... ::. :-::. ':.

.
... , . .
'"
'.
'::."
....
. ..
,.'
:.
==,.. , : " , : : . : . ,
:.
- ..
,:':,:
. ...
.
:.
'.
YO(iCblJld:Sim:ply,:fjS:tthe.:narri~~i:bfevry~6d.Y:\Nithah'ihtrod0ctory:par~gr~p.h:thahkingth'qsf,:.:.
<:: ~': .:. ." .....
v\'h~.pto\ii~~d.,::~ssi~~~t~:~riJh,:iJeV~I,(>f.jm.~rit()tiiii$Jo61,.::
,:. *;::: ... ', ... ".. : "'. '.' ' ... "
-."" :' : . :: '.': .' .'

. . ."
. ,.., .
".
..
'. ,':
..
"
*. * ,
. : " : :': '. :
'
'
..
:. '. '. :.
. , ' . ..'
. .
,': '.'..
..
,.'
.'
. '
"
'",'
.':"
.,
::
. .. .
:'<: ......
,,::' :: .....'
.
'=
..
",
.:"
'"
'.'
'.'::', :'::'
'.
,:.
..
Qri .*i31.1p.4.:1frp:M/.$kYB~ist~L:wi9t~::.'.'::>::.: :,.': .

".
".:.:
.. .
,
".
"
.'
<:... :,', ...... :'::
':',.
.. .
~:
:.,.:.:.
. ..
. :"....... ,' :
'
... ,. . : '..
.. . . '
,>:. :: .'.:
:", . ' " : " :"
'."
.-
.....
. , .. " "
',",
",
. .' ,....
"
,'"
.,.. ,, ....
".
"
.. ' , .. ' , . . . . " ...
::
. "'.
'.
'.
"
.'
'
"
'."
.....
."
:.:.
'.
"'"
.:. ,.. :qiv,e:h:'~he::n:~t~JjtiS~ s"~w)f6,~;&i~v:e.~Hii~~:orl(1:.about-s~~~i~Vi~s:i:ri",~h~~,~g.~,";: :': .,"::' :.:.: ;;'i'
::: ... IridiVigualname~,Jit~:is~.thf~~l:opti.o'~.sVjpp:edtqthe:ll:Or1:ewitf{Ju~(a:fe\~/p'eQpi:i'::<

:" .>,' . fisted.: 'du(co.t:e: ~ev:eJtipme:nt:1:e~m:If{0.S(;S)5 'p:rob~bJy :o~aV ~fth":.na~e~; ~#~d):e~,,,:::::i.:." :'.:
.' .':~ .. ;unle~st~ere:i~~9'meg6()(f~d~ic.eiioi t9'do.sq::fie:t~~n.~Ii'yj..I.{)Q~~t"i~a,I:i\(s~~':~h~:.::::
.~ ':, pOrnt,ili:~dr.hg::sQn1~t~f~gJi~~;:th~~::b~'('~.bci~~~/~,ppioa'ch :.C?ther~han" to: ihdfcat~ '~h~~"> :".::':,':'
... .::ustG;:WSGS,}~OAA~:~~,(;fNlSr-:~It"w.otkep,higetht:tQj)rO,dtjc~::th~:tQbl,:Wh.l~h'.coQid:;::.'::.:.. : ,
:.=- ... :: :'::,':':::: .
: ' .. :;. . ;~~~one'.J~:.rn~ch si~p.ier; :~r'~s~.:::,.:: '. ;:/:.:. ;.:' ':'.' :::::', :':;" ': : .:';;/'. ::.":. :::/;.~; :',;: :":'::':'/ '.:.:;' i/: .;.:.;. . : ;'.: ,: ;::.:'. ;.'.... ':/ ':. . ': : : . : :',:". ,:.:'
'.
..'.
.'
. . "":'
,','
...,.
'.
. .... :.:.' .... : ... '.
..
'.
........
,'
'.
"_.'
'.
".
'.
." . , ... :' ::, '::'"
..
, , ... '.' ... ',':'. .... .:: ..::.'=:'.'
"
e:., " .
-."'.:' '. ' .

, '.'. : ..
: . , ' . ::.
'. ",
."
"
'
'
,'.'
",
',::' ..
'
. "."
. . . . ,',
". ...
'
.'
'
'
. . '. ......
'.
'.
","':
... " .' ,
.. ~:'. . ... :':.' ': ' ::'
.
:',' .
, . :
:.
: ....
~: '::
'. . . .:'. :',..
. ' '. " . '
. . '. '. . . ': . . .' .' ,
. '.
.
.' .. ' ~
.
. .. -.
:' . ... '
.
'., .
",'. ".
. . ' .. ..
.
'.. '. ",: -'.:. : - :', . .' .... :. ': :. ;',',. . ',:':: '.:.' : -: .... ... .. , ... . " . ". ' : . ' .' .'.
..
.. .' . . . " ' .. . :: ::'::"
.: ::'
. " . . . ,,"
., :.
',: . .
.
. .:" .
'. .:, . .
. . . . . . ' : :' .' '.' :'. :' . ,'. .:.' .. :. : . :
....:.. .
'.
.. ' . . . . . ... ":.'. .
,.
. . , ' . : . '.: ... :
. : '. .
, .. ,':' :' .' .
. . : '.
. ... : .
'.':', ' . '
.. : " .. : .' :.
..... '. ' . . . '. ~ : :.'. . ".::': ..:' :": .,'.:: . : . :
'. :
.
"::'
:
::
':"
' .
:- .
..... '."
.
',:: .'...... ': . ' .
,'.': .
..
'
.
.
'.',: ..
"
'
'.,"
"
.. ' -
".
"
'
"
"
'
'
"
'
"
'
'."
'
','
....
"',
"
"
",
"
"
.. <.((( ~,<~7~~~<:;(<~iv~"'~~ ..((<~::.::.
':cell::E03:~24i::4iii'
'.'
"",.:.:
,".
<
,,"::
. .'."
"'.:,,.: ,.
'."
.'
, :
,::'".
.'.
'
...
','
...... . .... . . ... ..........
"
wrote::::
'
':: . ,.: ..
,,"
..... ' .::: .. ,.... . '.'
:< ".: >.'.:': ."'.'
"
..,
',.'
"
dnAug3~:.20:iO/ats.:bS.PMI$kY:Brlst~i
.
>
<'({(~<'~~~~~<~(((~~<~~~<'{{(.<-.::.::": '>,::,"
'.
.,,':': ..
>,
"",.
. ';'
'
: ':.""=.':: .': . ':'.... :. :.': ': ....., ." .': ....... :':. <.: '::. ".
. . ~~~~!~~!!j8t."
'.
......
'
'
"
'
::,
'
" .',
'
"
.'.
'
'
""
'.
.:' .: '.:
'.
,." . '.:.. ::e.
"
"
'
"
.,
"
'
'"
..
,:'
.'
":,' .. '
.'
,,"
',':
.::'
"
- .:
. ... :.::'
. ..
.:
'."
,'.
"
. .'::
.,'
Page 1 of 3
004400
.'.,
..
.. . . -
'."
.... :'. .
"
'.
".
. . . . . , ..
..
'
".
,,'.
. :. . .......
' '. .
. ...
:::': ==.
'.
'.:
"
.'
"
','
,."
.
".
:',: : '.
,"
,'
.'
""",'.,.
'.
.,
:'::
............
..
'.
"
-',
,"
"
,"
'.<.:.:.::. :=:M~r~; :.:'; : :.:. >':". :...::>:'.. '::.':.:::'"

'.
::': . ',',: .. '.: -: :' '. ... ' .
'.
",
"
,,",.'
'
..
':
'"
'
.,'
'.',
"
,
,.'
.'
" . ,"
''':.',:, :'. '.':,':
"
.. :
.. ".
"
.....
'.
. ':'.'.
'"
"
.. '
."
.; :.: .. :....>::':::. '.':: '.: .. ,.::, ::.: :.... :.. :: ... '.'::: '.': : ....... ..=:: .... ";.:
'
'
,.'
:':,:::
'.
'. ,
,',
: ' , :, ,..
' .',
'.
'. '.":::':, ': ' :'. :.
. . ".
:.
'.
:.:.': ': .:; '::."::".:: .;:Aft~r ~dn.ie:qeiib.elati'oh::~nd b~ck:~.nd~()(th,::~~lv:~:dom.:e:UP .:wiih:::~~:. :i::':' ..:.:: . :::::.....':: .:..
:'.' .::.' ::".>:' ~o\ipf~::pf:op.t;ons :ii~' ~.:P~~SODri~l.nsting.foryou:rp~sid.~i-~B(jo~ .T~~{: :::-:: ...... "..
. . .:::..:/::::.:tia$lc~JiyCQnle:s:qciwri:t6y6.uthipijt:6n.:wheiher:orrip(yo.~thiJ)kthe:/: .i .....
.:': :.: .:' :' ...:'.: i. ::': ~.SG:~:s:h~~i~ .b;e:!ripl~:ded.~n)h~:tp.I:9t.:a::iISterjjlg :PQh1ii1i~e~~':.fQrJ~:~::.. :... :.; .:.:
:':: ':',':.:' ::::::i::~ffqrt::jN~Ve:$ai~n~:n~lon.g:th~t.:the:co:i;i.st-:GUartj.i:rfq)njUri.dion:.Withy6:u: . . . ::: ... .

'. :::/:: ::'" '::"': :.::ali)ri/NOA:A:are:Balilngth:es~~qts::Or{this :app.HcatJori.:in~:=te~r.rn~i~~f:itS:: ./::./:::=-: '.:: .:.:"':.:.::::
ir.i~~~;~;~~J~~~~~C~='~iZ~~~t~:H;N~i~jZ;jM;f-;t~::JgOme)
,
'.. :' ::. ':": :app.hcation but we. want yOUf.l.OP.l;Jt .Qn.thJ~ . : '.. :' '.::. . ..... ::.., .... :- : .:: .. ;...;.
'0 ' : ' : ' . : :
. , . " . : , . : : , " , " : . ' :' ','
','
'.~'::
.. ' .
'. '. ' :
":
, " : : : ' : . : . : : : " : . : : : : . : : : . : : : : , .
::',
. : . , . , : : . : . " : . : ' :
:'::.~.::.
: " .:
'.'::',
.'
:,'
:'"
:g~~idJ~~tt~wfai~S:ZJ1g;M~Aje$J&~ho;I;;t~i~:s1t~d)i/
.:: ':': :<.': .':: ~: :s.riilJ:et~ing:e.lse;:i(Y6.~'~i~i:ke.:or;sug.g.~;st.;.:::::o. t~~.:~h:'iP~~~:.:i. ;::: ..:./...~;.;. :'::.::. ::.... :.; ::< ...:'. ".:; ::.:':': :'.'::" .. :.,
,:' ... ':'
..
'
.':'
. ... .' ... ....
".
'
.'.
'.
:.= ::: ..:'.: ::..:: ....::
'.
.. '
'.
.~
.::
'
. .::
...
:: - :
'
'
"
. .
"
"
'.
':....... :.' . '.' :
..
.. : : '.~.: .' ..': : . :": .: :'

...... ......
,
'"
...
.,.'
"
'
)thir,=k: j\Jeh-;aptqred. 1:tJe.approp:rjate;it$tJQr!'he:mUltja:gent\r:dif :f~te:.anCl::: .:. :::'. :'.':' .
. >:.==.:::.':. ::-:-::::.b~h~v)&.t:tearnhirn~tches)h.eoih~r~O~ume:~t~.AndIJi~HeV~H. t~ptur~d::.: . :::. ::.<........::

:: . '::'.: : :.: '. ::< ': :.the.ti~~~nGe :of Wh'at }~~dr~(~~pih?::re(iu~st~~:from.th~:NI~t,p.~r~p~:ttiy~> ::' :':'::.:'.: :'.: . ;.:.:
'. '::.: :".:.:: ': :.:' :'.:: :PI:e.ii~ie. :tBtt~cf: :.m:efa. ~y(in'~>jf i'~~ ':g6be'astf~Y~A td~d ~o:~se.:S-h oct:: ':. :: :'.: ': ': .:.' :: : '.: '. ,: ,: ": '.,: ':" .
. .. i..
i~~ftt~Ji~j!iSif:r~e~::~~f:~m~!~{~~~h:~2:~~sO;Jt:jd~!~WJ6t. . i. . . .. .
::nee$Sa~yhH'~:':
", .' .. ' .... ' .......... ',' .
.,'..
. '. '.':
'. .:..... .' .... . '.
. . ~ . '. .
:' ':<: ... :.....
.. :: ...-:.....::.......... ' .::.< '. .;" .. :.... :........: ' .. .;" :... :., .
..
: .... ' .. :.',
'
" . '. . .
.'
. , .. .' - :
,.':' .'::. ',": a::. '." . '.'

':":
. ' : ' : . : :.
'
. ...... :.
'.':.:.: '.. : .:.: ..... , :,

'. . . . . :. .::... ,:. . .
... "."
,
.. - ..
: .: :: . : .: : .: .. :..~~tm~iKno~:wh~lY~?~;H~lnkand:'!fyovh~~d.t~~s.i~:~~~e:.oi~~r~i~rn;>::.:.::::.~:::'::.': . :.:.,:.,:':':::'
......:. :.:'::<O'B-Sbtenc~Ar\dErigin~er!~~-()p~~nf,ph~>~bBC--:::;:":<;".: .<:::.:':::.:::.":' . . . : <:... '.: '.
.::: .....:. . sd~hceAndEngfneedng~bptidiiipng>::::.>.;
.. :.'
":'
": . :......
,.'.'.:,':' ... ""::,.,:,,,
".
.... " : .
'
"
"
"
. ,;
"
'
"
.. ' ,
"
...
.",
..... . .. . . :...
.... ' . ' S'k)/B:~'i:stoi .. ' .'. .::.:....:.... .' .. ' . -::
.; ;:. -:;. ':: .... sbriSio.i~:usg~.g6.v::<:.. .. :'::.~: .... :: ':".

..(jfflc;;e;303~iOZ~41f~i
'. :::>: ..t.eil:363~24i412Z:: .' . .
'. .....
,
: '.' :
: .. ':
.. :' .. : ..'.
=. . . . . . :.: ... : .. :
..': ::..
."
: ' . 0 :.:'
:..,
.... :..... ...::':..:..
. .. ;" ' ..' .. '. :'. ....::: ...... ' .::-.:::-
N;,;.iv;... (.((<;':<';";'N.:v"';<:
:(. ((<" <'::
:: :.. .....
:... ':: . ::....
. '.... . .
.:.........:.... :....
. < ....
:.::...' .
'. .'
'
'. .......:
...... '. :'<:' :('((';'
". .
. ....
'
.,>",::
.
'.. :.... .... ::.... . : ..
.,'
'. ...<~.({~~"'<:H.~,i<~~~"'<~(({<;
::::= ....;'.
... , .
',::.,'
~<<;."': <.~.
:'.
.:"
',',"
,'.,
'
',',
'.
.':,
.',
.:
'.
'
"
'
.'
... ' :'. :.::'
'
..
'.
..: "
. .'.,'
...........
.... '. ":','
".
. '.:.'
"
..
."
.
'.'
",
'
.
.
"
. .
Page 2 of3
004401
"
.
'.
, <:
.'.::
",
..
"'
"
. .' .~:,'
'
':'::
:','
. ...
,",
..
'. ,
.;
"
..
'.
....
. .'
. :',
'
",
....
.'
.'.'
"
:-
'".
"."
'.",
'",'
..
'.
.:
....
"
.: .
'
..
'.
....
.',:,
:','
".
',"
:'::'.
'
: ..
"
. : .'
, ,"
:'."
....
'
..
'"
'
..
'.'
". ,
','
'.
" . F
'"
. ::
:": .
<:
'
.. '.
'::
.",',
',
':
'"
......
..
*.<,
."
. , .:
'
:" .
. '. ~',
"
,.'
.'."
'
'
.
"
.',::
"
..
."
"
"
... .':.
'. :'
. ::':'.
.....
,"
"',::
.',"
:'.'
'
.
.
.:
": .
,
'"
,""
"'.
'.:.
'
",
..
'
"
'.
'
.,'
"
,
.,'
':','
.'
"
. , ':
':
.:
..
," "
,,'
.',
".":,
,'.
,.' .
.. , : .'
.',
..
'
':: .
: ....
'.
"
" "
'
":. :
":'.'
,
. .'"
, "
'. ,'.
.... : .
:: '.':
"
'
'.
. .:
".
"
,,'
'.
"
:'.'
.....
..,:,'
--
'
",
".
'::'.
"
,'.
. ,','
'.:
Page 3 of 3

~:.
Steering Committee
USCG ~ Commanding Officer, Situation Unit (CDR Sean O'Brien)
USGS - Scientific Support Liaison (Stephen Hammond)
r;
fl.
~,

Development (USGS)
all Fate and Behavior Science (NOAA


Development (NIST)
.~,
~~
.,
i
:i'
;~
Bill Lehr, NOAA, team lead

Robert Jones, NOAA .
.. Antonio Possolo, NIST
AI Allan, SpiiTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Las heras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF .
Michel Boufadel, Temple UJ:1iv.
lim Kern
David Mack
Jeff Allen
Rebecca Uribe
Martha Garcia
Mark 80gge
...
I
.~
Ped(o Espina (POC for Incident) .

William Guthrie
Aaron Johnson
Michael Moldover
Antonio Passaro
Blaza Toman
John Wright
Note: This is not an organizational chart but a representation of the groups and personnel involved and their relative functions.
"'~f.~~i!,'!"!J:J~5i';':i'"
:"'l':;l~;')T"''O".r>''r.
'""')":_"'r:.,r.w~':
't;ir..rm~Wf.'1:'t',~,y;~:,r.,1t}r.~l!m~!
~~~~r,~~~~~-,:!;~J)~~:~m~~r~~!'~~~~t~'5~_~,~~l~~f'~:':~~:\j~~'r~~~~_:-;,:,;~~~:~~~):':';;
i~'
~:
~;
~.
,,,'
1!'
~.
i!'
004402
11,.
it:

~
Steering Committee
Development (USGS)

~;
!it"I.!.i~

Development (NIST)
I!.;
r~
i:
;i
{
:~
1~
T~.
I'
Pedro Espina (NIST POC for Incident)

W-illiam Guthrie
Aaron Johnson
Michael Moldover
Antonio Possolo
Blaza Toman
John Wright

Robert Jones, NOAA
Ahtonio Possolo, NIST
AI Allan, SpiiTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Dallng, SINTEF
I~
Note: This is not an organizational chart but a representation of the groups and personnel involved ~nd their relative functions.
,}
'.
....;
~),.!
'"
~'.
.. ".,
.. "
r.
"c~
. ' . _ .. ,
_,~
,_.
"
,~,
,"-.!.,.""'..... "'.,...." ...".... " ."
....
.....
"...
~_
..
,~
J -
,~-
004403

Tim Kern
David Mack
Jeff Allen
Rebecca Uribe
Stephen Hammond
Martha Garcia
Mark 80gge
004404

FOIA # Ct1-RJ e It> -".~ \
~ _
Documents consisting of _
5 _
004405
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Possolo AntoniQ
Sky BristQI: Mark Miller
Steohen Hammond;.EllllJ.ehr; Sean CDR Q"BrieO; lim Kern; Emina Pedro 1.
RE: Qil budget tool update - coordination
Saturday, July 31, 2010 2:20:43 PM
Sky,
Just to let .you know that NIST is standing by ready to help.
technical suggestgions about how the coqe in the R engine that
we provided should be modified to accommodate a time series of
daily values of discharge.
- Antonio
Telephone: 301-975-2853
004406

Subject: RE: oil budgettool update - coordination
To: Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>, Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
. Cc: Stephen Hammond <sehammon@usgs.gov>, Bill Lehr <biILlehr@noaa.gov>, Sean CDR O'Brien
<sean.k.o'brien@uscg.mil>, Tim Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>, "Pedro I. Espina" <pedro.espina@nist.gov>
Sky,
Just to let you know that NIST is standing by ready to

help.
technical suggestgions about how the c6d~ in the R
engine that we provided should be modified to
accommodate a time series ,of daily values of discharge.
Antonio
Possolo, PhD -- Chief

Telephone: 301-975-2853
~tonio
Page 1 of 1
004407
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Possolo, Antonio
"Tim Kern"
Sky Bristol
RE: myUSGS Access
Tim,
Many thanks for granting me access.
It all works fine now.
- Antonio
Information Technology L~boratory
Telephone: 301-975-2853
004408
From:
To:
Cc::
Subject:
Date:
Possolo, Antonio
Sky Bristol"; .ei.!l..!&!:ll:
Fspina pedro I ; Guthrie. Wj!liam E.
. RE: "Org Chart"

Tuesday, August 03, 2010 4;46:00 PM
All three of us listed for NIST should appear as equals, with no one Singled out as "Principal
Investigator" .
Many thanks.
- Antonio
- Antonio Possalo, PhD:..- Chief
Telephone: 301-975-2853
004409
-"
Friday, August 20. 2010 8:02 AM
Subject: RE: "Org Chan"

To: Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>, Bill Lehr <bill.lehr@noaa.gov>
Cc: "Pedro L Espinal! <pedro.espina@nist.gov>,"Guthrie, William E" <william.guthrie@nist.gov>
All three of us listed for NIST should appear as equals, with no one
singled out as "Principal Investigator" .
Many thanks.
-Antonio
- Antonio Possolo, Ph D - Chief
Telephone: 301-975-2853
Page 1 of 1
004410

FOIA # CIS/elF JO---S6}
\ . Documents con~isting of __
'd--_ pages to be released in their entirety
NIST portions may be released in entirety, but other portions of documents require review
outside NIST.
Signature
Printed Name
Date
004411
Friday. August 20, 2010 8:02 'AM

Cc: Bill Lehr <bill.lehr@noaa.gov>, Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, "Pedro I. Espina" <pedro.espina@nist.gov>,
Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>, Sean CDR O'Brien <sean.k.o'brien@uscg.mil>, Stephen Hammond
<seham mon@usgs.gov>
Thanks Antonio. Standing by...

Tim Kern
Information Science Branch'
970-226-9366
970-226-9230 (fax) .

Possolo, Antonio to: Sky Bristol, Mark Miller 07/31/1012:24 PM
Cc: Stephen Hammond, Bill Lehr, "Sean CDR O'Brien", Tim Kern, "Espina, Pedro 1."
Sky,
Just to let you know that NIST is standing by
ready to help.
Next I'll send a message to Tim Kern with a
couple of technical suggestgions about how the
Page lof2
004412
code in the R engine that we provided' should be

modified to accommodate a time series of daily
values of discharge.
- Antonio
,- Antonio Possolo, PhD -- Chief
Telephone: 301-975-2853
Page 2of2
004413

FOIA # rJ.2..f2- \ r::: (.) -).- ~ )
17-
Documents to be withheld in their entirety & require other agency review
NIST portions should be withheld in their entirety, portions from other agencies will require their
review.
FOIA Exemption
o B5: _
.......1'-7..
__ documents
L.3
pages
5 U.S.c. 552 (b)(5) - Inter-agency or intra-agency memorandum or letters which would notbe
004414
Friday, August 20. 20108:02 AM

Date: Monday, July 26, 2010 4:52 PM
52,000-5,5,000 barrels per day

52,000-57,000, barrels per day
now.
Thanks.
Marcia
, UsGsUsGsUsGsUsGsUsGsUsGsUsGsUsGsUsGs
l' 2201 Sunrise Valley Drive MS' 100
Reston, VA 20192
(703) 648-7411 (office)
(703) 648-4454 (fax)
(571) 296-6730 (bb)
(831) 915-4699 (cell)
www.usgs.gov
USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS UsGsUsGsUsGsUsGs
. From: Espina, Pedro I. <pedro.espina@nist.gov> [mailto:Espina, Pedro I.

Sent: Friday, July 02{2010 2:51 PM
To: ItImcnutt@usgs.govlU <mcnutt@usgs.gov>
Page lof2
004415
Dear Marcia,
OUf concer~ed
is ~hat the results we have seen are quite disperse. Thus, we wonder if a
I spoke to Bill Lehr this morning and he said that he would talkto you about this in the near
Kind regards, Pedro
Page 2 of2
004416

Date: Monday, July 26, 2010 4:58 PM
All three estimates used similar methods and observations with the same sensor, so
yes.
Thanks.
Marcia
UsGsUsGsUsGsUsGsUsGsUsGsUsGsUsGsUsGS .
Dr, Marcia K.McNutt.

Reston, VA 20192
(703) 648-7411 (office)
(703) 648-4454 (fax)
(571) 296-6730 (bb)
(831) 915-4699 (cell)
www.usgs.gov
,
From: Espina, Pedro 1. <pedro.espina@nist.gov> [mailto:Espina, Pedro I.

<pedro.espina@nist~gov> ]
, Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 4:55 PM

To: "'mcnutt@usgs.govUl <mcnutt@usgs.gov>
Subject: Re: Reconciling the teams

Marcia,
Are we'to threat all the same? Responce forethcoming by morning .
. Pedro
Page lof3
004417
From: Marcia K McNutt <mcnutt@usgs.gov>

To: Espina, Pedro I.
Sent: Mon Jul 26 16:52:41 2010

Subject: RE: Reconcilin'g the teams
now.
.
Thanks.
Marcia
USGSUSGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS

Dr. Marcia K. McNutt'
Director, U.S.,Geological Survey
Reston, VA 20192
(703) 648-7411 (office)
(703) 648-4454 (fax)
(571) 296-6730 (bb)
(831) 915-4699 (cell)
www.usgs.gov
UsGsUSGsUsGsUsGsUsGsUsGsUSGsUsGsUsGs
From: Espina, Pedro I. <pedro.espina@nist.gov> [mailto:Espina, Pedro I.
<pedro.espina@nist.gov>]
To: IIImcnutt@usgs.gov'" <mcnutt@usgs.gov>
,Su bject: Reconciling the tea ms
. Page 2of3
004418
Dear Marcia,
I spoke-to Billlehr this morning and he said that he would talk to you about this in the near
future. If you decide that sucha meeting might be valuable, we offer to host it at NIST.
Kind regards, Pedro
Page 30f3
004419
From:
Possolo Antonio
70:
Sky Bristol: Bif!.Lehr@noaa
Cc:
Mark Miller: Steohen Hammond; Sean CPR PUBrieo:
Subject:
Date: .
goy
Iim..Kem .
Sky,
As I mentioned in the eMail I sent a few minutes ago, properly to take into account the uncertainty in
the daily discharge would be the best treatment of all the information we have (what we measure and
what we estimate) that leads to the amount remaining.
The charts with expected value and lower and upper confidence bounds for amount remaining (and for
all the other output variables), would have the same meaning as before, the only difference would be
that these bounds would be wider because they'd include the uncertainty in the daily discharge.
The "barrel" graphs would make sense only for the expected values of all the output variables. It would
no longer be meaningful to talk about combinations of high values for all the variables, and
combinations of low values for all the variables, for the reasons we've discussed in the past.
I believe this would be the best, most comprehensive way of representing our measurements and our
state of knowledge about the whole system. We'd just have to "sell" this way of looking at the situation
to the USCG.
Once you provide a spreadsheet with coordinated time series for all the "input variables in play, including
the time series of daily discharges, I'll prepare a new version of the R code that will take the 10%
uncertainty in the discharges into account, alongside the uncertainties in the rate constants, for possible
use by 11m's team.
.
- Antonio
Telephone: 301-975-2853
From: Sky Bristol [sbrtstol@usgs.gov]
To: Bilf.Lehr@noaa.gov
Cc: Mark Milleri Stephen Hammond; Sean CDR O'Brien; Possolo, AntoniO; 11m Kem
Subject: Re: Oil budget tool update - coordinatio,:
.
Okay. I'm working to extrapolate from the graph what we might actually see as daily values: I'll send
that out shortly in spreadsheet with the rest of the entered daily variables. This looks like we are indeed
trying to get to a probable case given current data with 10% uncertainty instead of the current low flow
and high flow scenarios. Is that correct? How's that going to jive with the message the Coast Guard has
been using? If we go this route, we're going to need some more work on annotation and possibly
graphics to properly convey uncertainty?
< .{ < "'~"''''<.( <"''''''''''<.( < < <

Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
Office: 303-202-4181
(<
004420

Subject:Re: Deepwater - New Idea
Cc: TIm Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>, "Pedro I. Espina" <pedro.espina@nist.gov>, "Guthrie, William E"
<william.guthrie@nist.gov>, Bililehr <bilLlehr@noaa.gov>
percentage numbers in the pie charts seem not to match/ but the figures line up with what I
get when running the numbers in your table through a charting engine. This is the one piece
associated with cleanup~ I think the powers that be rea11y do want to try to come up with a
single set of numbers/ but I believe the various science teams have been holding the line on
I'll float a line out to Mark Miller/ Sean O'Brien, and others on this to see if we can schedule a
call to discuss: I'm about to have to present something on another meeting, but I'll get
<.( ((<"""'''''''<.( (( <"''''''''''''<.( {(<
Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
. Office: 303-202-4181
<.( {(<"""''''''''<.( {(<"""""''''<.( {(<
On Aug 3, 20101 at 10:59 AM, Possolo, Antonio wrote:
Page lof2
004421
> Sky and TIm,

>
> The attached 2~pager describes a novel approach to the uncertainty analysis for the mass
balance calculations ..
>
talk about the IIbestll and "worst" case scenarios that the USCG likes, while doing uncertainty
analysis the right way, which is to treat all, sources of uncertainty equitably.
>
uncertainty of all the. other variables: we no longer need to do a IIlow flow" calculation
separately from a "high flow" calculation, but still can describe, in fair detail, "best" and
"worst" case scenarips corresponding to our low and high confidence bands.
>
understanding of the problem that I'm trying to solve here, this may suffice for you to dec.ide
>
this reason I'm leaving out the names of my two usual "co-conspirators", Pedro Espina and Will
>
>
.> - Antonio
>
> Nationa.lnstitute of Standards & Technology
> Telephone: 301-975-2853
>
>
> <PossoloBristoI2010Aug03-Newldea.pdf>
Page 2of2
004422
From:
To:
Bill.l.ehr.
Cc:
EQssola. AntQniQ
Sky BristQl; TIm Kern' Espjna Pedro 1.; Guthrie WjUjam E.
'Subject:
Date:
Tuesday, August 03, 20io 3:19:18 PM
Re: Deepwater
New Idea
Antonio,
J am looking at the (Rev A) discharges. If the high qnd low daily

estimates are plus or minus 10 %, I would expect that the tolnl
day. Same with low estimqtes. While there was uridoubtably some daily
fluctuation, it would have been less than this global uncerrninty.
Bill
On 8/3/10 9:59 AM, Possolo, Antonio wrote:
> Sky and 11m,
>
> The attnched 2-pager desaibes a novel approach to the uncerrninty analysis for the mass balance
ca Iculations.
>
> It solves this problem that we have been plagued with: how to preserve mass balance and Inlk about
the "best" and "worst" case scenarios that the USCG likes, while doing uncerrninty analysis the right
way, which is to treat all sources of uncerrninty equitably.
>
> In this new approach, the full uncerrninty of the daily discharge is treated just like the uncertainty of
all the other variables: we no longer need to do a "low flow" calculation separately from a "high flow"
calculation, but still can describe, in fair detail, "best" and "worst" case scenarios corresponding to our
>
> I find this a very exCiting development that has the potential of pleasing everybody. The code is still
an alpha pilot and I have not polished the narrative. But given your very dear understanding of the
problem that I'm trying to solve here, this may suffice for you to decide whether you'd like to see it
developed further.
>
.
> Since this is such a rush job, we've not refined it or reviewed it internally here at NIST. For this
reason I'm leaving out the names of my two usual "co-conspirators", Pedro Espina and Will Guthrie, but
they'll be included once we produce something that they've inspected and that is actually deliverable
and satisfies you.
>
>
> - Antonio
>
> - Antonio Possolo, PhD ,.- Chief
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Telephone: 301-975-2853
004423
Subject: Re: Deepwater -- New Idea.

Date: Tuesday, August 3,2010 1:31 PM
Cc: Antonio Possolo <antonio.possolo@nist.gov>, Bill lehr <bilLlehr@noaa.gov>, "Pedro I. Espina"
<pedro.espina@nist.gov>, "Guthrie, William E" <william.guthrie@nist.gov>
We are testing performance now. We will keep everyone posted as we get results.
TIm Kern
970-226-9366
970-226-9230 (fax)

To: "possolo, Antonio" <antonio.possolo@nist.gov>
Cc: Tim Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>, "Espina, Pedro 1." <pedro.espina@nist:gov>, "Guthrie, William E"
<william.guthrie@nist.gov>, Bill Lehr <BiII.Lehr@noaa.gdv>
Date: 08/03/2010 11:21 AM
get when running the numbers in your table through a charting engine. This is the one piece
we've been missing: a thorough look at all the "best case/biggest cleanup impact ll factors and
forward are the total discharge (at least at the 4.9M bbllevef of detail) and the percentages
Page lof3
004424
I'll float a line out to Mark Miller, Sean O'Brien, and others on this to see if we can schedule a
call to discuss., I'm about to have to present something on another meeting, but I'll get
<.( ((<""'''''.....,,<.{ ((<N"",:,,""<.( ({<
Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov .
Office: 303-202-4181
<.( ({<"''''''''''''<.( (( <""''''''''<.
On Aug 3,2010, at 10:59 AM, Possolo, Antonio wrote:
> Sky and Tim,

>
>
talk about the IIbest" and "worst" case scenarios that the USCG likes, while doing uncertainty
>
uncertainty of all the other variables: we no longer need to do a "low flow" calculation
"worst" case scenarios corresponding to our low and high confidence bands.
>
Page 2 of3
004425
>
> Since this is such a rush job, we've not refined it or reviewed it internally here ,at NIST. For
>
>
> - Antonio
>
> - Antonio Possolo, PhD -'- Chief
> Te~ephone: 301-975-2853
>
>
> <PossoloBristoI2010Aug03-Newldea.pdf>
Page 30f3
004426

From: Bill Lehr :<bill.lehr@noaa.gov> Reply-To: <Bill. Lehr@noaa.gov>
Cc: Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>, Tim Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>, "Pedro I. Espina" <pedro.espina@nist.gov>, "Guthrie,
William E" <william.guthrie@nist.gov>
_Antonio,
I am looking at the (Rev A) discharges. If the, high and low daily
estimates are plus or minus 10 %, I would expect that the total
day. Same with low estimates. While there was undoubtably some daily
-tluctuation, it would have been less than this global uncertainty.
Bill
On 8/3/109:59 AM, Possolo, Antonio wrote:
> Sky and Tim,
>
-
>
talk about the "b~st" and "worst" case scenarios that the USCG likes, while doing uncertainty
>
uncertainty of all the other variables: we no longer need to do a "low flow" calculation
"worst" case scenarios corresponding to our low and high confidence bands.
>
> I find this a very exciting development that has the potential of pleasing everybody. The codeis still an alpha pilot and I have not polished the narrative. But given your very clear
>
Page lof2
004427
>
>
> -Antonio
>
> - Antonio Possolo, PhD -- Chief.
> Telephone: 301-975-2853
>
>
>
, ..
Page 2 of 2
004428
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
passalo. Antonio
SkY Bristol; TIm Kern' Espjoa Pedro r; Guthrie Wjlljarn F.

Tuesday, August 03, 2.010 3:48:45 PM
Antonio,
I would assess th,e flow uncertainty as global (time independent). That
on day 1 and 5% low on day 2 etc. I think it is reasonable (although
Chu specifically said this was not the casetto take the flow
Bill
> Bill,
>
> I modeled the uncertainty about the discharge as a value uniformly distributed between nominal plus
distribution with mean at nominal,. and 10% of nominal being twice the standard deviation, say.
>
'
> But your comment relates to the meaning of the 10% uncertainty (whichever way one may model it).
c:;:urrently we are considering a low flow (-10%), and a high flow (+10%) situation separately. This could
would this be? And are we then saying that the bias will be exactly 10%, but We don't know whether it
is high or low, so we consider both separately?
>
> If the +/-10% are to be taken as an uncertainty that expresses plain lack of knowledge about the
discharge, then Values in between the extremes should be entertained, and modeling the actual
, about the rate constants.
>
> The "solution" in the outline I sent out earlier is for this last, stochastic approach. Obviously, it will be
up to the science team to decide what is best.
>
> - Antonio
>
> Antonio Possolo, PhD -- Chief
>
>
>
>
~

Telephone: 301-975-2853
004429

From: Billlehr <bill.lehr@noaa.gov>
Reply-To: <BilI.Lehr@noaa.gov>
To: Antonio Possolo <antonio.posso[o@nist.gov> ,
Cc: Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>, Tim Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>, "Pedro I. Espina" <pedro.espina@nist.gov>, "Guthrie, '
William F. II <william.guthrie@nist.gov>
Antonio,
on day 1 and 5% low on day 2 etc.. I think it is reasonable (although
Bill

> Bill,
>
> I modeled the uncertainty about the discharge as a value uniformly distributed between
nominal plus 10% and nominal minus 10%. Other model~ may be more appropriate: for
example, a normal distribution with mean at nominal.. and 10% of nominal being twice the
standard deviation, say.
>
> But your comment relates to the meaning of the 10% uncertainty (whichever way one m'ay
model it). Currently we are'considering a low flow (-10%), and a high flow (+10%) situation
separately. This could be in line with your observation: that we are always 10% too highl or
10% too low. But how realistic would this be? And are we then saying that the bias will be
exactly 10%1 but we don't know whether it is high or lowl so we consider both separately?
>
> If the +/-10% are to' be taken as an uncertainty that expresses plain lack of knowledge about
the discharge, then values in between the extremes should be entertained, and modeling the
actual discharge as a random variable would be the way to do it, the same way we model the
>
> The "solution fl in the outline I sent out earlier is for this last l stochastic approach. Obviously,
it will be up to the scienGe team to decide what is best.
>
Page 10f2
004430
> - Antonio
>
> - Antonio Possolo, PhD - Chief
> Telephone: 301-975-2853
>
>
>
Page 2 of2
004431
Friday.August 20, 2010 8:02 AM

From: Sky Bri~ol <sbristol@usgs.gov>
<.( ((<"''''''''''<. (( "'''''''"'''<. ({

Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
Office: 303-202-4181
C
<.( ((<"" .."',."<.( (( <"'~"''''<.((
On Aug 3, 2010, at 2:50 PM, Espina, Pedro J. wrote:

> Sky,
>
> Is there a number where I can call you o'n this matter?
>
> Thanks, Pedro
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----> From: Possolo, Antonio
> To: Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>; Bill Lehr <BilI.Lehr@noaa.gov>
> Sent: Tue Aug O~ 16:46:54 2010
> Subject: RE: "Org Chart"
>
> Sky,
>
> All three of us listed for NIST should appear as equals, with no one singled out as "Principal
Investigator" .
>
> Many thanks.
>
,> - Antonio
>
Page 1 of 2
004432
>
>
>
>
>
>

Telephone: 301-975-2853
Page 2of2
004433
Friday. August 20. 20108:02 AM

. From: Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>
To: "Pedro I. Esplna" <pedro.espina@nist.gov>
Cc: Antonio Passala <antanio.possala@nist.gov>
Greatl Thank you. This makes better sense all around. 1111 get a new version of this out once I
talk with the folks in USGS with whom I .need to coordinate .
<-----<. {(----<.
. <. (
Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
Office: 303-202-4181
Cell: 303-241-4i22
<.
--<.
<<r-.. . -----<.
On Aug 3 / 20101 at 3:25 PM I Espinal Pedro I. wrote:

Dear Sky,
It was very nice talking to you today.
Like I mentioned, the NISTDirector would like to a_cknowledge the contribution of
all NIST personnel involved in this effort regardless their level of participation. In
alphabetical order, those individuals are:
Pedro Espina
William Guthrie
Aaron Johnson
Michael Moldover
Antonio Possolo
Blaza Toman
John Wright
Antonio possoro is the Chief of the NIST Statistical Engineering Division and thus all
statistics inquiries should be addressed to him. ! am the NIST Point of Contact for
the DWH incident and all other inquiries should be addressed to me.
We hope that this is helpful to you.
Many thanks, Pedro
Page lof3
004434
On 8/3/10 5:06 PM, "Sky Bristol" <sbristol@usgs.gov<x-msg://170/

sbristol@usgs.gov> > wrote:
<.( (( <"'''''''''''<. {{( <"'.........""<.( ((<
Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov <x-msg://170/sbristol@usgs.gov>
Office: 303-202-4181
({<
On Aug 3, 2010, at 2:50 PM, Espina, Pedro I. wrote:
> Sky,
>
>
> Thanks, Pedro
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----> From: Possolo, Antonio
> To: Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs;gov <x-msg://170/sbristol@usgs.gov> >;.
Bill Lehr <~iII.Lehr@noaa.gov <x-msg://170/BilI.Lehr@noaa.gov> >
> Sent: Tue Aug 03 16:46:54 2010
> Subject: RE: "Org Chart"
>
> Sky,
>
. > All three of us listed for NIST should appear as equals, with no one
>
> Many thanks.
>
> - Antonio
>
Page 2 of 3
004435

> Telephone: 301-975-2853
>
>
Pedro I. Espina, Ph.D.

Program Analyst
Program Office, Office
Tel: +1 301 975 5444
oft~e
Director
Page 3 of 3
004436

Date: Wednesday, August 4, 2010 4:29 AM
From: Espina, Pedro I. <pedro.espina@nist.gov>
To: Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>, Mark Miller <mark.w.miller@noaa.gov>, Mark K Sogge <mark_sogge@usgs.gov>, Bill
lehr <bill.lehr@noaa.gov>, Antonio Possolo <antonio.possolo@nist.gov>, Stephen Hammond <sehammon@usgs.gov>

Priority: Highest
Dear Colleagues,
Sorry that '. did not get before to you but I needed to consult.
NIST supports the position stated below by Sky - that is {(indicate that USCG, USGS, NOAA, and
NIST worked together to produce the tool", In the absence of that, NIST would like for Antonio
Possolo to be named as the NIST team lead for the Oil Budget Calculator Science and
Engineering Team ..
We hope that either of these approaches meets the requirements of the reporting mechanism.
We would appreciate an indication as to your final decision.
Kind regards,
Pedro
.
On8/3/10 7:14 PM, "Sky Bristol" <sbristol@usgs.gov> wrote:

Given the note I just saw from Steve Hammond about sensitivities in sharing
individual names, here is a third option stripped to the bone with just a few people
listed. Our core development team in USGS is probably okay with names attached
unless there is some good advice not to do so. PersonallYI I don't really see the
point in doing something like this bare bones approach other than to indicate that
USCG1 USGS, NOAA1 and NIST all worked together to produce the tool, which could
be done in much simpler prose.
:Jedro L Espina, Ph.D.

)rogram Analyst
)rogram Office, Office of the Director
rei: +1 301 975 5444
Page 1 of 1
004437

FOIA # cfLi2: \ F- ( 0 - '"3. 5 )
..,.."."...,...-,-_iJ.=....,..-, Documents to be withheld in their entirety

FOIA Exemption
D B5: __t___ documents _ _ _F

__ pages
004438
From:
To:
Possolo, Antonio
~
Cc:
Sky Bristol
Subject:
Date:
,myUSGS Access
Monday, August'OZ, 2010 8:09:00 AM
Tlm,
I have access only to https:/Imv-beta,usgs.aov/oilBudget, not to https:/Imy.lJsas.gov{oilBudget. Are
.
these two sites showing the same thing?
Based on what I see at my-beta.usugs.gov, I suggest that the vertical axis (barrels) for "Cumulative
Remaining" should have exactly the' same range both for the lower flow estimate and for the higher flow
estimate -- this will fadlitate comparing the two graphs when the corresponding tabs both are selected
on the same page.
- Antonio
Telephone: 301-975-2853
004439
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Possolo, Antonio
"TIm Kern"; Sky Bristol
Oil Budget Tool Suggestions
Sky and Tim,

Two small suggestions regarding the web presentation of the results:
(1) The information about the amount "Dispersant Used" should be removed from the tables because
someone who looks at the table for the first time might think that.this amount is being added or
subtracted to get the amount "Remaining". You may like to consider moving it to the white space above
"Discharged".
(2) To avoid possible confusion created by the negative numbers that may appear in the rightmost cell
of the row labeled "Remaining", you may like to write "Daily Increment" inside the same cell that has
the pull-down menu with datesr and immediately above the little window with the selected date.
I'm still thinking'about ways in which we could get rid of the two separate displays (low and high f1ow)r
and show a single set of results that would take into account the +/-10% uncertainty in "Discharged";
together with all the other sources of uncertainty, and still be generally similar to what we show now. If
you believe that such thinking is a waste of time, please let me know.
- Antonio
Telephone: 301-975-2853
004440
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date: ,
Possolo, Antonio
"Sky Bristol": Stephen E Hammond
Marcia K McNutt; .6ill..lJ:!lJ:; Mark K Sogge; h!!nsaker61 ;
RE: oil budget
Monday, August 02, 2010 2:10:00 PM
Iim..Kem
I agree that the approach that Sky just described, to accommodate

a variable daily discharge, is the simplest and most direct way ,of
incorporating the guidance from Director McNutt, requiring minimal
or no changes to the rest of the computing machinery.
I will point out that the rates of decrease in daily discharge
implied by the numbers in the' spreadsheet 'that Sky shared on
Saturday, July 31 st , is just under 0.19% per day, except for day
45 (June 3rd), when it increased 4%.
We stand by ready to be of assistance to Sky and to Tim on any
matters relating to the R engine and on any matters of substance
concerning the uncertainty analysis.
Antonio
Telephone: 301-975-2853
004441
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Posselo, Antonio
"BiIIlehr@noaa.oQv"
Sky Bristol; Ii.ol.Kem; EsDioa pedro 1.; Guthrie. William E
RE: Deepwater -- New Idea
Tuesday, August 03, 20103:39;00 PM
I modeled the uncertainty about the discharge as a value uniformly distributed between nominal plus
distribution with mean at nominall and 10% of nominal being twi~ the standard deviationl say.
But your comment relates to the meaning of the 10% uncertainty (whichever way one may model it).
would this be? And are we then saying that the bias will be exactly 10%, but we don't know whether it
is high or low l so we consider both separately?
If the +/-10% are to be taken as an uncertainty that expresses plain lack of knowledge about the
discharge, then values in between the extremes should be entertainedl and modeling the actual
about the rate constants.
The "solution" in the outline I sent out earlier is for this last, stochastic approach. Obviously, it will be
up to the sdence team to decide what is best
. .
- Antonio
- Antonio Possoiol PhD -- Chief
Telephone: 301-975-2853
004442

From: Antonio Possolo <antonio.possolo@ni~.gov>
To: Bill Lehr <bilLlehr@noaa.gov>
Cc: Sky Bristol <spristol@usgs.gov>, Tim Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>, "Pedro I. Espina" <pedro.espina@nist.gov>, "Guthrie,
William E" <william.guthrie@nist.gov>
Bill,
I modeled the uncertainty about the discharge as a value uniformly
distributed between nominal plus 10% and nominal minus 10%. Other models
may be more appropriate: for example, a normal distribution with me~n at
nominal, and 10% of nominal being twice the standard deviation, say.
But your comment relates to the meaning ofthe 10% uncertainty
(whichever way one may model it). Currently we are considering low
flow (-10%), and a high flow (+10%) situation separately. This could be
in Ihie with your observation: that we are always 10% too high, or 10%
too low. But how realistic would this be? And are we then saying that <
the bias will be exactly 10%, but we don't know whether it is high or
low, so we consider both separately?
If the +/-10% are to be taken as an uncertainty that expresses plain

lack of knowledge about the discharge, then values in between the
extremes should be entertained, and modeling the actual discharge as a
random variable would be the way to do it, the same way we model the
The "solution" in the outline I sent out earlier is for this last,
stochastic approach. Obviously, it will be up to the science team to
decide what is best.
-Antonio
<Information Technology Laboratory
< Telephone: 301-975-2853
Page 1 of 1
004443
From:
Possolo, Antonio
To:
Sky Bristol"
Subject:
RE: "Org O1art"

Date:
Sky,
Here is a list of the NIST players, and their points of engagement with the FRTG, in alphabetical order
of last names in each case:
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST, U.S. Dept of Commerce)
Pedro Espina (Program Office)
William Guthrie (Statistical Engineering Divisioni Information Technology Laboratory)
Antonio Passalo (Statistical Engineering Division, Information Technology Laboratory)
FRTG Plume Team: Pedro Espina, Antonio Possalo
FRTG Mass Balance Team: Pedro ESpina, William Guthrie, Antonio Possalo
FRTG Nodal Team: Pedro Espina, William Guthrie, Antonio Possolo
I'll still have to send you the names of a few NIST internal reviewers and contributors.
- Antonio
Telephone: 301-975-2953
004444
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
PossoIQ AntoniQ
BiII.lehr@noaa.gQv: Slsv Bristol
Mark Miller; Mark K Sogge: Stephen Hammond; EsOlna Pedro I
RE: Oil Budget Calculator Science and Engineering Team
Given the desire cf the NIST directcr -- to' acknowledge all

from NIST who have helped with this task ~- Ibelieve it is
inapprcpriate to' single cut a single perscn, be it Pedro.
Espina cr mer as scme scrt of "lea<;i" fcr NIST.
Therefcre, either list all those who. have contributed, like
Bill Lehr has suggested, or merely state that NIST helped, .
menticning no staff member in particular.
This instance cf effective ccllabcraticn between USGS r NOAA,
USCG, NIST, etc. is a much more impcrtant fact to bring to'
the attention cf the public, than the names of any individuals
who happened to' have been in the right place at the right
time.
- Antonio.
- Antcnic Pcssclc, PhD -- Chief
Statistical Engineering Divisicn
Infcrmaticn Technclcgy Labcratcry
Naticnal 'Institute of Standards & Technclogy
Telephcne: 301-975-2853
004445
~~.bj~~; .-R.E~:: O~I. ~~tig~t: ~aJi4Ia~oj., $i~~~te. ~.~~ .~~gl~~e~(ig T~am: -: ... .'. . .'. ;:: ~'., :- : .:'
: :. ::.. ' .~.
Pi3t~: .r~e~ClY~:Atigui1:.3i:20.i(lip:o~ pM:.:. :.,:.: .....
'. . . . : '. . . . ' : .
F.r~nl:)\rit60f("Pos~olq<a.ritonio,p6~s6jp,@rli~,;gov>.' .' . . ' . '
.' . " .':.. ' .. ,'
" ~ . ". .". '. " .:",'

.
"
,"
,"
'" ':.'-:::
,:<::;:. :."':':.": .:, .
to~ ,Bill\l.E!ht~~m,i.eh.r~~6iia~gov>,j:skY. BriStQl~sb.i1s1:~I@.O$gS:g6V:>': '::, ::': ,,:. ':;'. \:. '::': . :':'::
~t:'.rYla:r~. Milj~r:<rvia~k~WMjlle~@nQa~~go.vj>:,: rV1arf~ :Sogge<n1~rk.::.~ogge@?~~gs;goV;;.$tep~en. H~rrlmbn~:
~~~h~~.rri&ri@~~gs~g6v>>'Pe~itP(Espinaij.<pe~rci.~~pit)a@fni$t~~QV;:.>:-. . , . '. .:":".', ... " ' . '
'. . . . . . .
".
.-'.
..
.
.
..
. . . ::'
~' . . . .
.
. . . ....". ': . . . ....".: : ,-: . '. .
..
. . . ~. ',: ~ :
'.
.
>
"<.:
" .', .. ' " .

,....: ..
' . ' " '
.'
"'.
..,'"
.
."
"
:: . : .. :',.:
...
. ..
."
.... ::..
'"
'".'
...
"
.:
'.
','; : '.';':'
..
......... .
. .':'"
.' .. '.
",'
"'.
.'
...
'.
,.:::. :.:'
"'.
,"
'"
Ther:efor.:e.
:.,;.
...... :... ::, ... r. :::eithe:i,::tist:
:.. :, ... ::.: .... :.. ,::al1:thb:se>j.lho
:... :',.::.. ' .:. ':.,:: .. :: .. ..:'hav:ei::.conhtibiitecl
":",:, :... ::. :.... :.... ::. ::~..<:"::::
J i:ke ',Bil:1: ,Lehr .ha $': '::sugge:s fecl~,:9r.....ruete ~Ly: ':'s t:a t::e::;.th~ t',: NT S T;..
lj ~.ipe~;, . :. IIl~:fl; ~i QIii.:#g:}\~..:.5 ~~ t.t: ;':in~~'~'F;': ;f:~i:.P.~.~~:~L~,~ar>.:.;: . ":. ~ .'.:.'. :..:. '
i-~.i:$:{'~$:tanCe,:",t)f,:.e::ftept:Ly~:::c:()ii~~b:f~:ti.oh ::b;~tw~e.p:.IiS~:S~~: .....,

~OAAi::ti.stG;:;,:J,\T:[Sij.:::~j:d;.::'i.$::a..m,1l,cti. . ttl;Qji::e:;:{mpb.:it'an,t::;:t:a:.ct<"t:O':::
b:i:i.b~f:tc/:t:he ::at;:heritiori:.'c?:t:.::the~.:pubi.~fc'f.<.t:h:aIi:':'th.e:::ria~e:'$:::O:f::.
:~~c~n~~v;~~;~~~~() l:;~~ene<it() h<lYe b~eIl

: ' .. : :
.
..
."
'
.'.:: : :,'
'
..
."
'
.':.: .. : ...
:',:
.'
,"
."
.',
',;.
'.
,',".
','.
. .,...., ~ :
'
::
',':" ,.-.' :.:'
i I l .
. .
.. ..
. , ~ '-: :' . .: ;' : '. :: '-: : : .' ',:
. :: ..... :. . '. -.' :::.' '. :: .:.'::.,
: : '.
.. : .', : ~ ,'.::. .. :: ; ~ : '. , . . , . . . . '. : . .
"
tl1e righl: .....

'
"
"
"
'
'
'
'
:.
.'.: :'.:
.
'
.'.:......'.. . . ..
."
...:
'"
'.
"
'.'
'.
"
"
.' ,
'.'
-.
.
' ..
,
'
'.
'
.i~;~~~f~:~.s~f~~~;~~~~gLf!~~~~~~0 . . . . . . . . . . . .
'
. . ~.:.,:i!~~~~e.;nj~.ft.~~.~. .~.~5jt&n?~ff$..& .
TeShtlblOgy ......... .
'.
.. ':'
....
'
"
'
'.
' , '
.'
'
..
,.'
.'
,
,
"',
. :.:'
',"
'
"',
: ': ..
.:..'.
'"
...
.
"
. .
.' ' . "
'::,'
..'
,'::-,
",
"
..
'.
' ,
"
..
,'.
..
,
'
. : '.
--
"
'
"
"
"
... ' -
'
..
'
":'
'
: '.::
...
',
.':'.
. .
'.
.: ."
",
.'
-'
"
"
Page 1 of 1
004446

FOIA# _ __
=-:-:-:--:-5_-,---, Documents to be released with redaction and Require Outside NIST review
FOIA Exemption
o B6: _--",-13:....-_ documents _ _, _ _ pages

5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(6) - Personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would
constitute a clearly unwarranted 'invasion of personal privacy.
004447
From:
Subject:
pOSSQIQ 'Antonio
Bill.lehr@noaa,qov: Slsv Bristol
Mark Miller; ;;teohen Hammond; sean CDR Q"Bdeo; Iirn..Klml; fspina Pedro I
RE: Oil budget tool update coordination
Date:,
To:
Cc:
Bill and Sky,

I've just now sent 11m details about how to modify the R engine code to accommodate a time series of
daily value of discharge.
The uncertainty about the discharge is not incorporated other than by possibly runnirig the code for a
time series of "high" discharges, and then again for a Series of "low" discharges, just like you were
doing until now with a single value for "'ow" and another single value for "high".
If you'd like to incorPorate the uncertainty in the time series of daily discharges we certainly can do it
Similarly to how we incorporate the uncertainty in the rate constants. For example, you might say that,
with 90% probability, you believe the ti,me series of actual discharges is within 10% of the time series
of nominal discharges..
But we've been there before, ,for single values of discharge, as you may remember, and the approach
was abandoned because it was incompatible with a presentation of results focussing on "worst" and
"best" cases for all the outputs of interest. Nonetheless, that would be the "right" approach.
If you'd like to see the uncertainty in the time series of daily discharge taken into account, then I'd have
to modify the R code.
- Antonio
Infomation Technology Laboratory
Telephone: 301-975-2853
From: BilI.Lehr@noaa.gov [BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov]
To: Sky Bristol
Cc: Mark Miller; Stephen Hammond; Sean CDR O'Brien; Possalo, AntoniO; lim Kern
Attached is the agreed flow rate estimate with 10% uncertainty. I have not been able to get hold.of
Antonio.
Bill
004448

To: Bililehr <bill.lehr@noaa.gov>, Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>
Cc: Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, Stephen Hammond <sehammon@usgs.gov>, Sean CDR O'Brien
<sean.k.o'brien@uscg.mil>, Tim Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>, "Pedro I. Espina" <pedro.espina@nist.gov> .
Bill and Sky,

I've just now sent Tim details about how to modify the R engine code to accommodate a time
series of daily value of discharge.
The uncertainty about the discharge is not incorporated other than by possibly running the
code for a time series o.f "high" discharges, and then again for a series of "low" discharges, just
like you were doing until now with a single value for "Iow" and another single value for "high".
If you'd like to incorporate the uncertainty in thf! time series of daily discharges we certainly
can do it similarly to how we incorporate the uncertainty in the rate constants. For example;
within 10% of the time series of nominal discharges.
But we've been there before, for single values of discharge, as you may remember, and the
"right" approach.
If you'd like to see, the uncertainty in the time series of daily discharge taken into account, then
I'd have to modify the R code.
- Antonio
Telephone: 30:1,.-975-2853
From: BHI.Lehr@noaa.gov [BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov]
Page lof2
004449

To: Sky Bristol
Cc: Mark Miller; Stephen Hammond; Sean CDR O'Brien; Possolo, Antonio; Tim Kern
Attached is the agreed flow rate estimate with 10% uncertainty. I have not been able to get
hold of Antonio.
Bill
Page 2 of2
004450

Cc: Bill Lehr <bill.lehr@noaa.gov>, Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, Stephen Hammond
<sehammon@usgs;gov>, Sean CDR O'Brien <sean.k.o'brien@uscg.mil>, 11m Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>, "Pedro I. Espina"
<pedro.espi na@nist.gov>
Okay. Mark Sogge is going to send me a table of the underlying values that the FRTG worked
out. We'll s,ee what that looks like in the application and against the modified R code and get
something back out to the group for review.
"'.
<. ...."'''''''<.((
,"'''''<.
Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
Office: 303-202-4181
C
"""""""'<.( <"''''''''''<.{{
<.
o.n Jul 31, 2010, at 1:19 PM, Possolo, Antonio wrote:
> Bill and Sky,

>.
> I've just now sent Tim details about how to modify the R engine code to accommodate a
time series of daily value of discharge.
'
>> The uncertainty about the discharge is not incorporated other than by possibly running the
code for a time series of "high",discharges, and then again for a series of "low" discharges, just
like you were doing until now with a single value for "low" and another single value for "high".
>
> If you'd like to ,incorporate the uncertainty in the time series of daily discharges we certainly
can do it similarly to how we incorporate the uncertainty in the rate constants. For example,
within 10% of the time ~eries of nominal discharges.
>
> But we've been there before, for single values of discharge, as you may remember, and the
"right" approach.
>
.> If you'd like to see the uncertainty in the' time series of daily discharge taken into account,
Page 1 of 2
004451
then I'd have to modify the H code.

>
Antonio
>
> National Institute of Standards & Technology .
> Telephone: 301-975-2853
>----~--------------------------------~
'> From: BiII.lehr@noaa.gov [BilI.Lehr@noaa.gov]

> Sent: Saturday, July 31,20102:56 PM
> To: Sky Bristol
> Cc:Mark Miller; Stephen Hammond; Sean. CDR O'Brien; Possolo, Antonio; Tim Kern
>
> Sky,
>
> Attached is the agreed flow rate estimate with 10% uncertainty. I have not been able to ~et
hold of Antonio.
.
>
> Bill
Page 2 of 2
004452

Subject: Re: RE: Oil budget tool update - coordination
From: Bill Lehr <biILlehr@noaa.gov>
Cc: Sky Bristol <sbristo/@usgs.gov>, Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, Stephen Hammond
<sehammon@usgs.gov>, Sean CDR O'Brien <sean.k.o'brien@uscg.mil>, TIm Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>, "Pedro I. Espina"
Based upon the comments from the DOE-FRTG meeting. I would go with exactly those values
---- Original Message ---From: "Possolo, Antonio" <antonio.possolo@nist.gov>
Date: Saturday, July 31, 2010 12:19 pm
Subject: RE: Oil budget tool update -.coordination
To: "BilI.Lehr@noaa~gov" <BiH.Lehr@noaa.gov>, Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>
Cc: Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, Stephen Hammond <sehammon@usgs.gov>,
Sean CDR O'Brien <sean.k.o'brien@uscg.mil>,Tim Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>, "Espina, Pedro I."
> Bill and Sky,
>
> I've just now sent Tim details about how to modify the R engine code
> to accommodate a time series of daily value of discharge.
>
> The uncertainty about the discharge is not incorporated other than by
> possibly running the code for a time series of "high" discharges! and
> then again for a series of "low" discharges, just like you were doing
> until now with a single value for II10wll and another single value for "high",
>.
> If you'd like to incorporate the uncertainty in the time series of
> daily discharges we certainly can do it similarly to how we
> incorporate the uncertainty in the rate constants. For example, you
> might say that, with 90% probability, you believe the time series of
> actual discharges is within 10% of the time series of nominal discharges.
>
> But we've been there before, for single values of discharge, as you
> may remember, and the approach was abandoned because it was
> incompatible with a presentation of results focussing on "worst" and
> "best" cases for all the outputs of interest. Nonetheless, that would
> be the. "right" approach.
. Page 1 of 2
004453
>
> If you'd like to see the uncertainty in the time series of daily
> discharge taken into account, then I'd have to modify the R code.
>
>
> - Antonio
>
> Telephone: 301-975-2853
>
-----------------------------------> From: Bill.lehr@noaa.gov [BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov]
> Sent: Saturday, July 31,20102:56 PM.
> To: Sky Bristol
> Cc: Mark Miller; Stephen Hammond; Sean CDR O'Brien; Possolo, Antonio;
> Tim Kern
>
> Sky,
>
> Attached is the agreed flow rate estimate with 10% uncertainty. I have
> not been able to get hold of Antonio.
>
> Bill
Page 2 of2
004454

To: Bill Lehr <bilUehr@noaa.gov>
Cc: Antonio Possolo <antonio.possolo@nist.gov>, Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>, Stephen Hammond
<sehammon@usgs.gov>, Sean CDR O'Brien <sean.k.o'brien@uscg.mil>, Tim Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>, "Pedro I. Espinal!
I agree. Anyway to get a time weighted average of the flow?

Mark
BilI.Lehr@noaa.gov wrote:
> Based, upon the commentsfrom the DOE-FRTG meeting; I would go with exactly those values
'
>
> ---- Original Message ----> From: "possolo, Antonio" <antonio.possolo@nist.gov>
> Date: Saturday, July 31, 2010 12:19 pm
> Subject: RE: Oil budget tool update - coordination
> To: "BilI.Lehr@noaa.gov" <BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov>, Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>
. > Cc: Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, Stephen H-ammond <sehammon@usgs.gov>,
Se.an CDR O'Brien <sean.k.o'brien@uscg.mil>, Tim Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>, "Espina, Pedro I."
>
>
Bill and Sky,
I've just now sent TIm details about how to modify the R engine code
to accommodate a time se'ries of daily value of discharge.
The uncertainty about the discharge is not incorporated other than by

possibly rumiing the code for a time series of "high" discharges, and
then again for a series of "low" discharges, just like you were doing
until now with a single value for "low" and another single value for "high".
If you'd like to incorporate the uncertainty in the time series of

daily discharges we certainly can do it similarly to how we
incorporate the uncertainty in the rate constants. For example; you
might say that, with 90% probability, you believe the time series of
actual discharges is within 10% of the time series of nominal discharges.
Page 1 of2
004455
But we've been there before, for single values of discharge, as you
may remember, and the approach was abandoned because it was
incompatible with a presentation of results focussing on "worst" and
"best"cases for all the outputs of interest. Nonetheless, that would
be the "right" approach.
If you'd like to see the uncertainty in the time series of daily

discharge taken into account, then I'd have to modify the R code.
And if a per telephone conversation could help, please
- Antonio

.Statistical Engineering Division
Telephone: 301-975-2853
----~------------------------------ From: BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov [Bill.Lehr@noaa.gov]

Sent: Saturday, July 31,20102:56 PM
To: Sky Bristol
Cc: Mark Miller; Stephen Hammond; Sean CDR O'Brien; Possolo~ Antonio;
Tim Kern
Subject: Re: Oil budget tt;>ol update - coordination
Sky,
Attached is the agreed flow rate estimate with 10% uncertainty. I have
not been able to get hold of Antonio.
Bill
Page 2 of2
004456
C.iQov",
FOIA# _ __
\
-:=-:-:--:---:--:
FOIA Exemption
\ _ documents _ _ _ _ pages
D B2: _ _ _
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(2) -
Related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency.
004457
Subject: New rnyUSGS Account
Date: Friday, July 2, 2010 9:00 PM
From: myusgs@usgs.gov
This account has been created for you to access the online oil budget tool you helped build
with the R program.
https://my.usgs.gov/oilBudget/
You can change your password once you login via the link near the upper right of the screens.
1 of 1
004458

FOIA# _ __
FOIA Exemption
D B6: __?-.
__"_
documents _--==~=-_ pages
5 U.S.c. 552 (b)(6) Personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
004459
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
PossoIQ Antonio
Iilll..Kem
Espjoa Pedro I
Oil budget tool update Discharge TIem Series
Tim,
discharge just fine as it is.
All you need to do is put the values of. that time series into
the variable oilFlowRate (which in the version of the code
that I last sent you, file oily-USGS2010JuI09-FixedFlow.R, was
set either to 35000 or to 60000, in line 26).
The temporal order must match the order of the other input
time series -- VBU, VDT, etc. -- wherever you may reading them
from.
I also should like to recommend that you change the value of
m=lOOOO (on line 146 of the file.named above) to something
bigger, like m=50000 or even m=100000. This is the number of
simulations that the uncertainty analysis is based OIi.
The motivation for this is the fact that we are computing
pretty extreme percentiles (0.05th and 99.95th) for the
outputs, and a sample of 10000 gives you too little support in
the extreme tails of the distribution.
This increase in the value of m will slow things down. But
maybe the slow-down will still be tolerable, even with
m=100000, given that you are going to db the calculations just
once per day.
If you'd like me to change anything in the R code,
any other way, just ask.
- Antonio
-Information Technology Laboratory
Telephone: 301-975-2853
or help in
.
004460

Subject: Oil budget tool update - Discharge Tiem Series
To: TIm Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>
Tim,
discharge just fine as it lS.
All you need to do is put the values of that time series
into the variable oilFlowRate (which in the version ,of
the code that I last sent you, file oily-USGS2010Jul09FixedFlow.R, was set either to 3S000 or to 60000, in
line 26) .
The temporal order must 'match the order of the other
input time series -- VBU, VDT, etc. -- wherever you may
reading them from.
,r also should like to recommend that you change the

value ofm 10000 (on line 146 of the file named above)
to something bigger, like m-SOOOO or even m=100000. This
is the number of simulations that the uncertainty
analysis is based on'.
The motivation for this is the fact that we are
computing pretty extreme percentiles (O.OSth and
99.9Sth) for the outputs, and a sample of 10000 gives
you too little support in.the extreme tailsof the'
distribution. '
This increase in the value ofm will slow things down.
But maybe the slow-down will still be tolerable, even
with m 100000, given that you are going to do the
calculations just once per day_
If you'd like me to change anything in the R code, or
. Page 1of2
004461
help in any other way, 'just ask.
- Antonio
-Antonio Possolo,PhD -- Chief

'Information Technology Laboratory
Telephone: 301-975-2853
Page 2. of 2
004462

FOIA# _ __
=-:-;--:---:--:
FOIA Exemption
DB5:_ b_documents_
i~_pages
004463

Subject: Deepwater - New Idea

To: Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>, Tim Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>
cc: "Pedro I. Espinal! <pedro.espina@nist.gov>, "Guthrie, William E" <william.guthrie@nist.gov>, Bill Lehr
<bill.lehr@noaa.gov>
Sky and Tim,
The attached i-pager describes a novel approach,to the uncertainty
analysis'for the mass balance calculations.
It solves this problem that we have been plagued with: how to preserve
mass balance and talk,aboutthe "best" and "worst" case scenarios that
the USCG likes, while doing uncertainty analysis the right way, which is
to treat all sources of uncertainty equitably.
In this new approach, the full uncertainty of the daily discharge is
treated just like the uncertainty of all the other variables: we no
longer need to do a "low flow" calculation separately from a "high flow"
calculation, but still can describe, in fair detail, "best" and "worst"
case scenarios corresponding to our low and high confidence bands.
'. I find this a very exciting development that has the potential of
pleasing everybody. The code is still an alpha pilot and I have not
polished the narrative. But given your very clear understanding of the
problem that I'm trying to solve here, this may suffice for you to
deckle whether you'd like to see it developed further.
Since this is such a rush job, we've not refined it or reviewed it
internally here at NIST. For this reason ('m leaving out the names of my
tw.o usual "co-conspirators", Pedro Espina and Will Guthrie, but they'll
be included, once we produce something that they've inspected and that is
M~ny thanks for
your continuing interest in our ideas and products.
-Antonio
National IAstitLite of Standards & Technology
Telephone: 301-975-2853
Page 1 of 2
II
tHlif
mJIiHHr~imlff um J Ii
~~Ii~'r r~lttl~irttr~tl'Htt! itII} . ~
~. ft
Iil'~ ~il r ~ i ~ I
-1 r!t, f ~ t I
tt
!if:h tdhdiHH;hlh (lIn if!

P'
J!
H
tJ~
htfltHH
hl!jU
~h
rl
f~
!
tiD,'! &~J stLilli~~R.Jlj it ~lft!~ ~l
if
fd
d
ul
!.i}!
ttl
i tr'Ifi~ gJ
~!I'B' tit
Iii Jr" .f~tl!r
i
! it ~H [l~ MItt hi h Hlt ilj
.~ t~ {;i jil ilf lli IJ~ Jf U~l 1 ~
fils
!'oJ
....o
!'oJ
!!
004464
-:
.~
!1I; .. jt
004465
'From:
Possalo, Antonio
To:
"Sky Bristol": Tim Kern

E~pjna Pedro 1, i Guthrie William E ; .6iIl..1.eh!:
Deepwater -- New Idea
PoSSQ!oBrjstoI2010Aug03-Newldea,odf
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Sky and TIm,

The attached 2-pager describes a novel approach to the uncertainty analysis for the mass balance
calculations.
It solves this problem that we haveben plagued with: how to preserve mass balance and talk about
the "best" and "worst" case scenarios that the USCG likes, while doing uncertainty analysis the right
way, which is to treat all sources of uncertainty equitably.
In this new approach, the full uncertainty of the daily discharge is treated just like the uncertainty of all
the other variables: we no longer need to do a "low flow" calculation separately from a "high flow"
calculation, but still can describe, in fair detail, "best" and "worst" case scenarios corresponding to our
'
I find this a very exdting 'development that has the potential of pleaSing everybody. The code is still an
alpha pilot and I have not polished the namitive. But given your. very clear understanding of the
problem that I'm trying to solve here, this may suffice for you to dedde whether you'd like to see it
developed further.
.
.
Since this is such a rush job, we've not refined it or reviewed it internally here at NISI. For this reason
I'm leaving out the names of my two usual "co-conspirators", Pedro Espina and Will Guthrie, but they'll
be included once we pr'oduce something that they've inspected and that is actually deliverable and
satisfies you.
,- Antonio
- Antonio Possolo, PhD Chief
Telephone: 301-975-2853
'
004466
DEEPWATER HORIZON -
MASS BALANCE
AUGUST 3RD, 20IO

This confidence Interval expresses contributions from all recognized sources
volume discharged, noW assessed at 10%.
simulating values of relevant variables from appropriate probability distributions that reflect their associated uncertainty..
We use these to generate a: wide range of likely scenarios that, together with
. volume of oil recovered via RITT or Top Hat, volume of oily water skimmed,
If VS: 1' , VS:m are the simulated values of Vs for a particular day, the endpoints
of these values, The lower end-point, VS,L represents a best-case scenario, and
scenarios apd satisfy the mass balance.
This problem arises because the scenario corresponding to Vs,u, the upper endpoint of the confidence interval, does not necessarily correspond to "worstcase" values of all the relevant quantities; and similarly for the scenario corresponding to VS,L'
relevant variables when. the volume of oil remaining is either Vs,L or Vs ,u, and
variable m in the R code): I recommend about 100000 for a 95 % confidence
NIST
POSSOLO -
PAGE I OF 2
004467
DEEPWATER HORIZON -
MASS BALANCE
AUGUST 3RD, 2010
interval. Since the machine I'm using for this pilot development does not allow
. accessing enough memory to do this, the following figure and table are based
on only 50 000 simulated scenarios.
The fi~re and table pertain to day 102 (July 30th, 2010): the values are
different from those the tool at https://my.usgs.gov/oilBudget reports for
the same day owing principally to the way in which I'm interpreting the 10 %
to reproduce.
Best Case Scenario
Worst Case Scenario
. Evapomle<lor
Dissolved
26%
Dispersed
Chemically 10 %
BEST-CASE
DISCHARGED
Recovered (RlTT /TopHat)

Dispersed Naturally
AVAILABLE'
. Burned
Skimmed
REMAINING
Actual Percentile
NIST
WORST-CASE
4922738
4931405
-823452
-823452
-988088
-503939
-1275519
-1252445
1835679
2351569
-365301
-470905
-266375
-266375
-89271
-169730
1630623
928669
VS,L 923251 Vs,u = 1 608563
POSSOLO -
PAGE 2 OF 2
004468
Friday. August 20, 2010" 8:02 AM
Subject: Deepwater - New Idea Revised

Date: Wednesday, August 4, 2010 1:19 PM
To: "Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>, Bill Lehr"<bill.lehr@noaa.gov>
Cc: Tim Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>, "Pedro I. Espina" <pedro.espina@nist.gov>, "Guthrie, William F."
<william.guthrie@nist.gov>
Bill and Sky,

"The attachment updates my prior submission on the same topic, but now
consistently with Bill's guidance on how the discharge uncertainty ought
to be applied (same percentage for all the days in each scenario).
I'm also (I hope) explaining things better than before, and summarizing
the results in two figures that I find particularly informative,
inspired from a NOAA figure in today's New York TImes.
The same as before, this is a draft suggestion pending internal NIST
review. If you will wish to see it developed for implementation, I
remain at Sky's and TIm's service to assist in such (including R code to
-Antonio
- An~onio Possolo, PhD - Chief
Il:lformation Technology laboratory
Telephone: 301-975-2853
Page 1 of 2
004469
I'n$<eming Results &om C4~ Uiu:~r!alnty Anal,)'sis
for Mus Bahmce Calada.tions

Goat Til ~,,~ Immrai (V.......V,u:) 6 ... ..nth some ~
prc~ lDdud... .t... vcIuIrze '" oll"""';lIiJ>g v,. 011" pattr.::ular"da,:
n;. c:onfid.-.... &I~~~llIic>:a< trmv...n ~ _ _
r>t ....~~ 1Dd~
lIlI<:OI'tOIlaty ~td 10/1111. tile
"O'OI_~_~at:l:.l0~
~ The MMIII!: Oarlo ~ tim r... be.:IiI using to Wed on Ilm

~ ....lL"'sct~ ~fiomappropCal,,~dimibudoM
dlatftllk!alll<:lr~~
n.. 0!>Ir Yol!'!>tIl1e$ to&oR \IlIlll<$ remab:. iilI,.,d dIroughoul life ~ wI.ose
."lIIfues weft: obcaiDCd by dIrea _ _ =u; (for ~pt'" die ~...... ct ~
~ Yb1Ul"I .rlbp Hat" ord!!:wItIme ai'oily _ _ -..as $ld......ed)
-fIhes:e1"al~1bdr ~_tuncertllbr .... d"'liI$sumpI:km dial It. \& ~b)"~ wIth tloe _~ ih2totha
-= ....".,IIJe .........II~
1_1II<!$e: cIm\ll:Hlld ~ to ~ a wid~ ~ of possibIe.~

Aad ill <!lJC!o ...,.,.,..." IIiins' abolbt: vah.Ios of ""'*"'1Blll1lfw
......! ~ J '"""l'= a u..It: _ of vall:I!Sof V..
ilia,....., _'"
U ~,(t"). , ~(r) """ tho: rimlIlat<04 "'~ of'>'. lor "" ~day C, d>r~tI> ... dI~SI'tl>_. m...tlIe~of:that....u;deDali>.
Iem>l_ dIos>ea SO 11$ te IDdui!e "s~ JII'l'PClrIiaa (for~. ?5~) cf
Il>t:swI....... lbe:lo>_eud-poial. V$.t(c}~""bes<_ ~ 1!IDd:
dIIO!~e~~~(t)~""M)""'_-.cIo(lorthat~).
SI!:Ict: the ~ lew:! of Ibis ~ is only ,5% (aid not lOO~.......

~ ~ Me ~ mot 11ft: bemor dw> cb.tt heft. aDd _
thuI
Ibis-.. ~~!l~WlthmlniDllllly~.a.t.:~
WOGIct ~ imJ'Cl'Cdcall,y Jerge tmmbe= 11\ AimClbtlonl:. ,.,..11!1$. ~
V....rt)omdY"',,(t)~Ihe~b.$.-t_DtCl!l<!.~
1be p~ &as been tim I eoGI611Ct ~ fiDd v.aIua ct ktt""'''''''t quaD1id<:s1lD. pIiar {lor ~ mtvaltlme ~ ~ or on wlume
~ <Ifs.d\'I:d}. IfaaI. ~ to, !hose
best""""""
_...,...,.-1
- . . - , "adsdltsatisfytloo """'" b;dua:.
--~-------------
..----
Page 20f2
004470
Friday, August 20, 2010 8:02 AM .

Cc: Tim Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>, "Pedro I. Espinal! <pedro.espina@nist.gov>, "Guthrie, William E"
<william.guthrie@nist.gov>, Bililehr <bilUehr@noaa.gov>
Sky,
Yes, the percentages in the figure are incorrect because I included the
wrong figure - the attachment here fixes that.
I'll await further news of a possible conversation.
Best regards,
-Antonio
- Antonio Possolo, PhD - Chief
Telephone: 301-975-2853
Page 10f2
[raP't
It.
1tl~Pfi't~\1~atJrt:i'
81 ! J' .t ~ a, ill It1 9t:
It
tg,~ll
rp i'! fIll
ijf,f'iJr ~Pt~ftl~!lltL~J~A,!itr
I!f~l~
! f,B ~ I!. J
1rrI i I fI L.. D'( [
lilt
II
~i rl
l
hrhf i.rf"Htrl~lll!f.J
I,
I" ;
I
t
mHI
lH
iutnH1d
1l
bUll,!
;
J
t(lii
i
f
llJ
st!ii~~It,~.fi Hf '~~t!f
l Ih" mi!HtHI tr hit i[

i~,!l
fd
l rlr"t ifi r iIi I ~ i: i 1.. r .l ~
i l Ii ~~! H pi If' Itl jt HII I ~
~ I I ~ iii ~ f~ h l till, ,f U1 ~
1
~~
Q J. f"
t
~ 81..&' ~if
11
ff
~
N
"'i\
II
,.Ii:
004471
! !!.
004472
"From:
Possolo, Antonio
To:
"Sky Bristol"
Iinl..Kml.; Espina Pedro I : Guthrie, Wi!!iam F :
Cc
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
8iI.l...lel:u:.
RE: Deepwater .- New Idea

PDssolpBdstpl2Q] OAuo03 -Newldea -reyA pdf
Sky,
Many thanks for your supportive assessment
Yes, the percentages in the figure are incorrect because I included the wrong figure -- the attachment
here fixes that.
I'll await further news of 'a possible conversation. "

Best regards,
- Antonio
Telephone: 301-975-2853
004473
DEEPWATER HORIZON -
MASS BALANCE
AUGUST
20IO

of uncenainty simultaneously, including the uncertainty associated with the
volume discharged, now assessed at 10%.
Problem, The Monte Carlo approach that we have been using is based on
simulating values of relevant variables from appropriate probability distributions that reflect their associated uncenainty.
volume of oil recovered via RlIT or Top Hat, volume of oily water skimmed,
etc.), determme one particular time series of values of Vs.
If V;'l' .. " VS:m are the simulated values of Vs for a particular day, the endpoints
of these values. The lower end-point, VS,L represents a best-case scenario, and
scenarios and s.atisfy the mass balance.
This problem arises because the scenario corresponding to Vs,tJ, the upper endpoint of the confidence interval; does not necessarily correspond to "worstcase" values of all the relevant quantities; and similarly for the scenario corre. sponding to VS,L'
relevant variables when the volume of oil remaining is either VS,L or Vs,u, and
variable m in the R code): I recommend about 100 000 for a 95 % confidence
NIST-REVA
POSSOLO -PAGE I OF 2
004474
DEEPWATER HORIZON -
MASS BALANCE
AUGUST 3RD, 2010
intervaL Since the machine I'm using for this pilot development does not allow
accessing enough memory to do this, the following figure and table are based.
on only 50000 simulated scenarios.
The figure and table pertain to day 102 (July 30th, 2010): the values are
different from those the tool at https : limy. usgs. govloi lBudget reports for
the same day owing principally to the way in which I'm interpreting the 10%
to reproduce.
Best Case Scenario
Worst Case Scenario
Evapor.!ted or
Dissolved
26%
Dispersed
Chemically 7 %
BEST-CASE
DISCHARGED
Recovered (RlIT/TopHat)
Disper~ed Naturally
AVAILABLE'
Burned
Skimmed
REMAINING
Actual Percentile
NIST- REV A
4922738
-823452
-988088
-1275519
1835679
-470905
-266375
-169730
928669
VS,L = 923251
WORST~CASE
4931405
-82.3452
-503939
252445
2351569
-365301
-266375
-89271
1630623
Vs,u
= 1 608563
POSSOLO -
PAGE 2 OF 2
004475
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date~
Attachments:
Possolo, Antonio
"Sky Bristol": "Bill lehr"
"TIm Kern"; Esojna Pedro I ; Guthrie William E
Deepwater -- New Idea Revised
Wednesday, August 04, 20101:19:00 PM

!?osso!pBristo!20 1OAuo04 -NewIdea -revB pdf
Bill and Sky/

The attachment updates my prior submission on the same topic/ but now conSistently with Bill's
guidance on how the discharge uncertainty ought to be applied (same percentage for all the days in
each scenario).
I'm also (I hope) explaining things better than before/ and summarizing the results in two figures that I
find particularlyinfor:mative/ inspired from a NOAA figure in today's New York limes.
The same as before, this is a draft suggestion pending internal NIST review. If you will wish to see it
developed for implementation/ I remain at Sky's and TIm's service to assist in such (induding R code to
- Antonio
Telephone: 301-975-2853
004476
DEEPWATER HORIZON -
MASS BALANCE
AUGUST
2010
Presenting Results from Complete Uncertainty Analysts

probability; includes the volume of oil remaining Vs on a particular day.
volume'discharged, now assessed at 10 %.
Problem. The Monte Carlo approach that I've been using is based on simulating values of relevant variables from appropriate probability distributions
that reflect their associated uncertainty.
,
The only variables. whose values remain fixed throughout are those whose
- for these I'm ignoring their respective measurement uncertainty on the assumption that it is negligible by comparison with the connibutions that other
sources make to the overall uncertainty.
And in: each scenario, using also the values of,those quantities that were measured directly, I compute a time series of values of VS'o
If VS~l (t), ... , Vs:m(t) are the simulated values of Vs for a particular day t, corresponding to m different scenarios, then the endpoints of that confidence interval are chosen so as to include a specified proportion (for example, 95 %) of
the upper end-pomt Vs,u(t) represents a worst-case scenario (for that day).
Since the confidence level of this interval is only 95 % (and not 100 %), conceivably there are scenarios that' are better than that best, and worse than
this worst. However, characterizing them with minimally acceptable accuracy
would require impractically large numbers m of simulations. For this reason,
VSLCt) and VsuCt) represent the effectively best and worst case scenarios.
.
"
The problem has been that I could not easily find values of interesting quantities in play (for example, oil volume chemically dispersed, or oil volume
NIST -
REV B DRAFT
POSSOLO -
PAGE I OF
004477
DEEPWATER HORIZON -
MASS BALANCE
AUGUST 4TH, 2010
This problem arises

because the scenario corresponding to Vsu(t), the up.
per end-point of the confidence interval, does not necessarily correspond to
"worst-case" values of all the relevant quantities; and similarly for the scenario corresponding to VSL(t).
Discharge Uncertainty. The uncertainty associated with the volume discharged
is interpreted as follows: the actual time series of the daily discharge is modeled as ,the product EVR(t), where VR(t) denotes the nominal discharge on day
t, and E is a Gaussian random variable with mean 1 and standard deviation
0.05.
In these circumstances, and with high probability (about 95 %), the actual
discharge is within 10 % of the nominal discharge; however, there is a small
chance (about 5 %) that it will deviate by more than 10 % from nominal.
For example, if we are 3 % too low in one scenario(meaning that E = 0.97),
then we are 3 % too low every. day of ~atscenario; however, in another scenario we could be 7 % too high; and in this case we ~ould be 7 % too high in
every day of this scenario.
Solution. The solution that I have developed finds the most likely values of
all the rel!=vant variables when the volume of oil remaining on day t is either
VS,L(t) or Vs,u(t), and does so in a maimer that preserves the mass balance.
The corresponding results are listed in Table 1, and illustrated in Figures 1-2
(which are similar to a figure that appears in today's New York Times, with
attribution to NOAA).
A reliable solution requires a large number of simulated scenarios (the value
of the variable m in the R code): I recommend about 100 000 for a 95 %
confidence interval. Since]:he machine. rm using for this pilot development
does not allow accessing enough' memory to do this, the results shown here
are based on only 7S 000 simulated scenarios.
NIST
REV B DRAFT
POSSOLO -
PAGE 2 OF 5
004478
DEEPWATER HORlZON -
MASS BALANCE
DISCHARGED
Recovered (RlIT /TopHat)

Dispersed Naturally
Evaporated / Dissolved
AVAILABLE
Burned
Skinimed
REMAINING (APPROX.)
REMAINING
AUGUST 4TH, 20IO
BEST-CASE
EXPECTED
WORST-CASE
4600000
-823000
-961000
-1090000
1720000
-441000
-266000
-164000
853000
4930000
-823000
-765000
-1250000
2090000
-409000
-266000
-144000
1270000
5200000
-823000
-636000
-1320000
2430000
-386000
-266000
-81400
1690000
868000
1270000
1690000
Table 1: Where the Oil Went: Expected volumes (bbl) and best and worst
case scenarios from uncertainty .analysis for day 102 (July 30th, 2010). The
last line in the table lists the actual value qf Vs,t(t), the expected value of
Vs(t), and the actual value of Vs,u(t). The entries in the line labeled REMAINING (APPROX.) attempt to reproduce the corresponding entries in the last
line by applying ~y "scenario inversion" algorithm, which imputes values for
all the variables listed that are consistent with VS,L(t) and with Vs.u(t) while
. preserving mass balance.
NIST -
REV B DRAFT
POSSOLO -
PAGE
OP
004479
DEEPWATER HORIZON -
Best Case
MASS BALANCE
AUGUST 4TH, 2010
Expected
Worst Case
l!
!
..
Dispersed
,:t'i ,.":
Naturally
t:"l
636000
E\.'aporated or
Dissolved
g
g
1320.000
Evaporat.,o:: or
Disclv4E!d"
1:190000
,;~ .~; ~
: ."
<.
Ii
g
~.(
..
''''~;'.
Stjmmed 61400
~.
Burned 266000
Remaining
Skimmed 164000
1690000
Remaining
853000
Figure 1: Where the Oil vyent: Expected volume (bb)) and best and worst
vertical scale, indicated at left, is the same for the three bars.
NIST -
REV B DRAFf
POSSOLO -
PAGE
OF
004480
DEEPWATER HOruZON -
Best Case
Disp"rsed
Naturally
21 III.
MASS BALANCE
AUGUST 4TH. 20IO
Expected
Worst Case
Dispersed
Naturally
16%
EvapOrated or
Dissolve":
25%
:;.
...
, .:,
Remaining
26%
19%
Figure 2: Where the Oil Went: Expected volume percentages and best and
worst case scenarios from uhcertainty analysis for day 102 (July 30th, 2010).
The height of eaCh bar is 100 % (of the total volume of oil discharged in each
of the three cases, which is listed in the first rown of Table 1).
NIST- REV B DRAFT
POSSOLO -
PAGE
5 OF 5
004481

FOIA# C~\~ 'u . . ~S)
t~
l,1
(fill in the n mber)
NOAA & USGS
004482
Subject: Fwd: Re: oil budget

Date: Tuesday, June 29, 20108:10 AM
To: "Pedro I. Espina" <pedro.espina@nist.gov>, Antonio Possolo <antonio.possolo@nist.gov>
Antonio and Pedro,

It turns out they can handle connecting to R.
Also, Antonio,. I need a short bio from you to
put in the report Apppndix. You may have given it
' .
to me earHer but I cannot find it.
Thanks, .
Bill

Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 18:35:37 -0400
To: Bill Lehr <bill.lehr@noaa.gov>
Cc: Martha Garcia <mgarcia@usgs.gov>, Mark K Sogge <mark_sogge@usgs.gov>, David Mack <mackd@usgs.gov>, Tim
Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>
Subject: Re: oil budget
We've got some folks with experience In R that we are getting engaged now. The formulas in
the current application are actually not reliant on Excel at all; they're just formulated in
somewhat the same way. The first thing we are going to do is see if we can come up with a way
to just plug in the R script directly to process the dally variables and give us the calculated data.
That would take the ability to modify the model completely out of the hands of the Coast
Guard folks; they couldn't just go in and tweak and fairly simple function. However, that's
pretty much the situation we wanted anyway, where the model would be the direct
responsibility of the scientific support team.
Once we get a couple other folks engaged on our end and take a look at the files you just
provided, we'll let you know if we need to set up a call with Antonio and Pedro to discuss. They
put together a pretty nice paper on this, so we should be able to get a good foundation and
work out technically how we would put the R program directly into the oil budget tool.
I am going to be intermittently out of touch for a couple of days with travel to New Jersey
tomorrow through Thursday, so please keep David Mack and Tim Kern (in CC list) in the loop on
any pertinent communication.
.
Page 1 of 2
004483
Thank you, and weill work through this new model as quickly as possible.
<.( ((<"'''''''''''<.( <"""'''''''<.( <
Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
Office: 303-202-4181
C
....<.( <
On Jun 28, 2010, at 4:19 PM, BilI.Lehr@noaa.gov wrote:
>
> Sky,
'>
> The NIST statisticians have developed a method to provide reasonable upper and lower
bounds for the oil budget that the simple extremum approach we tried did not. Unfortunately,
because the high low values have to be represented by skewed normal distributions, the
mathematics get quite complicated. They programmed it in R and say that there is a way to link
it to Excel but appararently its quite challenging.
>
> The choice becomes: Should I go back to them and try to work up a simplerapproach or
would you like to try and link in the R code into your excel formulas?
>
> Bill
Page 20f2
004484
Subject: Re: DOE and FRTG estimates

Date: Monday, July 5, 2010 11:59 AM
.From; Marcia McNutt <mcnutt@usgs.gov>
To: BiIIlehr <bilLlehr@noaa.gov>
Cc: "Pedro I. Espina i <pedro.espina@nist.gov>
Bill and Pedro I think this is an excellent idea. Here is a "decision tree" for how we could go about scheduling
.such a meeting to reconcile estimates.
The schedule as.ofthis morning for additional containment has slipped again. I am ready to
strangle someone - anyone - in BP. They had days of weather delays to make sure that all was
ready to go for the last two items of the buildout and now that the weather is cooperating, the
craf}e on the only ship. that can perform the procedure isn't working! So several possibilities:
1. Containment happens this week. Rules out lower FRTG estimates. No reconciliation
required.
2. Containment happens this week. Rules out upper FRTG estimates. No reconciliation.
required.
3. Containment happens this week, but at too Iowa capacity to rule out lower FRTG estimat~s.
Reconciliation required.
4. Containment schedule continues to slip, such that relief wells may beat further containment.
Reconciliation essential.
We don't want to be in the situation of having the well killed (a good thing) but with lots of
disagreement on the flow rate.
Marcia
---- Original Message ---From: Bill.lehr

Sent: 07/05/2010 03:54 AM MST
To: Marcia McNutt
Cc: "Espina, Pedro I." <pedro.espina@nist.gov>
Subject: DOE and FRTG estimates
Marcia,
Page 1 of 2
004485
Pedro has pointed out that the estimates of the FRTG teams and the estimates of the DOE
teams differ by a significant amount, greater than 20,000 bbl/day. Perhaps we should have a"
that it will be capable of handling up to 50,000 bbl/day. If, however, it turns out that 25-30 K
bbl the practical upper limit for recovery, then the discrepancy in estimates will remain
FRTG estilTlates were too small. Do we want to hold off on releasing the FRTG final reports
is
Bill
Page 2 of 2
004486
Fdday, August 20, 2010 8:02 AM
Subject: Files
Date: Friday, July 9, 2010 11:28 AM
To: Antonio Possolo <antonio.possolb@nist.gov>. "Pedro I. Espina" <pedro.espina@nist.gov> .
Cc: Tim Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>, David Mack <mackd@usgs.gov>
Bill's latest Mass Balance document and daily values through day 80.
QI1B~(IU'lQ$)I'oribJi~~ltfRt
~~ibe~~~
~ ~ a.n!1i>r~p...-pIII'UOI:L\yem4
shoWd IIn11l>t: us~ u. _ _ _n;mme<ltlll.:!a""'lle. .
Page lof 1
004487
Oil Budget (Its 209) for the Deepwater Horizon Spill
Prepared for the Nationallnddcmt Command

. June 24, 2010
Bill Lehr
NOAA/ORR
These formulas are for response purposes only and

should not be used to assess environmental damage.
004488
Behavior of spilled oil
Cleanup of oUs is generally designed to enhance or add to natural removal mechanisms.

Figure 1 shows the processes that can happen to oil on the water surface.
evaporation
photo-oxidation
spreading
oil slick
I
dispersion
dissolution
air
water
SedTmentation
-emulsification
Figure 1, Natural weathering processes
This spill has the added challenge of originating from a highly turbulent, two-phase, warm
jet a mile beneath the water surface. Because of its size and peculiar nature, the
Deepwater Horizon Spill is not amenable to many standard oil fate and behavior
assumptions. Experts in oil spill science and experienced spill professionals were
contacted for their views on how these standard assumptions should be modified for this
incident.
ICS209
The incident Command System (ICS) was developed to provide federal, state, and local
governments, as well as private and not-for-profit entities, witha consistent framework
for the preparation for, response to, and recovery from any incident or event, regardless
of the size, nature, duration, location, scope, or complexity. The ICS Form 209 provides
the mass balance iIifonnation that the Incident Command needs to assess the size of the
threat Currently, the information equivalent to the Form 209 is in an Excel spreadsheet.
The recommended structure for the flowchart is shown in Figure 2.
004489
subsurface
subsurface
mtural
di$peralon
chemical
dlaperslon
surface" 011
evaponrotion
surface oil
Time
sumce oil
collected
surface oil
remaining
Figure 2. Speadsheet logic diagram
Use of Multiple scenarios:

The program computes a best case, worst case, and~ possibly, an expected scenario. The
worSt case assumes maximum release and minimum removal. Best case will do the
reverse. Depending upon the requests of the NIC, most likely values may be wanted and
so are also provided. Most likely scenarios use average release estimates and average
expected removal. Since some of the input terms will have different values depending
upon whether we are looking at best case, worst case or most likely case, they are listed
as
TERM =(likely, best, worst)
Definition of Terms:
004490
j = day of spilL The riser was cut Oune 3) on j = 45
VS(j)= volume in bbl of surface oil on day j

VROJ = oil release rate in bblfday on day j
VREO) = effective release rate in bbljday on day j
VDT(j) = volume in bbl of oil directly collected by Top Hat or RITT on day j
VD(j)= total oil volume in bbl dispersed in bblfday on 'day j
VC(j) = total oil volume in bbl of chemically dispersed oil on day j
VDB(j) = oil volume in bbl dispersed at the bottom on day j
VDCO) =oil volume in bbl chemically dispersed at bottom on day j
VDN(j) = oil volume in bbl naturally dispersed at bottom on day j
VCBO) = volume in bbl of dispersants used at the bottom on day j
VCS(j) = volume in bbl of dispersants used at the surface on day j
VDSO) =volume in bbl chemically dispersed at the surface on day j
VBU 0)= volume in bbl burned on day j
VOWO)= volume in bbl of oily water collected on day j
VNWOJ = net oil volume in bbl collected on day j
VE(j) = volume in bbl of oil that either evaporated or dissolved on day j
Use of Expert advice:
In order to capture a reservoir of knowledge and experience on this problem, a wide

variety of experts were consulted and asked to comment on a preliminary version of this
document As ofJune 23, the following experts had responded
Expert
affi.liati.on
Ron Goodman
U. of Cq.lgary
Al Allan
SpilTec
James Payne
Payne Env.
Tom Coolbaugh
Exxon Mobil
Ed OVerton
LSU
Juan Lasheras
UCSD
Albert Venosa
EPA
Merv Fingas
Env Canada(ret)
Ali Khelifa
Env. Canada
Robert Jones
NOAA
Pat Lambert
Env. Canada
Victoria Broje
Shell
004491
David Usher
ISCO
Peter Carragher
BP
Michel Boufadel
Temple U.
The degree and detail of the response varied. In many cases the expert simply promised a
more thorough analysis at a later date. One expert was unable to respond due to a
confidentiality agreement with BP. Response by an expert does not indicate agreement
with the assumptions or conclusions in this document.
Leakage
Rules: .
VR(j) = (30,000,,20,000,40,000) ifj < 4S
= (40,000,35,000, 60,000) if j ~ 4S
VREO) = VRCD - VDTCD

Bullets:
Uses flow limits from FRTG Plume Teqm PIV measurements

Chosen because same measurement method used pre- and post-riser cut
Other estimation methods provided higher and lower.values
The Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG) Plume Team produced estimates of the total
leakage prior to Top Kill or severing the riser by using a variant of Particle Image
Velocimetry (PIV). While difficult in practice, PIV is simple in principle. In this method a
flow event, e.g. an eddy or other identifiable item, is observed at two consecutive Video
frames. Distance moved per time between frames gives a velocity, after adjustmel1t for
viewing angle and other factors. Repeated measurement over time and space give an
estimated mean flow. The spatially adjusted flow field multiplied by cross-section area of
the plume gives a total volume flux. This is then multiplied by liquid fraction. The Team
used the same method to estimate leakage after the riser cut but prior to capping the flow.
Hence, their results provide a consistent method for estimating leakage for the entire spill
duration. The maximum and minimum values represent th'e extreme bounds reported.
The Plume Team did not offer a 'best guess' answer but rather gave a range representing
the most likely flow (as opposed to maximum-minimum bounds). I have used the upper
limit of that range as likely flow.
Other FRTG and DOE teams estimated the flow either prior to the severing of the riser or
after this operation. Flow values both higher and lower than the suggested ones in this
report were generated by these other teams.
The complete FRTG set of reports should be available shortly.
004492
Dispersed oil
Kd1 = (0.2, 0.3, 0.1) = natural dispersion effectiveness fraction on the bottom
Kd2 = (0.8, 1, 0.5)
chemical dispersion effectiveness fraction on the bottom
Kci3 = (0.25,0.5,0.1) = chemical dispersion effectiveness at the surface
VDCD) = 20*Kd2*VCBD) but not to exceed VREO)
VDND) = (VREO)- VDCD))*Kdl
VDBD) =VDCD) + VDNO)
VDSm = 20*Kd3*VCSD) but not to exceed VSO-l)
VCD) VDSD) + VDCD)
VDO) = VDBO) + VDSm
Bullets:
Droplet smaller than 100 micron are considered dispersed

No nat;ural surface dispersion assumed
Subsurface natural dispersion based upon plume turbulent energy dissipation'
ITOPF 'planning purpose' dosage of 20:1 used as estimate for successful chemical
dispersant application
The oil and gas leaking out at the Deep Horizon oil spill are all obuoyant and, therefore would,
neglecting other processes, rise to the osurface. However, one cannot neglect other processes.
Originally, the oescaping plume will be a mixture of gas and oil, with additional gas
o dissolved within the oil. According to the Clarkson UniversitY model OCDOG, this plume
will maintain its integrity for at most a few hundred ometers with strong positive buoyancy.
Several competing processes will ointerfere with this process. The gas will rise faster than the
oil, o 'slipping' past the droplets but will also fon:i::l hydrates with the o surrounding water.
Water will be entrained into the plume by turbulence othat will also contribute to changing
droplet size distribution of the ooi! mixed into the plume. These oil droplets will rise to the
surface obased upon some form of Stokes law, where the rise velocity increases with droplet
size. For small enough oil droplet size, the riSe velocity is so o small that competipg processes
affect it before it can make it to the osurface. These processes include dissolution,
biodegradation, and Oparticle-oil interaction. These processes will vary in strength
Odepending upon where the oil droplet is located. Field measurement may Ohelp to quantify
these processes but, as a standard cut-off value, 70-100 microns is used as the minimum droplet
size below which that droplet Dis cons~dered permanently dispersed. 0 0 Because oil droplet
formation is the product of mUltiple shear interactions caused by the turbulent flow, the droplet
004493
size probability distribution is described by a log normal function shown below (x is droplet
x
size)
.
For natural dispersion, Delvigne's .model is the standard approach to estimating the fraction of
oil dispersed into the water column. Delvigne, in a series of experiments at Delft University,
found that the mean oil droplet size, d, could approximately be related to the energy density
dissipation rate, E, by the expression
docy~
so we get prqportionately more small droplets as the energy density dissipation rate increases.
For most su:rtace spills, the turbulent energy comes from breaking waves. For the conditions in
the Gulf during this incident, this translates to an E of about 100 J per 'Cll. m. per sec or larger.
The NOAA oil fate and behavior model, ADIOS2, suggests that if this spill Ooccurred at the
surface under these conditions, less than 8 % of the oil would disperse. However, it is not
breaking waves but the turbulence at the leak that is forming these oil droplets. In this case, E
would be expected to be much larger near the riser exit, causing the mean droplet size to be
smaller and dispersed oil percentage to be larger.
If we attempt to compare this blowout to the Ixtoc 1, differf<nt reports for that case claimed that
between 3% to 26% of ended up in the water column or on the bottom. Several of the experts
consulted on this question suggested that the differences between the two incidents were large
enough that estimating 'dispersed oil by. analogy to Ixtoc would be inappropriate.
Some limited data exists from the RV Brook McCall Survey LISST Omeasurements performed
by the Bedford Institute of Oceanography. If one, Oextrapolates their results to the entire spill,
a dangerous exercise with a high degree of Ouncertainty, then one can conclude that perhaps
30%.Oofthe oil released during non-.dispersant operations were dispersed into Othe water
column. However, since the samples were subsurface, they Omay be preferentially sampling
the droplet distribution formed Oinitially. Payne reports plumes of oil droplets at depth over 2
km. away from the source with larger droplets on the top of the plume and smaller below. This
would be consistent with a large amount of dispersion and weak buoyancy.
Most of the experts that offered suggestions on natural dispersion concluded that dispersion
would be higher than the amount predicted for a surface spill because of increased turbulence
in the oil-gas jet and reduced viscosity related to the high temperature of the exiting oil.
004494
The droplet size distribution in the plume is greatly affected by viscosity and surface tension.
Since some of the lighter ends are lost through dissolution on the oil journey to the surface and
since the surface oil rapidly emulsifies, the viscosity of the surface oil is quite high compared to
the heated oil at the source. The seas were also relatively calm. For oil budget put:poses, the
surface oil is assumed to have negligible natural dispersion.
The addition of chemical dispersants significantly lowers oil surface tension and hence reduces
mean droplet size. The subsurface dispersant application was ideal for the introduction of .
dispersants; direct contact between oil and the dispersant, fresh oil, and high turbulence. The
ITOPF Technical Information Paper for chemical dispersant usage recommends for planning
purposes to use one part dispersant for 20 parts dispersed oiL They point out that spraying
equipment is often pre-configured to achieve this. Therefore, this ratio was used to define a
fully successful dispersant application.
Some experts were concerned that the entrained gas would reduce the effectiveness of the
dispersant application by preventing contact between oil and surfactant. They also thought that
the time of contact might be insufficientto achieve optimum effect. Their concerns are
captured in the choice for minimum effectiveness.
Suggested research
More complete sampling of dispersed oil near the source coupled with a subsurface plume
model to translate the sample results into a better estimate of dispersed oil volume..
.Characterization of the turbulence energy spectrum for the leak.
Burning Losses
Bullets
ASTM burn rate standards used
Different rates for Qon-emulsified and emulsified oil.
For ignition to occur, the oil film must generally be greater than 2 mm. Since this is
thicker than oil slicks that are allowed to spread naturally, the oil must be contained in
special fire-proof booms. Spilled oil sometimes entrains water, forming a stable emulsion.
Emulsions that contain more than 15% water are difficult to ignite and emulsions that
contain more than 50% water are almost impossible to ignite. High winds and waves may
prevent burn operations. Oil burns with a 'regression rate' of approximately 0.05 mm/sec
(slightly more than a tenth of an inch per minute) Part of the oil is turned into smoke. The
actual percentage depends upon th~ size of the burn and other factors but usually is in the
range of 10-15% of the mass of the oil. Burning is a highly efficient oil removal
mechanism. A successful burn will remove 90-95% of the ignited oil. The reported burn
rates for the Deepwater Horizon oil are 0.048 mm/sec for non-emulsified oil and 0.34
mm/sec for emulsified oils. While these are in. line with ASTM standards, Fingas, based
upon burn studies, suggests that the emulsified oil burn rate should be closer to 0.24.
004495
However, burn volumes are not reported by percentage emulsified oil burned and nonemulsified oil burned. Therefore. without additional data, it is hard to separate out the
two in a spreadsheet
Suggested research
Examine the possibility to specify the amount of emulsified oil fraction that is burned in
any burn operations.
Evaporated and dissolved oil
Evl =(0.37,0.44,0.33) =evaporation rate on freshly surfaced oil (includes dissolution)

Ev2 = (0.04, 0.06, 0) =evaporation on day-old oil
VE(j)
=(VRE(j) - VDBCD - VBU(j))*Evl+(VREO-l) - VDBO-l) - VBUO-l))*Ev2
Bullets:
Evaporation formulas include dissolution as well
'Pseudo-component' approach used in estimate
Figure 3 shows a chromatogram of the fresh oil from the reservoir. Like all crude oils, this
oil is composed of thousands of different hydrocarbons, each with slightly different
physical and chemical properties.
TIC: OFt."'fQ1'UtD.D
''''0'''''''
"""00
004496
Figure 3 Chromatogram of fresh oil
Using Raoult's Law, the vapor pressure of the total oil is assumed to be a weighted
average of the individual components. Most evaporation models assume that the oil can
be treated as a well-mixed fluid so that evaporative losses are not dependent upon any
particular hydrocarbon being impeded to make it to the oil-air interface. This 'well-mixed'
assumption allows, with suitable modification, the use of evaporation estimation
techniques developed for homogen~ous liquids. The driving factor for evaporation will be
. the effective vapor pressure of the oil and the limiting factor will be the ability of the wind
to remove the oil vapor from the surface boundary layer.
The exceptio~ is a model proposed by Environment Canada that yields lower estimates
for evaporation based upon diffusion limitations within the oil itself. Figure 4 shows their
estimate for evapora,tion for this type of crude.
Figure 4 Evaporation of SL crude according to EnVironment Canada.
According to their model, evaporation is rapid but limited with a total loss of
approximately 30%. Their model. however, assumes a cohesive slick, not the widely .
scattered pieces that make up this spill. Nevertheless Fingas reports that evaporation of
the oil would probably occur in a massive jump as it seems a deep-sea release does this to
the oiL He carried out a series of high pressure water releases during the sub-sea
programs a decade ago and found that roughly 2/3 of the S-day weathering amount at the
relevant temperature was released nearly immediately. The volatiles are gone rapidly and
the oil quickly emulsifies. This seems to be somewhat confirmed by observations by LSU
experts. Overton notes a subsurface sample appeared fresh but had the naphthalenes
completely missing. He speculated that this sample was deep oil that has never gotten to
the surface and the aromatics have dissolved into the water column. Certainly,
dissolution is a competing process to evaporation for this incident since, in general, the
more volatile hydrocarbons are also the most soluble.
. FOf the purpose of the oil budget calculations, the more standard pseudo-component
method refined by Payne was used. The oil is postulated to consist of a limited number of
components, with each component corresponding to one of the cuts from the distillation
data for the oil of concern. Each component is characterized by a mole fraction and a
vapor pressure. Each component is composed primarily of a few alkanes and the
properties of the components are based on the average of the alkane properties. Based
004497
upon data on the oil composition provided by BP, the method suggests that as much as
46% of the oil can he lost to evaporation over several weeks on the sea surface. However,
the greater portion is lost in the first two days.
LSU/NOAA measured the composition of weathered oil collected from the sea surface on
16 May using GCjMS, and analyzed the results using the pseudo-component evaporation
model. They found that the weathered oil sample had lost 38% of its mass to the
combination of evaporation and dissolution.
For oil budget purposes, it does not matter if a hydrocarbon molecule is lost to
evaporation or dissolution. It is effectively removed from cleanup operations. Therefore,
the suggested evaporation constants include dissolution. While most of the evaporative
losses occur in the first day, there are further losses as the slick ages. The spreadsheet
formulas anow for second day losses.
The evaporation will caU$e changes to the remaini.ng surface oil, increasing density and
viscosity. The oil also shows a strong tendency to emulsify and to form tar balls. Both of
these mechanisms will slow evaporative. Past spills in the Gulf have produced an "M&M"
phenomena where fresh interior oil is surrounded by a crust of more weathered oil.
Suggested research:
.Samples should be taken and chemically analyzed for oil from above the leak source as it
first surfaces, as well as for weathered oil close to shore. The former provides data on the
extent of dissolution while the latter gives an estimate to the amount lost to long-term
evaporation after surfacing.
Skimmed Oil
Kow= (0.2, 0;4, 0.1) =net oil fraction of oily water
VNW(j)=KoW*VOW(j)
Bullets:
Very rough estimation
Amount should be based"upon actUal measurement
The estimated oil content of the skimmed product was increased based upon suggestions
by oil company experts. However, the original recommendation for actual sampling of the
barge oil remains.
Floating oil
VS(j) =VS(j-l) +VREG) - VE(j) - VNW(j) - VBU(j) - VD(j)
004498
Bulllets:
Includes both floating and 'beached' oil

Much of the surface oil is near neutral buoyancy
Surface oil category includes not only oil actually on the surface but that oil that has
washed ashore or mixed with sediment in the nearshore and sank It is difficult to
determine the volume of this oil directly because standard visual volume estimations are
highly unreliable. The best current method is the NASA ER-2/ AVIRIS system but even
this instrument is unable to estimate tar ball volume.
-
004499
<0
co
-0
,-
0
C\J
..c
0
C\J
.....
n..
II
or-
e.
0
C\J
o
000009~
000009
004500
Best Estimate = 53000 bbl/day

95% Confidence Interval
(48000s 57000) bbl/day
004501
Sublett: .~(!:~ 011. i$ufige~' (;at~ul~~r. sd~riti! ~'o~ Englri~eri~g r~am: .::'.: '.. '.
Plit~; T~f!sC:J~Y~Aiigug . 3/:~oi(r8:o5PM
:: .. :<
Fro.m.;Bili lehr' <bilLlefl.r@nQaC3~~~V~ :.:.... . . '
~epl'rTO~:<Birl.l~lir@iiQaa~gdV>.
:.:
'" .'. .'. :' :
" .. ~ .. :.....
'. .... .
..
:.: ..
.. .
. .'. .
..
. ..... .': .:.::'::::
..' ' . . : . . '
1"i;::~ky.BrJstol ~briS1;ol @tisgs:gQV>::.. :....:
.,: :.... .
. : .. :.:: .
..
. '.
..
.: . '. :: ..
Cd Mark :Miil.er<Mark.w. Miire:t@ripa~:goV~t Mark i(s~ggi:i <riiark~sdgg~@ii~g$.griV;; S~p.heri Harrimond' :: ." ..:' .' '. . .
~!?ehartim6i1@~sgs.g~V>,: AMto'njQ' Pi:)$splo ::<ah~o~io:ppS$9.ld@;ii~:gov~,iIPedr:o:I;-:Espiri~i: <pedr6~espina@rii~:gQv.:;: .:': .' :: :

.".,.::, .. : . .-::."
:;:,',. ,.,.::....
-.' ....:' .. ::: .-...... , .... .: . . .',': ..:' .......... . . . . . . . ':':'
. ' , ' . ":,
. . ,.:',":':' ... :: .. .
.
: . -. ': ~.
. .: : .
. -.'
. . .
. ..
,'
.'
",
f'1:tern:ati~lw::::
'.
. ". .. ." : . . .
.... :
-'
'
".
.......
'.::
'
..: .. : : : . ::. . . . ' . . . " . : ' "
"
.:; :""'
',<:.:',
,,'.:~: ',,:':,: ,.'
:.;.,,:."::"
"
::. :"
";','
You .cbu Id :s.im:plyJi~tthe ilam ~Sofeve:ry~oWv\Nlt~ ~ilihtr6d~ctop{:paragr~phtha:nidhgthqs~:. :<

V\tti(jprb:vided:~'ssistance'jri:tne"geve'op'rn~ntof'th'iS' f6dk':
, , ,
',
:. : .
' . " ' . ' : ' .' .

'.',;
':'.
'
,.
','"
".'"
'
1?H1.
.' '.
. , ..
'
""
"
"
. . ~ ",
"
.. .
'.
.-
'.'
"
.'
'.
,-'
.' ..... . :.' :. ......

...
:::' . ':.:
.'
.,
... . .
'
-",
..
. -
..
-:,
':,
, ,.
. ,',' ,
. ' , , "
'
"':',:: .
'.
'
'.' "
'.
'
','
".::.
>
,'.' ','
' . ' :,
"
'.
........................
'.'
'.'
".'*, ~ .. ', " .... :':'":
- : : , . : '.
'
','
.....':"
,.
. ,*. , :. .
:' ~ .
'. .:' .'
..'
':.'. :" '.' .: . . . .
Qn%/3flQ4:i4.~M,SkYllrJst~lv;t~:<>i
.. '.'."
'. '. '. . "
..'...
"
. ' -,
"
"-
.::,:iv.eh:th(rfote l.-jus~saw::ftoll1;st~v.etf~Mmqn~~~()utseit~i~Yi~eSjn~n:adn.g..
"
, '. ", " , ' . '
;>.:: ....
':: :: . . . in.diVi(iualn.am.e~;her.e:.I5!l..th.ir(:t :~Ptfo'Qstrip'p:e'~}o the:q:Qo:e :With:lu~t'~ ;fe.y{peOpi .. :'.':
: ..:. . . :nsted. . our:.cd.redeveiciphie:nt.1:eiHii:lf{lJS(;Sfjsp:rdb~hiy:okaywfth:.narri~sattached.::.:i .. :
': .:~.:unlessihere:is:som~g6Qd:adv.ic~nott(j-(jOsO::pet~onafIY;:-I:dqn'fr~~i:'ly.s~ithe: .. <;.:' . ":.

:. . . :. :.p6Jntjrr.~or.rig:somethlrtg.li~e):h,~,#a'f:bort~s:~pp'i6:~~~:b~tief~ha:ri:td ind'f2~te'ihat: '.:.:'. :::'; .:.
.... .:.::U$tGiUSGS,NOA.A~:~rl.dNtS:faf(wotke~.tQgeih~rtQoj)ro:(J.tjt~::th~.:tobl,Whli:h:~6~jd:: ';':'::.. ':.
:::. ;:/. . :~e:;dbn~)rlnl~ch sirfp:lerpro:s~.::.;::.:::/...:; ::';::;: .;. . :... :/.; ;:.:, .::: . :. ':/:.; :::.; :. . ::. . :.';':. ::.:; .:.;.: .... ;:::': :::'::'.;:.' .: '-:.'. :.":: .:,':: ..
: : ' , ' ::' ..
.. ..
.' .
."
'
"
..
... .'
'
. ..
'
..
." .
'
'
..
'.'
'.
"'.
:.
'.'
'.'
'.
'.
.... , . ' . .
.
.'
..
.
"
'.
'.
'
"
. :::',
,.'
....
'
...
,-
' . '
.. .
'
",
",
. " :.,.
":',
..
. ...... '
..... :.
.. '
""
- ..
"
'.
.....
....
'"
'.: :
'.'...
"
.'
"'"
'.'
.",
.::'
.. ..
.. .... '. .
':: . . ' . '
. ,
,
,",
.',.
: .':,
'"
..
.
'".'
,:'."
-',
",
'"
"
'.'
'.
. '.'
: ..
': ":::'.
' .. ': ..'

.
:"
':,'.:: :
.,
."
'.,
:".:'.
-'
. : .- .
. '.
. .. ." : : "
.: : ':' :'. :'.:'
.." .... .
:', ,.:
. .....
':'.' : ..
". .
'.
"
..:::....... ... ... "':'
tJnAog ~~:'20tOJ
at's:b'sPMJSkyr:Srlsioi wrote~:"
:<.:
..."
.'
.
.
".
.. " " .
'"
'
' . < : ' " .... ..
<.({!;,.~~~<H':~;~.({:
','
.'. .
'.
"
','
.-
:"
.. "
"
"
.~
.. :.,
"
.'
'.
'
,",
'
: Office:303<202~4i8i
.....'.
",
:({<.<~~~~N<:'((~~~~~;.((t<~~.:
.:.-c:e:lr::~o3~241~4i22
'
:' , : .
"
"',
. . ',;:' '..
",
"
. . '. ':SkY BriSto'J:'-' . :. ; ..

. : :.:$bri~t()l(giuSgs.~gOv :. '
'.
':. . .
.',:-'
"
.,"
"
'
.. . .
.'
'
.'
. . . , . ':.:
'.:
'"
:,' .
' .
',:-::;'
::. " ,
,
."
'. .:"" .. :. ,':':"'::."
.
-:. '. :
..
..'
.
,
,
. '.
. . '.:".
.
...... , , ' " ,,":
",
. - ' .,". .." '.
....
....
.
' , ."
.:.'
.
::. ' .
'. ' :
'.
.
.. ,
, ' .. : :
::
.... " " , ,':',
':'.' : " : : :.: .,"
,
'
......
,'".
:.' : .
. . , .... ,
. : .. '. '. . ." ,: :' ... :
, .. '. ,:',''*, '
:',
'
.
'.
.... .
.. ': :'-,
'.:'.:"
,- ':'.
':,
. .- ..
..
','
.'
:.
"
: .. '.
'
': '::
':',":"..
',',
. Page lof3
004502
'
"
',':."
'.
.
'.
'.'
."
.'
,.,',
. ::'
.'
'
,-'
-:
'
"
"
::
"
. . . ,-
',"
. ,',
. . '.
. ..' .
. ' .'
. ." ..
.... ': ...
'
'..
'.
'
".
"
:' ..,::'..
.. . :': .. '.
.'."::
"
",,'
::'.
",
':: .<QB~Sdiet:l'c.An:d~rigin.ering-:6pti9n~~png>'~(jBC:;::>: ' .. ,: .... .

,.
: :. s6iehceA~dgngrnci~r!~g~Op~oht:p;n&.>'; . .:.......... .
".
".
'.'
. . , . . :','
-'.
-,
',
.. '.:"
'
'.
.:,"
"
'
... '
"
,:. <:.(N"""<V<:({{<~~";"'<.(( ... : :,
:'~s~y)ri:St?i;.'." . :.::. '-:~..
':
.'
: . ... :
"
'.':'.' :. ' .'
..' .sb:ristol@)'l,Isg~.g9.v:,,<, :." .....:..
..
..offiGe;j03,~i62~4u~f
t.eili363~24i~412z'::::
..........
.' ......
.:
.".
",
"
..
"
"
... , .
.:.
"
,'-",
,
'.
,
'.
.,..
"
. !.:
':'." :
"
.:" .: : ':,:"
: '. -:
-'"
"
. . :',: '.' ".
:<;(((~<~~~~~~.~.({(~<~.;v7~~~(({<~<: <".: . '.

.
....
..
""
...... :.
.'
'"
'
,,'
Page 2 of3
004503
,'.::
'>
. ::.'
.,'
.....
"
".
:"
.
"
, ,
.....
.'
"
. <:
.:::
>
:'.-.
'.
.'
. : . '.
"
'
. ,':'" ...... ' . '
,"
.....
. .... :
.. .' .'-
"
'
.. :':
':.'
"
,,'
:. :
"
'
.. ' .
"
. ::
'
:'
,'.
",
"
"
. '.:'
>
: .
,
.....
."
': ..
,.-'
':
.',.
.'
",
....
",
.. ".
.."
.
..
-: :
. .,".
.'.
'::
-: .
..
"
,'
. ....
<' .
": .
'
"
"'.
:'.'
"
>.'
..
....
.'.::
'
..
- ".
....
.. :
..
.'
. ,"
"
.. ::
"
>
.. '
.....
'
'
: : '-:
"
"
'.
..
: ....
.'
'.
."
"'
'
'.::'
"
. ... ,
.
,""
. ' ...
"
..
'
" , .'
'.
,.'
:'.'
.',"
.<
'::,'
. '.::
"'
..
.'
"
: ..
'
'.
.'.:.
"
"
....
':','
.'.:
....
: '.
:.-.:.:
"
'" <
-'
'
..
..
. ':"
'.:
..
'
..
.,
'.
'
Page 30f3

h
Steering Committee
USCG -Commanding Officer, Situation Unit (CDR Sean O'Brien)
NOAA - Science Coordinator and Liaison (Mark Miller) .
USGS Scientific Support Liaison (Stephen Hammond)
,
~1
.~1

Development (USGS)

ffi:'
.~ .

Development (NIST)
~,
i~p.\
'
\1
~
.1
r;
~~
t.
~
Bill Lehr, NOM, team lead

Robert Jones, NOAA
AI Allan, SpiiTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras,. UCSD
Ali Khelifa, Env. Canada,
Per Daling, SINTEF
Michel Boufadel, Temple UJ'.1iv.
Pedro Espina (POC for Incident)

William Guthrie
Aaron Johnson
Michael Moldover
Antonio Possolo
Blaza Toman
John Wright
it<:
i~:
I~~~
If.'
~.
!t,
Ii
.~"" ,"i"~.~!;'l''\Rllhl.;"q'l';. : 0
"F"'"'.-._-......,)"!:,,im~v.;j~~~f!~~n~._~F.W~~~J.!:r-~'?J!-~!!i.;;::}!!33m,~~'~":''"
~~~:'~\}.~'';':'::ffi)~~m~~;''i:~~,~''::n:0~,!q\~-'':7~
~~.;:;~m~Jrfflf~~'.\~.~~~V::~'.y.f),!!~~~~:~.~.MJ:'~
./"
i.-.'
'",' .t. I,'
''.'r:~F~:~'::'':;
-,Y".;:;;;:;:;i.>:':4:f'"
004504

lim Kern
David Mack
Jeff Allen
Rebecca Uribe
Martha Garcia
Mark Sogge

Steering Committee

.~

Development (USGS)


Development (NIST)
l~
r,:}
till
IJ'
1,
,~
i'
ti~'
;"

Robert Jones, NOAA
AI Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
MeN Fingas, Env: Canada (ret)
Per Daling, SINTEF
Pedro Espina (NISTPOC for Incident)

William Guthrie
.
Aaron Johnson
Michael Moldover
Antonio Possolo
Blaza Toman
John Wright
,;;~_r,r,Tl.nl.W'~'tm~!;'!r,:r'l~!!"A~{~lfr'1.}n('i;mjl~~t'~';f,f,f~0:!'m~,~Wr~.n~.,,!1~~11";"'i:!~:~;::~Jrm~~~~.1?-iJ''';:-:~1i~"i'\"(.:''-~~'',
I~:
~.
if
\.
:.r.,:;,,,,~,y,-
X;~~~!!i::r:r:?r-:~~~{:~~:-"tJ;""""'~~~~~'i"
..
~~~
004505

Tim Kern
David Mack
Jeff Allen
Rebecca Uribe
Stephen Hammond
Martha Garcia
Mark Sogge
004506

FOIA # C@f? \\-::: to .... :,-S 1
~
'3
(fill. in the number)
DOE
004507
Friday. August 20. 2010 8:02 AM

Subject: Fwd: Nodal Team: Summary Estimates (addendum)
Date: Wednesday, June 3D, 2010 4:51 PM
To: Antonio Possolo <antonio.possolo@nist.gov>, "Pedro I. Espina" <pedro.espina@nist.gov>, "(;uthrie, William F."
<wi'lliam.guthrie@nist.gov>
Cc: Grant Bromhal <Grant.Bromhal@NETLDOE.GOV>
Here's the guidance we sent out. I hope to get numbers back later today. Thanks for the call
today.
.
-George

Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 16:26:09 -0400
To: .<rajesh@lanl.gov>, <CMOldenburg@lbl.gov>, <buscheck1@lInl.gov>, Grant Bromhal
<Grant.Bromhal@NETLDOE.GOV>, <phillip.gauglitz@pnl.gov>
.
Cc: Darren Mollot <Darren.Mollot@HQ.DOE.GOV>, <Robert.Corbin@hq.doe.gov>, George Guthrie
<george.guthrie@netl.doe.gov>
Subject: Nodal Team: Summary Estimates (addendum)
I would like to thank you all for partiCipating in such a productive call today. I am very
optimisticthat we are close to completion based on the approach we agreed on during the
call. (Thanks, Phil, for prompting the expert elicitation I)
Let's make sure "ve got this correct and we're all on the same page:
1. We will base low estimates on our scenarios 1/3; we will base high.estimates on our
scenario 2.
1a. (The rationale for this is that all teams found that scenarios 1/3 produced consistently
lower rates than scenario 2 and that scenarios 1/3 were comparable.)
2. We will take estimates from each lab based on #1 for each time period (as available) and
use those to derive a composite estimate.
3. Each lab will provide (as available) low and high estimates using either a direct calculation
or an expert-interpolation/extrapolation, documenting assumption/conditions. The estimates
will be combined using an arithmetic mean.
3a. On the phone, we defined III0w".and "high" to be those values representing your 20:1 and
1:20 conditions; this was taken by those teams that conducted M-C analysis to mean the 5th
and 95th perce~tiles. For those teams who did not do M-C, please use a comparable level of
Page 1 of 2
004508
confidence. All should clarify the level of confidence used in the attached table appropriately.
4. Time period 5 is the period for which everyone has results. For other time periods, we will
use results as available {and duly noted} .
.Attached is an Excel worksheet fpr you to use in $ending in the values. I've included the values
discussed in the call along with caveats as discussed (I did nit get everything, so please look
over and amend as needed). (Curt, 1used your high-end reported value as an input for time
period 5, scenario 2--hopefully that is correct.)
1have since spoken with experts at NIST who are working with other parts of the FRTG and will
work with us to interpret the consensus results based on the input noted above.
Please send back by COB today.
Thanks,
-george
Page 2of2
004509

Subject: Nodal Team Summary Report
Date: Saturday, July 3, 20109:22 PM
To: Grant Bromhal <Grant.Bromhal@NETl.DOE.GOV>, Antonio Possolo <antonio.possolo@nist.gov>
Cc: "Pedro I. Espina" <pedro.espina@nist.gov>, "Guthrie, William E" <william.guthrie@nist.gov>
Attached is the revised summary report. I will be sending itin to Mark Sogge on TuesdaYI along
with the compiled reports in the appendix. I've added your report there. You might doublecheck the wording in the executive summary (p. 5) and in the body of the report (p. 13-14). I
think I've captured it.
Also, I hope it is ok to list your names on the summary report. Let me know if that is not ok.
Thanks again for the work and quick turnaround,
-george
Page 1 of 1
004510

FOIA # Cfl.f!-\ ~ (0 <"6S 1
'(fill in the number)
'3
USGS
004511

Subject: Oil Budget Calculator Science and Engineering Team
Cc: Mark K Sogge <mark_sogge@usgs.gov>, Stephen Hammond <sehammon@usgs.gov>, BiIIlehr <bill.lehr@noaa.goV>J
Antonio Possolo <antonio.possolo@nist.gov>, "Pedro I.. Espina" <pedro.espina@nist.gov>
After some deliberation and back and forth, we've come up with a co.uple of options on a
. personnel listing for your consideration. This basically comes down to your input on whether or
not you think the USGS should be tncluded in the role of a "Steering Committee" for the effort.
We've said all along that the Coast Guard in conjunction with you all in NOAA are calling the
shots on this application in terms of its requirements, functionality, and presentation. We're
happy to put our "Scientific Support Liaison" in there with you in terms of facilitating the
application, but we want your input on this.
Option 1 includes the USGS role and current person (Steve Hammond). Option 2 does not.
What is your opinion? You can also call this group something else if you'd like or suggest other
changes.
I think I've captured the appropriate list for the multiagency oil fate and behavior team; it
matchesthe other document. And I believe I captured the essence of what Pedro Espina .
requested from the NIST perspective. Please correct me, anyone, if I've gone astray. I tried to
use short enough but descriptive headings for the role of each of these groups. There's
obviously a lot more detail behind the scenes but probably not necessary here.
Let me know what you think and if you need this in some other form.
004512


Cc: Mark K Sogge <mark_sogge@usgs.goV>, Stephen Hammond <sehammon@usgs.gov>, BiIIlehr <billJehr@noaa.gov>,
Antonio PossoIo <antonio.possolo@nist.gov>, "Pedro L Espina" <pedro.espina@nist.gov>
Given the note I just saw from Steve Hammond about sensitivities in sharing individual names,
here is a third option stripped to the bone with just a few people listed. Our core development
team in USGS is probably okay with names attached unless there is some g?od advice not to do
so. Personally, I don't really see the point in doing something like this bare bones approach
other than to indicate that USCG, USGS~~OM, and NIST all worked together to produce the
tool, which could be done in much simpler prose.
..
011 Budget Calculator ScIence and Engineering Team

,
'.
SteerIng Committee
USCG ,'Commanding Officer, Si!ualiori Unlt (COR Sean O'Brien)
NOAA ScIence Coordinator and Lialson (Mark Miller)
USGS Sdentific:: Support UaisCn (stephen Ha!Iwond)
011 Fate Md Behavior Sc1ence(NOAA
and Mulllagenc:y Team)
Informatics RfJf/ie87Ch and

Development (USGs)
Sky Bristo~ team lead
BiR Lehr, NOAA team lead
SclenfIt1c Programming and ModeJ

Development (NIST)
Pedro Esplna (POe for InCident)
Note: Thls is not an organizalional chart but a represenla1lon ol1he groups and personnel InVOlved and !heir relative funcrIions.
."
. "
.' ,
..
,'."
.. . ,.
'
.~
......
,.,'
Page 1 of 1

Steering Committee
USGS,:, Scientific Support Liaison (Stephen Hammond)

~
l1
f~
Development (IISGS)
Oil Fate and Behavior Science (NOAA'

and Multlagency Team)

Development (N/ST)
II:
i~~~
I~\:;
Sky Bristol, team Iead
Bill Lehr, NOAA team lead
Pedro Espina (POC for Incident)
""i-/.\i~fJ:'jff!{Y.?f1"!J~~1[:1'f.1:.~~Jm.!?;!!'~~llf!~I;t;i~i!!tflf\.{t~!7ff!::!J,~1f.!t1!.~7(m!.:-m:r:~:xJI!.r.J~~'lf'f:_?To;~r..-
:':~'f:~'f:'f":r'f}::rl"'T.J!:.r:;;r;!J.[~w.:~J~~!"::';ifl:1'j~~:,,.~
'..~!!rr.flir;.i,!,........."
If
004513
t:
,'"
1
004514

FOIA # c(Z.(LI (~ IU-:,?)
-:-=-:-7-:---~"""""" Documents consisting of

NOAA
004515
Friday. August 20. 2010 8:02 AM
Subject: mass balance statistics

Date: FridaYt June 25, 20104:52 PM
From: Bililehr <biILlehr@noaa.gov>
Reply-To: <Bill.lehr@noaa.gov>
To: "Pedro I. Espinal! <pedro.espina@nist.gov>, Antonio Possolo <antonio.possolo@nist.gov>
See attached
Page 1 of 1
004516
For Pedro and Antonio - Mass balance statistics

Background;
Need to calculate realistic bounds on the mass balance from the spill
Mass balance equations are linear but not smooth (Heaviside functions)
Volume functions are time dependent (discrete time step of one day)
Rate constants are random variables with a skewed distribution function, but are time
independent
Table of rate constants ( 0+ specifies positive standard deviation (right side): 0_

negative standard deviation (left side)
Rate constant definition

Initial flow
kOl
. Later flow
k02
Natural dispersion
~
k2
- Chemical dispersion (bottom)
Chemical dispersIon (top)
k3
1st day evaporation
k4
2 nd day evaporation
kS
Net oil fraction in skimmed oil
k6
J-l (mean)
20+
20_
1
1.5
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.06
0.02
0.1
1
'1
0.05
0.3
0.2
0.04
0.04
0.1
4.5
0.15
0.8
0.2
0.37
0.04
0.2
Input variables (time dependent variables that are entered by response team. All units
are bbl and are daily rates (varies by day)
i variable
I VDT(t)
VCB(t)
Ves(t)
VBU(t)
Vow(t)
definition
Oil recovered at source on day t
Dispersant volume sprayed at bottom
Dispersant volume sprayed at surface
Volume burned on day t
Volume of oily water recovered on dayt
Calculated daily variables

Flow volume on day t
VR(t) = 1O,000(ko1H(45 - t) + k02 H(t - 45))
Effective flow volume
His Heaviside function
004517
Oil chemically dispersed on bottom on day t
Oil naturally dispersed on the bottom
total oil dispersed on bottom
Oil chemically dispersed at the surface
total oil dispersed on day t
Volume of oil evaporated on day t
skimmed oil
surface oil
Need to compute ranges (+ or - 2 sigma) for sums(

a function ofT and input variables
Volume released
Natural dispersion
Chemical dispersion
Evaporation
Skimmed oil
Surface oil
"T
L.Jt-1 var
iable(t)) of the following as
004518
Friday, August 20, 2010 8;02 AM

Subje~;
DOE and FRTG estimates

Date: Monday, July 5, 2010 6:54 AM

To: Marcia McNutt <mcnutt@usgS.gov>
Cc: "Pedro I. Espina" <pedro.espina~nist.gov>
Marcia,
Pedro has pointed out that the ~stimates of the FRTG teams and the estimates of the DOE
that it will be capable of handling up to 50,000 bbl/day. If, however, it turns out that 25-30 K
bbl is the practical upper limit for recovery, thenthe discrepancy in estimates wHl remain
FRTG estimates were too small. Do we want to hold off on releasing the FRTG final reports
Bill
Page 1 of 1
004522
004529
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Jane Lubchenco; Scott Smullen; Justin kenney; Mark W Miller
Q&A
Oil Budget Q&A v 8.4 combined.docx
Jane, attached are all the Q&A's in one document.

now.
r"ll work on merging the talking points
Mark, please review and let me know if there is anything inaccurate in this combined Q&A
document. Thanks, Jen
Jennifer Austin
11
004532
Justin Kenney
From!
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Tim A Tomastik
Re: need to post both reports on restorethegulf.gov
great thanks please let me know what it's up and I'll shoot Justin and Dr L a note.
do it in the next 10 minutes? thank you.
Can they
Tim A Tomastik wrote:

> Jen ..... DHS/FEMA is controlling that site ...... they are working now
> to make these changes ..... Tim
>
>.Jennifer Austin wrote:

Hi Tim, can we get this second part posted.
story links to report attachment one
should say
To view the full Inter-Agency Report Describing the Oil Budget
Calculator
<http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/PDFs/OilBudget_description_
%20S3final.pdf>,
click
and also needs to link to: Further information on the calculation
methods is available in the Deepwater Horizon Gulf Incident Budget
Tool Report from Aug 1, 2010
<http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/PDFs/DeepwaterHorizonOilBudget20100S01.pdf>.
Jennifer Austin
202-4S2-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell) www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco
14
004534
Justin Kenn<ey .
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Oil Media
madelyn.appelbaum
Oil Budget report
I
Hi guys.,
In case there is confusion on the Oil Budget report.
the press release is now uPJ
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2ele/2elee8e4 oil.html
on NOAA.gov and RestoreTheGulf.gov
There are two <links there., one to the Report itself - which is 5 pages, that is not a
summary., that is the whole thing.
There is a second link for additional information about calculation methods. which is about
7 pages.
That's all there is. There is no 2ee page report., reporters seem to think there iS J 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
.2e2-482-5757 (office) 2e2-3e2-ge47 (cell) www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco
16
004535
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Tim A Tomastik
need to post both reports on restorethegulf.gov
DeepwaterHorizonOilBudget201 00801. pdf
Hi Tim, can we get this second part posted.

story links to report attachment one
should say
To view the full Inter-Agency Report Describing the Oil Budget Calculator
<http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/PDFs/OiIBudget description %2083final.pdf>~
. click
and also needs to link to:
Further information on the calculation methods is available in the Deepwater Horizon Gulf
Incident Budget Tool Report from Aug 1~ 2010
<http://www .noaanews. noaa .gov/stories2010/PDFs/DeepwaterHorizonOilBudget20100801. pdf> ..
Jennifer Austin
17
004536
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Wednesday, August 04, 2010 11:59AM
Griffis, Kevin; Justin kenney; 'PatASimms@noaa.gov
additional Q&A answers
Oil Budget Additional Q&A_MillerAustin.docx
attached.
Jennifer Austin
18
004537
Oil Budget Overview Talking Points 8.4 updated 9pm
oil from the BP Deepwater Horizon spill and makes clear that the administr~tion's
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.
o

from the Gulf approximately 1,257,789 million barrels (one quarter ofthe oil).
More than an additional 400,000 barrels (408,792) barrels was chemically

dispersed, bringing tbe 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.
-0
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
o One quarter of the total oil (1,243,732 m barrels) evaporated or dissolved

naturally.
o
below the surface as tar balls, washed ashore or already removed from the
The oil that is left in the water is light sheen, it is weathered and diluted, and if
heavy oil.
004538
be concerned about the long term effects of this spill and what it means for the health
lhe Federal Government is not going anywhere. We are committed to this region and its
(NOAA) and the Department of the Interior (DOl), who jointly developed what's known
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
and the best available scientific estimates where measurements were not possible.
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.
004539
Oil Budget Q&A 8.4.10
1. How long does i,t take for dispersed oil to biodegrade? Is there an approximate length of time
or a range?
varies greatly depending on oil type and water conditions. NOAA NSF and DOE are actively
studying this important question to studying, and we hope to have results soon.
2. Have the data already been peer-reviewed, or are they going to be peer-reviewed? Also, did
outside scientists help with the calculations?
The Oil Budget Calculator was developed by a team at the US Geological Survey (USGS) in the
Department of the Interior (001) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(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 Y2 Exxon Valdez spills - not an insignificant amount.
-..
~--~.~-
.
._---_.~
004540
EPA continues to conduct testing to understand the toxicity of dispersants to marine life, and
has recently released it second report about that subject.
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 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 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. 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 finandalliability 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.

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.
004541
For the purpose of this analysis} 'dispersed oil' is defined as droplets that are less than 100
and at the surface.
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 essentially lying on the
sea floor; this can occur in cases where the tar balls have come ashore onto beaches and have
picked up sand or other material, then washed back out in the surf. The sand and sediment
causes them to sink and stay on the bottom, but this oil remains close to the shore, not in the
deeper portions of the Gulf.
11. Do you believe this is the worst environmental disaster?
The sheer volume of oit 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.
short term and long term and that underscores the importance of having this very aggressive
monitoring and research effort underway to help us actually better understand the situation
and learn from this.
12. A recent JAG report said that you found oil subsurface in the 4-7 ppm range. Is that still the
case?
004542
That is the range for the dataset in the most recent JAG report. Our first report found
concentrations of 1-2 parts per million based on chemical analysis 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 bil that is subsurface is, as far as we can tell, in very small
004543
1.
How long does it take for dispersed oil to biodegrade? Is there an approximate length of time
ora range?
varies greatly d~pending 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 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 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.
of
25% of the oil evaporated, and 16% 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.
not SO percent? See answer above.
It is hard to give a direct comparison, as each spill is unique. Because this is further from the
shore, the impacts have been different.
5.
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 Yz Exxon Valdez spills.
004544
Chemical dispersion breaks the oil up into small droplets to keep it from corning ashore in large
EPA continues to conduct testing to understand the toxicity of dispersants to marine life, and
6.
coordinated response by the Federal Government and Unified Command were successful in
removing one quarter of the oil and dispersing another 8%. We have also been fortunate that
mother nature has helped as well, with natural dispersion, evaporation and dissolution
accounting for a significant portion of the oil.
NOAA and the Federal Government remain vigilant- we continue to monitor shoreline areas
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?
for all damages to natural resources (I\IRDA) and they can be fined based on the volume
9.

sheen and weathered tar balls, has washed ashore or been collected from the shore, is buried
in sand and sediments, or has been biodegraded.
004545
For the purpose of this analysis, 'dispersed oil' is defined as droplets thatare less than 100
microns - about the diameter of,a human hair. Oil droplets that are this small are.neutrally
and at the surface.
regularly.
There is not oil on the deep sea floor. Oil that is beneath the surface, as far asw~ can
In some of the near shore areas there are reports of tar balls essentially laying on the sea floor;
or tar mats, this can occur in cases where the tar balls have come ashore onto beaches and have
causes them to sink and stay on the bottom, close to the shore.
The sheer volume of oil that was released means there will undoubtedly be some significant
impacts.
We've seen some of those impacts play out in ways that are more obvious because they're at
the surface. What we have yet to determine is the full impact that the oil will have beneath the
surface.
case?
004546
That is the range for that dataset. Our first report found concentrations of 1-2 parts per million
based on chemical analysis of water samples. The second report used fluorometric data and .
based on calibrations of fluorometers, indicated a likely concentration of 4-7 ppm or less in the
sampled areas. There are 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
Dilute does not mean benign, ~lJ.t it is in very small concentrations and we continue to measure
004547


~~ Government estimate of discharge ranged from 62.200 bbl on April 22, 2010 to 52.700 bbi on July "14, 2010.

Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U,S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
004548
Government Estimates - Through August 01 (Oay 104)
.
1,500,000
1,250,0001
fI)
1,000,000"
750,0001
I
I
500,000 ~
250.0001
oj~==~========~========~~~==~~~
-
May-2010
Jun-2010
Jul-2010
Expected Value -
Aug-2010

Repori generated by sbristol@usgs.gov on 08f02/~010 05:30 PM MDT.
004549

o
o
35,818 tons
Higher Flow Estimate is based on the government discharge estimate plus 10% uncertainty.
m
Maximum discharge ranged from 68,390 bbl on April 22, 2010 to 58,022 bb! on July 14, 2010.

Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cOOj.")eration with the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. .
004550
Higher Flow Estimate Through August 01 (Day 104)
!~C7~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1,750,0001
1,500,0001
1 ,250,000
~ 1,000,000 j
750,000
500,000
250,000 J
oJ ____~____----~~----------~------------~-
May-2010
Jun-2010
Expected Value -
Jul-2010
Aug-2010
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil.Budget

Report generated by sbristol@usgs.gov 011 08/02/201005:30 PM MDT.
004551

35,818 tons
,,. Lower Flow Estimate is based on the government discharge estimate minus 10% uncertainty.
"". Maximum discharge ranged from 55,956 bbl on April 22, 2010 to 47,472 bbl on July 14, 2010 .
.Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

004552
1,300,0001
1,200,000
1,100,000~
1,000,000 i
900,000 ~,
800,000
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
OJ ______~------------~~------------~----------~--~--
May-2010
Jun-2010
Jul-2010
Expected Value -
Aug-2010

Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation wHh the Nationsl
004553
Reference Notes


reference material.
Discharged
On July 31,2010, the U.S. scientific teams charged by National Incident Commander Thad Allen with
determining the flow of oil from BP's leaking well re'fined their estimates of the oi1110w. The teams

See end notes section of the report for reference material all report elements.
004554
used pre- and post-riser cut. On June 15, 2010, an improved estimate of how much oil is flowing from

RITI and Top Hat are mechanical devices'that British Petroleum (BP) has used to recover oil from the
, spill flow. Values for the amount recovered by the vessels Helix Producer, Discoverer Enterprise and
the'Q4000 are reported by BP, entered daily by National Incident Command personnel, and used in the
Dispersed Naturally
Natural subsurface dispersion calculates the total discharge- minus an estimation of subsurface
c~emical
dispersion multiplied by a factor of natural dispersion effectiveness derived from a scientific
Evaporation is calculated differently for "fresh" .oil within 24 hours (daily total in the report) and older oil
by
the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S, Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
Application operated
004555

Skimmed
Burned
cumulative totals.
dispersant applied and recorded daily and acting on both surface and subsurface oil. The followin'g
-No natural surface dispersion assumed .

Report generated by sbristol@usgs,gov on 08102/2010 05:30 PM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S Geologica! Survey in cooperaiion with the Natfonal
004556
Dispersant Used
Oil Remaining

004557
Oil Budget Overview Talking Points 8~4 updated 7pm
oil from the BP Deepwater Horizon spill and makes clear that the administration's
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.
o

from the Gulf approximately 1,257,789 million barrels (one quarter of the oil).
More. than another 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
One quarter of the total oil (1,243,732 m barrels) evaporated or dissolved

naturally.
below the surface as tar balls, washed ashore or already removed from the
The oil that is left in the water is light sheen, its weathered and diluted, and if
heavy oil.
004558
be concerned about the long term effects of this spill and what it means for the health'
The Federal Government is not going anywhere. We are committed to this region and its
(NOAA) and the Department of the Interior (DOl), who jointly developed what's known
calculations by other governmental and non-governmental scientists. The calculator is
based on 4.9 million barrels of oil released into the Gult the government's Flow Rate'
and the best available scientific estimates where measurements were not possible.
shown that diffuse concentrations in the low parts per million, exist at depth~ Our latest
information is that those concentrations are being degraded through tim!=.
degradation, early indications are that this oil is degrading qUickly.
004559
1.
How long does it take for dispersed oil to biodegrade? Is there an approximate length of time
ora range?
varies greatly depending on oil type and water conditions. Dispersed and residual oil wiU
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?
3.
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.
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.
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.
004560
EPA continues to conduct testing to understand the toxicity of dispersants to 'marine life, and
9500A, when mixed with oil, is generally no more or less toxic than mixtures with the other
'6.
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
7.
How long will the oil be present and visible in the Gulf There is very little visible oil lett 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?
for all damages to natural resources (NRDA) and they can be fined based on the volume
9.

sheen and weathered tar balls, has washed ashore or been collected from the shore, or is buried
in sand and sediments.
004561
microns -about the diameter of a human hair. Oil droplets that are this small are neutrally
and at the surface.
Dispersed and residual,oil remain in the system and until they degrade through a number of
regularly.

There is not oil on the deep sea floor. Oil that is beneath the surface, as far as we can
In some of the near shore areas there are reports of tar balls essentially laying on the sea floor,
or tar mats, this can occur in cases where the tar balls have come ashore onto beaches and have
causes them to sink and stay on the bottom.

The sheervolume of oil that was released means there will be some significant impacts.
We've seen some of those impacts play out in ways that are more obvious because they're at
the surface. What we have yet to determine is the full impact that the oil will have beneath the
, surface.
case?
004562
That is the range for that dataset., Our first report found concentrations of 1-2 parts per million
based on chemical analysis of water samples. The second report used f1uorometric data and
based on calibrations of f1uorometers, indicated a likely concentration of 4-7 ppm or less in the
sampled areas. There are variations depending on the methods used to analyze subsurface oil
concentrations. The Joint Analytical Group will soon release chemical analytical data from the
research missions that will add to our understanding of the overall picture of where oil is below
the surface.
The main point here is that the oil that is subsurface is, as far as we can tell, in very small
004563

happened with the oil from the BP spill and makes clear that the

o First, this report is the result of very careful, peer-reviewed
response efforts were effectiv.e in dealing with roughly a third of the
total amount of oil in the Gulf. Oirect capture is one of the actions
o Mother nature is also assisting this response effort and together we
004564
the oil since Day One of th!s spill, and based on the data from those efforts
estimates,
werenot possible. The report is based on the most recent estimates of the

[kll: I heard Sean menlion this, but I

haven't independently confirmed. It's possible that
d,medil.
004565
The dispersed and residual oil that is still in the system is degrading through



004566

The resid~al amount,just over one quarter (26%), is either on or just below the surface as residue
and sediments.
at the surface.

a misconception.

surface.
004567
There is still likely a 'significant amount of oil out there simply because there was so much
from this.
the case?
analytical data from the research missions that may show different values.
004568

Inland Recovery
Government estimate of discharge ranged from 62.200 bbl on April 22, 2010 to 52.700 bbi on July 14. 2010.

Report generated by sbristol@usgs.gov on 08/02/20iO 05:30 PM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with th(,; National
004569
1,500,000 .
I.
(J)
1,250,000
1.. 000,000
i."
(1)
........
ns
.c
I.
750,000
500,0001"',;;,:<",,,:,,,,,,;
I
250,0001 "
oJ~~========~======~========~=
May-2010
Jun-2010
Jul-2010
Aug-2010
-
Expected Value -

See end notes section of the report for
referenc~
material on report elements.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by tile U.S. Geologica! Survey in cooperation wittl the Nationcll
004570

35,818 tons
.. All unlabeled values in barrels. See end notes for assumptions.
... Higher Flow Estimate is based on the government discharge estimate plus 10% uncertainty.
U~ 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!02i2010 05:30 PM MDT
See end notes section of tile report for reference material on report elements.
Oceanic and. Atmospheric Administration.
.
004571
Higher Flow Estimate - Through August 01 (Day 104) ,

I"
1,750,000 I,
i
1,500,0001
:
1 ,250,000 1""':Q:':~':'?:';'+
.....
..... 1,000,000ft.t
.c
,750,0001
500,000
l'I
250,000
i
I
O~~==~============~====
-
__
~==~=
May-2010
Jun-2010
Expected Value -
Jul-2010
Aug-2010

Report generated by sbristol@usgs.gov on 08!02i2010 05:30 PM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geologica! Survey in cooperation with the N:;3lion[;1
004572

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

.,. Lower Flow Estimate is based on the government discharge estimate minus 10% Llncertainty.
'** Maximum discharge ranged from 55,956 bbl en April 22. 2010 to 47,472 bbl on July 14,2010.
Deepwater Horizon IVlC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

Report generated by sbristol@usgs.gov on 08!02i2010 05:30 PM MDT.
004573
1,300,0001
!,
1 ,200,000j.'
1,100,000 -I
1,000,000 i
900,000 1
I
800,001
700'0001~~'~~~~~sh~~~~~F;~~~'~~0~~;
600,000
500,000
400,000
''!:C'-!.'!:i'':;;'.
300,000
200,000 '1
1 00,000
oJ_~==~============~============~============~===
-
May-2010
Jun-2010
Jul-2010
Expected Value -
Aug-2010

Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with tile National
004574
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 surrace is computed, taking
Chart - Deepwater Horizon MC-252 - Cumulative Dispositi.on of Oil

correspond to the cumulative values in the table. See the footnotes (available in the Web application by .
reference material.
Discharged
On July 31,2010, the U.S. scientific teams charged by National Incident Commander Thad Allen with

Deepwater Horizon IVlC252 Gulf Incident Ojl Budget
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation wi!h the N.Htionai
Oceanic and Atmospl,eric Administration.
004575

Dispersed Naturally
method of determining oil dispersion in the,water column.
Report generated by sbristol@usgs.gov on 08102/2010 05:30 PM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S .. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with ti1e National
004576

Skimmed
Burned
cumulative totals.
-American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) bum rate standards are used

Report generated by sbristol@usgs.gov on 08/0212010 05:30 PM MDT,
Application operated by the U,S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with tile N1'::1lional
004577
-International T;:mker Owners Pollution Federation (ITOPF) "planning purpose" dosage of 20:1 used
Dispersant Used
The amount of dispersant used is recorded each day of the incident by National Incfdent Command
Oil Remaining

See end notes section of the report for reference matedal on report elements.
004578

.
NOAA NSF and bOE 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,

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?
Of what was left, the Unified command addressed more than half of that, between
allow BP to use such unprecedented amounts of an ineffective toxic chemical, the
effects of whi~h have hardly been tested on the natural environment and certainly
.
004579
EP A continues to conduct testing to understand the toxicity of dispersants to marine life,

9500A, when mixed with oil, is generally no more or less toxic than mixtures with the other
disaster, and as we have said all along, was a question of el1vironment~1 trade-offs.
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
successful in dealing with nearly one third of the oil. We have also been fortunate that
NOAA and the Federal Government remain vigilant- we continue to monitor shoreline
understand the long tenn 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.
this spill?
004580
1. HolV long does it take for dispersed oil to biodegrade? Is there an approximate
We don't yet have a figure for biodegradation rates of this oil in the Gulf. Btodegradation speed
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,

Of what was left, the Unified command addressed more than half ofthat,.between
effects of which have hardly been tested on the natural enyironment and certainly
004581
EPA contiinies to conduct testing"to UilCierstand the toxicity of dispersants to marine life,
6. Using the oil budget report as a guide, given tlie effectiveness of the various
mitigation efforts, how should the federal government have changed its respoll;se
efforts?
and coordinated response by the Federal Government and Unified Cornmand were
successful in dealing with nearly one third of the oil. We have also been fortunate that"
mother I).ature has helped as well, with natural dispersion, evaporation and dissolution
accounting for a significant portion of the ~il.
NOAA and the Federal Government remain vigilant- we continue to monitor shoreiine
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. Some
shoreline areas that
this spill?
004582
Justin KEmner
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
"

Wednesday, August 04, 2010 11 :52 AM
Brenda Landis; Jerry 51aff
pie chart
OWH Budget Oil Pie Chart 8.3 v FINAL.xlsx
attached
Jennifer Austin
004583
.Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Wednesday. August 04. 2010 11 :46 AM
Jerry Siaft
one more name
please add this person to distro list
Jennifer. Austin
004584
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Wednesday, August 04, 2010 11:29AM
Brenda Landis; Jerry Siaff; Julie Bedford; Scott Smullen
[Fwd: [Fwd: Federal Science Report Details Fate of Oil from BP Spill]]
just went we should send now from NOAA

-------- Original Message -------Subject:
[Fwd: Federal Science Report Details Fate of Oil from BP Spill]
Date: Wed} 04 Aug 2010 11:26:31 -0400
From: Chris Vaccaro <Christopher.Vaccaro@noaa.gov>
To:
Justin kenney <Justin.kenney@noaa.gov>} Scott Smullen
<Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>} Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>
Just sent .
Date: Wed} 04 Aug 2010 08:23:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Deepwater Horizon Response External Affairs
<donotreply@deepwaterhorizonresponse.com>
Reply-To:
Deepwater Horizon Response External Affairs
<donotreply@deepwaterhorizonresponse.com>
To:
Christopher.Vaccaro@noaa.gov
DATE: August 04) 2010 10:22:24 CST

*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*
3
004585
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 Horizon/BP spill
was captured or mitigated by the Unified Command recovery operations, including burning,
An additional 25 percent of th~ tqtal 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 (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.
The estimates do not make conclusions about the long-term impacts of oil on the Gulf.
Fully
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.
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.
4
004586
The oil budget calculations are based pn direct measurements wherever possible and the best
available scientific estimates where measurements were not possible,. The numbers for direct
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 here
<http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/posted/2931/0i1_Budget_description_8_3_FINAL.844991.
pdf>.
Share <http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php>
<http://www.piersystem.com/go/unsubscribe/2931/5575983/?e=christopher.vaccaro%48noaa.gov>
Chris Vaccaro
Acting Media Relations Director
v.292-482-6993 / c.292-536-8911 / NOAA.gov
Jennifer Austin
292-482-5757 (office) 282-392-9847 (cell)
004587
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Wednesday, August04,2010 11:17 AM
Brenda Landis; Julie Bedford
pdfs to accompany today's release of oil budget
Oil Budget description 83 FINAL.pdf; DeepwaterHorizonOilBudget20100801.pdf
When it goes out.

"Inter-Agency Report Describing the Oil Budget Calculator"
attachment, the document called oil budget description v
8.3 final
should link to the first
And then say, less prominently: .

Further information on the calculation methods is available in the Deepwater Horizon Gulf
Incident Budget Tool Report from Aug 1, 2010.
and link to the second attachment called DeepwaterHorizonOilBudget20100801
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
w~.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco
004588
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Mark.W.Miller
_HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff; Bill Conner; Scott Smullen
Re: [Fwd: AP science writer seeks to talk to you about NOAA-USGS what happened to oil
report]
Hi Mark,
You don't have to call him, hef's been calling us all, as has every network.
We've already gotten back to him.
For now we are telling everyone to stay tuned for the release, hopefully coming soon, and the
White House just announced that Dr Lubchenco will be with Gibbs for this afternoon's
briefing, so that will take care of a lot of questions. We'll handle follow up after. that.
Thanks, Jen
Mark.W.Miller wrote:
> Can I call Mr. Borenstein?
>
> Mark
>
> -------- Original Message -------> Subject: AP science writer seeks to talk to you about NOAA-USGS what
> happened to oil report
> Date:
Wed, e4 Aug 2e1e e9:31:e3 -esee
> From:
Borenstein, Seth <SBorenstein@ap.org>
> To: Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov
>
>
>
> Mark,
> I'm Seth Borenstein, science writer at the Associated Press. Can you
> call me as soon as possible at 2e2-641-94S4.
> Thanks",
> Seth
>
>
> Seth Borenstein
> Associated Press Science Writer
> 11ee 13th St. NW, Suite 7ee
> Washington, DC 2eeeS-4e76

> 2e2-641-94S4
> sborenstein@ap.org <mailto:sborenstein@ap.org>
>
>
>
> The information contained in this communication is intended for the
> use of the designated recipients named above. If the reader of this
> communication is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
> that you have received this communication in error, and that any
> review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication

> is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in
> error, please notify The Associated Press immediately by telephone at
> +1-212-621-1898 and delete this e-mail. Thank you.
7
004589
> [IP_US_DISC]msk dccc60c6d2c3a6438f0cf467d9a4938
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202~302-9047 (cell) www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco
004590
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Mark W Miller
please send Aug 1 report out
thanks!
Jennifer Austin
2e2-482-5757 (office) 2a2-3e2-9a41 (cell) www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco
004593
Justin Kenney.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Wednesday, August 04, 201010:19 AM
Robert Haddad; tony.penn@noaa.gov; Mark W Miller; _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff

Quick question for you, related to the the oil budget report going out this morning, we're
pulling together Q&A for Dr. for her briefing with Gibbs this afternoon, Can you answer this
question? Thanks, Jen
1.
What impact, if any, will this report have in determining BP's financial liability for this
spill? *
Jennifer Austin
Communications& External Affairs
292-482-5757 (office) 292-3e2-ge47 (cell)
www.facebook.com/noaa.1ubchenco
NOAA
12
004594
Justin Kenney
From':
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jennifer Austin [JEmnifer,Austin@noaa.gov]

Wednesday. August 04,201010:17 AM
Jerry Siaff
[Fwd: OIL SPILL: Today's release fe: oil - please send to-]
one address from Jana, below, and these for your list.

OIL SPILL: Today's release re: oil -- please send to--Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 10:13:15 -0408
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>
Jennifer Austin
13
004595
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Wednesday, August Q4, 2010 10:01 AM
Justin Kenney
Re: Fw: Need immediate yes no answer. Is this the full report?
It's a yes J we are releasing the reportJ but the report is not 200 pages.
Justin Kenney wrote:
> Ihx. Is that a yes or no answer?!
>
>
> 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.gov>

> fo: Justin Kenney <Justin.kenney@noaa.gov>
> Cc: scott.smullen@noaa.gov <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>
> Sent: Wed Aug 04 09:55:25 2010
> Subject: Re: Fw: Need immediate yes no answer. Is this the full report?
>
> HeYJ
> we are releasing our reportJ which is a description of the calculator
> output) and the calculator daily output) from Aug 2, which is this
> one with barrels.
>
> both attached.
the scientists have more detail on their calculations)

> but that's not being released.
>
>
> Justin Kenney wrote:
>
Are we releasing the full report?

Justin Kenney
NOAA Director of Communications
Office: 202-482-6090
Cell: 202-821-6310
Facebook: www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco (Sent from my BlackBerry)
--------------------------------------------------------------------*From*: Borenstein, Seth <SBorenstein@ap.org>

*To*: Justin Kenney <justin.kenney@noaa.gov>
*Sent*: Wed Aug 04 09:46:27 2010
*Subject*: RE: Need immediate yes no answer. Is this the full report?
Thanks.
14
004596
Can i get full report soon.
>> really so'on
--------------------------------------------------------------------*From:* Justin Kenney [mailto:justin.kenney@noaa.gov]

*Sent:* Wednesday, August 04 2010 9:46 AM
*To:* Borenstein} Seth
*Subject:* Re: Need immediate yes no answer. Is this the full report?
J
The full report is 200 plus pages. You have the exec summary.
Justin Kenney
Office: 202-482-6090
Cell: 202-821-6310
Facebook: www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco (Sent from my BlackBerry)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
*From*: Borenstein, Seth <SBorenstein@ap.org>
*To*: Justin Kenney <justin.kenney@noaa.gov>
*Sent*: Wed Aug 04 09:41:54 2010
*Subject*: Need immediate yes no answer. Is this the full report?
Justin,
I've got this 5 page report. Is this all there is or is this just part?
Seth Borenstein
Associated Press Science Writer
1100 13th St. NW, Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005-4076
202-641-9454
sborenstein@ap.org <mailto:sborenstein@ap.org>
The information contained in this communication is intended for the

use of the designated recipients named above. If the reader of this
communication is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that you have received this communication in error, and that any
review} dissemination) distribution or copying of this communication
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in
error,' please notify The Associated Press immediately by telephone at
+1-212-621-1898 and delete this e-mail. Thank you.
[IP_US_DISC]msk dccc60c6d2c3a6438f0cf467d9a4938
>
> -> Jennifer Austin
> 202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
15
004597
>
>
Jennifer Austin
16
004603
Justin Kenney
Jennifer Austin [Jennifer.Austin@noaa,gov]

Griffis, Kevin; Scott Smullen
Re: FW: DEEPWATER/OU budget calculator draft release
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hey, third sentence should say light sheen, and tar balls is two words.
The residual amount, just over one quarter (26 percent), 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.
GriffiS, Kevin wrote:
>
> OK. Then here's what we have. Heather, are you guys taking a final look?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
*FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE*

*Contact: Justin Kenney *
*Scott Smullen*
*292-482-6999*
*Federal Science Report Details Fate of Oil from BP Spill*
>
> WASHINGTON - A third (33 percent) of the total amount of oil released
> in the Deepwater Horizon/BP spill was captured or mitigated by the
> Unified Command recovery operations, including burning, skimming,
> chemical 'dispersion and direct recovery from the wellhead, according
> to a federal science report released today.
>
> An additional 25 percent of the total oil naturally evaporated or
> dissolved, and 16 percent was dispersed naturally into microscopic
> droplets. The residual amount, just over one quarter (26 percent), is
> either on or just below the surface as residue and weathered tarballs,
> has washed ashore or been collected from the shore, or is buried in
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
sand and sediments. Dispersed and residual oil remain in the system
until they degrade through a number of natural processes. Early
indications are that the oil is degrading quickly.
These estimates were derived by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) and the Department of the Interior (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

22
004608
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:

Wednesday. August 04. 2010 9:55 AM
Justin Kenney
'scott.smullen@noaa.gov
Re: Fw: Need immediate yes no answer. Is this the full report?
DeepwaterHorizonOilBudget20100802.pdf; Oil Budget description 8 3 FINALpdf
Hey,
we are releasing our report, which is a description of the calculator output,
calculator daily output, from Aug 2, which is this one with barrels.
both attached.
released.
the scientists have more detail on their calculations, but that's not being
Justin Kenney wrote:

> Are we releasing the full report?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Justin Kenney
Office: 202-482-6090
Cell: 202-821-6310
Facebook: www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco
> (Sent from my BlackBerry)
>
> --------.------------------------------------------------~-------------><*From*: Borenstein, Seth <SBorenstein@ap.org>
> *To*: Justin Kenney <iustin.kenney@noaa.gov>
> *Sent*: Wed Aug 04 09:46:27 2010
> *Subject*: RE: Need immediate yes no answer. Is this the full report?
>
> Thanks.
> Can i get full report soon.
> really soon
)
.)
)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Justin Kenney [mailto:justin.kenneY@noaa.gov]

> *5ent:* Wednesday, August 04, 2010 9:46 AM
> *To:* Borenstein, Seth
> *Subject:* Re: Need immediate yes no answer. Is this the full report?
>
> The full report is 200 plus pages. You have the exec summary.
>
>
> Justin Kenney
>
>
>
>
>
and the

Office: 202-482-6090
Cell: 202-821-6310
Facebook: www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco
27
004609
>
>
>
>
>
>
(Sent from my BlackBerry)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From*: Borenstein~ Seth <SBorenstein@ap.org>

*To*: Justin Kenney <justin.kennev@noaa.gov>
*Sent*: Wed Aug 94 99:41:54 2919
> *Subject*: Need immediate yes no answer. Is this the full report?
>
> Justin,
> I've got this 5 page report. Is this all there is or is this just part?
>
>
> Seth Borenstein
> Associated Press Science Writer

> n99 13th St. NW J Suite 799
> Washington, DC 29995-4976
> 292-641-9454
> sborenstein@ap.org <mailto:sborenstein@ap.org>
>
>
>
> The information contained in this communication is intended for the use
> of the designated recipients named above. If the reader of this'
> communication is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
> that you have received this communication in error, and that any review,
> dissemination J distribution or copying o~ this communication is strictly
> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
> notify The Associated Press immediately by telephone at +1-212-621-1898
> and delete this e-mail. Thank you.
> [IP_US_DISC]msk dccc6ec6d2c3a6438fecf467d9a4938
Jennifer Austin
292-482-5757 (office) 2e2-3e2-ge47 (cell)
28
004610

Dispersant Used
- Government estimate of discharge ranged from 62,200 bbl on April 22, 2010 to 52.700 bbl on Juiy 14, 2010.

See end notes section of the report for reference. material on report elements.
004611
Government Estimates Through August 01 .(Day 104)
1,500,000
1,250,000
1,000,000
cu
.c
750,000
rJ)
Q.)
~
~
500,000
250,000
0
May-2010
Jun-2010
Expected Value -
Jul-20 10
Aug-20 10

.
004612

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

** Higher FloIN 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.
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Blldget

004613
1,750,000 J
1,500,000
1,250,000
U)
Q)
....
....
1,000,000
ns
.c
750,000
500,000
250,000
May-2010
Jun-2010
Jul-2010
ExpeCted Value -
Aug-20 10

004614

35,818 tons
~ Lower Flow Estimate is based on the government discharge estimate minus 10% uncertainty,
m
Maximum discharge ranged from 55,956 bbl on April 22, 2010 to 47,472 bbl on July 14. 2010.

004615
1,300,000
1,200,000
1,100,000
1,000,000
900,0001
-......
700,000
.c
600,000
U)
800,000
Q,)
ns
i
i
.500,000 I
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
-
Jul-20 1O
May-201O
Jun-201
Expected Value -
Aug-20 1O

004616
Reference Notes

into account the effective discharge (total discharge minus volume collected via the Riser Insertion to'ol

reference material. '
DischargedOn July 31,2010, the U.S. scientific teams charged by National Incident Commander Thad Allen with
estimated that the discharge rates ranged from 62,000 bbJlday at the start of the incident to 53,000

Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation wifh the National
004617
used pre- and post-riser cut. On June 15, 201.0, an improved estimate of how much oil is flowing from

RID and Top Hat are mechanical devices that British Petroleum (BP) has used to recover oil from the
spill 'Row. 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
Dispersed Naturally
.-Droplets smaller than 100 micron are considered dispersed
Evaporation is calculated differently for "fresh" oil within 24 hours (daily total in the report) and older oil'
evaporation/dissolution calculation -first determines the remaining oil available for evaporative processes ..
Report generated by sbristol@usgs,gov on 08/02/201005:30 PM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation witt! the National
004618
-Calculated amount of sl,lbsurface dispersion

The amount available for recovery, both daily and cumulative, is simply the rem'aining oil after removing
, -Measured amount removed via RITT and Top' Hat
Skimmed
Burned
cumulative totals.

Report generated by sbris1ol@usgs,gov on 08i02/2010 05:30 PM MDT.
Application operated by the U,S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S, Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
004619
Dispersant Used
personnel. It is an actual measuremenlof the total dispersant used via all methods employed.
Oil Remaining

Report generated by sbristol@usgs.gov on 08/02J;?01 0 05:30 PM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Naiional
Oceanic and A1mospheric Adn1inistra1ion.
004620
28-Jul Flow Percent Percent

Direct Recovery from Wellhead
17
Burned
5
Skimmed
3
8
Naturally Dispersed
16
25
Residual
26
15.2
4.9
2.7
7.5
15.9
26
27.8
Low Flow
823452
266375
144485
408792
666099
1084318
1041739
High %
0.151905
0.049139
0.026654
0.075411
0.15924
0.259553
0.278097
1
1600000
1400000 + .. - .......--......-.-.....---.. ---.-..-----.....---..----............ ---..-.-..........-.. . --------.......-1200000
~---------------------,--------------....-------.. ---------
__
1000000 +-------.-------.----....--.--.-.. -..----.-----..-----.-_....._,-----_._-"-------_._......_.._._----_.... ._._---800000
Deepwater Horizon Oil
600000
Based on estimated release of 4.9m
400000
200000

the surface as light sheen ______
and weathered tar ba lis,
has washed ashore or
shore, or is buried in sand
and sediments.
004621
High Flow
..
15.2
4.9
2.7
7.5
16
25.9
27.8
100
15
5
3
7
16
26
28
823452
266375
144485
408792
863,211
1406991
1507515
5420821
823452
266375
144485
408792
666099
1084318
1041739
---~-l
;
;
Budget
I
Low Flow
barrels of oil
Burned
Unified
Command
Response
Operations
Skimmed
3%
Chemically
Dispersed*
8%
i
i
-_~_-~:-~-~_a-_I~-~___-.-.__-._.-__._-_._.-_._-_-_-___-_-__-=--=--=--=--=---'_J
__.______.___. ____.__'-__.
0
0
0
0
-197112
-322673
-465776
004622

estimates that a total of 4.9 million barrels of oil has been released from the BP Deepwater Horizon we II.
A second interagency team, led by the Department of the Interior (001) and the National Oceanic and
evaporated or dissolved; and just less than one quarter (24%) was dispersed (either naturally or as a
result of operations) as microscopic droplets into Gulf waters. The residual amount -just over one
quarter (26%) - is either on or just below the surface as light sheen and weathered tar balls, has washed'
becomes available.
,
, h.'.' WH. ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ . _ __ __ _
"
_ _ _ ___ __
_w........... _..... _... _. __
w _
_ . _ , _ _ _ _ _ w. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ .H _ _ _ _
___ ._. _ _ _ _ _ _ . ___ _ _ _ - .
Based on estimated refease of 4.9m barrels of oil

Unified
Command
Response
Operations
Residual incilldes oil

sheen and weathered
tar balls. has washed
ashore or been
colieLled rrom theshore. or is buried ill
sand and 5edirT1l?nt~.
Skimmed
3%
Chemically
Dispersed*
8%
*Oil in the5e 3 calegories b
naturally .
.. _
R'
. . ., . , _
. . . . _ _ _ . _ . , _ _ _ _ _ _"
___ .___
_ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
~_
. . . . . . . . . . . _ . __ _
', _
......... _
_ . __ ,
004623
of the 0 iI to spray off in small droplets. For the purpose of this analysis, 'd ispersed oil' is defined as
droplets that are less than ] 00 microns - about the diameter of a human hair. Oil droplets that are this
All of the naturally dispersed oil and some of the oil that was chemically dispersed remained well-below'
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 I and 2,
http://ecowatch.ncddc.noaa.gov/JAG/repOris.html). Oil that was chemically dispersed at the surface
biodegrade.
Evaporation and Dissolution: It is estimated that 25% of the oil volume quickly and naturally ,
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
combination of categories all of which are difficult to measure or estimate. It includes oi I still on or just
from the shore, and some that is buried in sand and sediments and may resurface through time. This oi I
004624
Biodegradation: Dispersed oil in the water'column and oil on the surface of the water biodegrade
naturally. While there is more analysis to be done to quantify the rate of biodegradation in the Gulf.
the BP Deepwater Horizon spill is biodegrading quickly. Scientists from NOAA, EPA. DOE and
barrels of oil flowed from the BP Deepwater Horizon wellhead between April 2.2 and July 15,2010, at
.above is based on this group's estimate of 4.9 million barrels of oil.
Direct Measures and Best Estimates: The oil budget calculations ate based on direct measurements
Incident Budget Tool Report from Aug 1,20 I 0 (available online). The tool was created by the US
understanding of the fate, transport and impact ofthe oil. The federal government will continue to report
ww\v.geoplatform.gov.
submerged oil, and researcherscontinue subsurface 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,
ecosystem and wildlife impacts. 001 and DOE responders are working to ensure control of tile well and
004625
accurate measurement of oil released and oil remaining in the environment. 001 is leading efforts to
_of the BP wellhead, federal scientists remain extremely concerned about the impact of the spill to the
004626
004627
Deepwater H~rizonlBP Oil Budget:

Acknowledgements
Authors
BiJI Lehr, NOAA, DOC
Credits
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
Ron Goodman, U.ofCalgary
AI Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
004628


total amount of oil in the Gulf. Djrect capture is one of the actions
004629
the oil since Day One of this spill, and based on the data from those efforts
estimates.

r-.----~-"~.'-.'.~
.......'.-
.,.~"
..
m ..., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i Comment [kll: I heard Sean mention thiS, but I

i haven't independently confirmed. It's possible that
i dreamedi!.
004630

degradation, early. indications are that this oil is degrading quickly.


004631
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
Justin Kenney
Scott Smullen
202-482-6090

WASHINGTON - 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 dispersion and direct recovery from the wellhead,
according to a federal science report released today.
An additional 25 percent of the totaroil naturally evaporated or dissolved. and 16 percent was
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 processes. Early
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 govemment and
independent scientists contributed to or reviewed the calculator and its calculation methods.
Bosed on estimated releose of 4.9m borrels of oil

that is Oil or ju!'.t u<i:k"lw
the !.ourt(1ce !';.light
~he~n :md w{:\;';lthered
tar balls. has wCJ~h(ild

'Jshoreor b<eE!n
coliec\ed from thoi
!thore. or is buried in
~~nd
--r
Unified
Command
Response
0,... ",",
and ~edirnerns.
8%
*Oil in these ,3 ,atttgori(l~ )~

Cllrrently tleirllt de&"ad~d
nalUr,,!iv.
"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
004632
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
The estimates do not make conclusions about the long-tenn impacts of oil on the Gulf. fully
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.
skimming numbers 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 information becomes
available.
###
004633
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

James Chang; Andrea Bleistein
oil budget press release
Oil Budget TPs 8 3 as deliv.docx; oil budget Q&A v1.docx; Oil budget press release v 6
pm.docx
still draft - close hold
Jennifer Austin
NOAA Communications
& External
Affairs
2e12-482-5757 (office) 2e12-3e12-9e147 (cell) www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco
004634
Justin
~enney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

MarkWMilier
attached
Oil Budget Additional Q&A.docx
Jennifer Austin
282-482-5.757 (office) 282-3.82-9847 (cell) www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco
004635
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:

. Wednesday, August 04,20108:56 AM
Jane Lubchenco
_HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff; KSarri@doc.gov; KGriffis@doc.gov;
justin.kenney@noaa.gov; Scott Smullen; margaret.spring@noaa.gov; Mark W Miller
Re: Oil Budget Report
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
PDF version.
Jen Pizza J can
you
please forward to leadership list.
thanks) Jen

> Jen - please convert the report to a PDF and send it around.
Thanks!
Jennifer Austin
004636
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Mark W Miller
[Fwd: RE: additional questions for the Q&A]
Hi,
Can we work on these together this morning?
Might be easiest to do some together on the phone?
-------- Original Message -------Subject.:

RE: additional questions for the Q&A
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 07:59:15 -0400
From: Griffis, Kevin <KGriffis@doc.gov>
To:
Griffis, Kevin <KGriffis@doc.gov>, Kenney, Justin
<Justin.kenney@noaa.gov>, Smullen, Scott <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>, Austin, Jennifer
<Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>
CC:
Miller, Mark <Mark. W. Miller@noaa. gOY>
References:
<7FA7BS9FSE135343A2BCFACB1A70067S017B16SCF96A@EMAIL1.email.doc.gov>
How are we looking on this?
*From:* Griffis, Kevin

*Sent:* Tuesday, August 03, 2010 11:10 PM
*To:* Kenney, Justin; Smullen, Scott; Austin, Jennifer
.*Cc:* Miller, Mark
*Subject:* Re: additional questions for the Q&A
Also, did outside scientists help with the calculations?
*From*: Griffis, Kevin

*To*: Kenney, Justin; Smullen; Scott; Austin, Jennifer
*Cc*: Miller, Mark
*Sent*: Tue Aug 0323:01:10 2010
*Subject*: 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?*
**
4
004637
*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 ~il, according to the oil budget report. If that's ~o, 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
fi~ancial
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
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
004646
Justin Kenney
From:
S~nt:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:

Tuesday, August 03, 2010 6:29 PM
Jane Lubchenco
'Justin~Kenney@noaa.gov'; Scott Smullen; 'Pat.A.Simms@noaa.gov
Re: Press release?
Oil Budget TPs 8 3 as deliv.docx; oil budget Q&A v1.docx; Oil budget press release v 6
pm.docx
Hi,
Attached is the latest press release, as well as updated talking points (based on what you
said today), and the Q&A
We've just sent these all to OMB and expect comments by 9 am.
The goal is to get the press release cleared and out by 19am tomorrow.
Tomorrow_
11 :45 am- We'll come' up to your office with Kevin to prep with you.
12:99 pm- You'll depart in a car to the WH, with Justin.
12:45 pm - Prep time with Gibbs
1:99 pm - WH briefing

> For oil budget doc?
>. And any other thoughts for tomorrow?
>.
>
Jane Lubchenco
>
> Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere
>.
>.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

(292) 482-3436
Jennifer Austin
14
004647
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:

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
. NOAA Communications & External Affairs
282-482-5757 (office) 282-3e2-ge47 (cell) www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco
15
004648
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Tuesday, August 03, ~010 4:59 PM
_HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff
final oil budget calculator descriptive report
Oil Budget description 8 3 FINAL.docx
DWH Staff, attached is the final report, cleared and reviewed by the NIC) Bill Connor) Dr
lubchenco and other agencies. FYI J will be public soon.
Jennifer. Austin
2e2-482-5757 (office) 2e2-3e2-ge47 (cell) www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco
16
004649
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent: .
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Jennifer Austin (Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov]

Scott Smullen
final pie chart
DWH Budget Oil Pie Chart B. 3 v FINAL.xlsx
attached
Jennifer Austin
292-482-5757 (office) 2e2-392-9947 (cell) www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco
17
004687
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 result of very careful calculations by some of
the nation's best scientists, working together across a number of
agencies and then submitting their work for peer review to scientists
both inside and outside the government.
o Secondly, we have found 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
004688
estimates.

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


004689
per million, exist at depth. Our latest information is that is being degraded
through time.

004690

The residual amount, just over one quarter (26%), is either on or just below the surface as residue
and sediments.
at the surface.

a misconception.

surface.
And we have a very aggressive research effOli underway to detem1ine exactly that. As we
004691
There is still likely a.significant amount of oil out there simply because there was so much
short term and long ternl and that underscores the importance of having this very aggressive
monitoring and research effort underway. So that we can actually better understand this and leam
from this.
the case?
004692
DRAFT
A third (33 percent) of the total amount of oil released in the Deepwater Horizon/BP spill was
captured or mitigated by the Unified Command recovery operations, including burning,
. indications are that :the oil is degrading quickly;
Rate Technical Group estimate from Monday. More than 25 of the best government and
[PIE CHART HERE]
Quote from McNutt?

.The estimates do not make conclusions about the long-term impacts of oil on the Gulf. Fully
this rate.
004693
abundant in the Gulf of Mexico in large part because of the warm water, the favorable nutrient'
Residual 'oil is also degraded and weathered by a number of physical and biological processes.
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.
###
004694

to the oil. The interagency scientific report below builds upon the calculator and summarizes- the
becomes available.

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

sheen and weathered
tar balis, ha~ washed
a~hore or been
collected from the
sand and !:.ediments_
Skimmed
3%
Chemically
Dispersed*
8%
*Oil in tllese 3 categories is

currently being dt-graded
naturally_
-----------"------------------------
004695
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
http://ecowatch.ncddc.noaa.gov/JAG/reportslltml). Oil that was chemically dispersed at the surface
biodegrade.
scientific res~arch and observations conducted during the Deepwater Horizon incident.
004696
enters the Gulf of Mexi90 through natural seeps.
Flow Rate: The Oil Budget Calculator starts with an estimate ofthe cumulative amount of oil r.eleased
. Survey (USGS) Director Marcia McNutt, and a team of Department of Energy (DOE) scientists and
. barrels of oil flowed from the BP Deepwater Horizon wellhead between April 22 and July 15, 2010, at
Direct Measures and Best Estimates: The oil budget calculations are based on direct measllrements
.
understanding of the fate, transport and impact of the oil. The federal government wi11 continue to report
www.restorethegu1f.gov, and data from the response and monitoring can be found at
Vv"VW .geop latform.gov.
dispersant and crude oil components with special attention to human health impacts. Numerous NOAA8
and NSF-funded academic researchers and NOAA scientists are investigating rates ofbiodegradatiol1,
004697
accurate measurem~nt of oil released and oil remaining in the environment. DOl is leading efforts to
Gulf ecosystem. Fully understanding the impacts of this spill on wildlife, habitats, and natural res~:)Urces .
004698

Acknowledgements
Authors
. Mark Miller, NOAA, DOC
Credits
L TUg) 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
Michel Boufadel, Temple U!1iv.
004699
We don't yet have a figure for biodegradation rates of this oil in the Gulf. Biodegradation speed varies
. greatly depending on oil type and water conditions. Dispersed and residual oil will biodegrade, and that
NOAA NSF and DOE are actively studying this important question to studying. may have results soon.
2.
Has the data already been peer-reviewed, or is it going to be peer-reviewed? Also,

There are a number factors, ope thing to keep in mind, is that oil that was naturally
dispersed or dissolved was naturally mitigated almost immediately and was therefore not
available to respond to.
Oil that evaporated was not there to be responded to.
Residual oil- 26% is what we arguably could have dealt with.
positive number? Wby not 50 percent?
It is hard to give a direct comparison, as each spill is unique, however, given that this
happened so far out in the water,
Valdez - (with current flow rate Valdez approx every 4 days)
5. Cbemical dispersants were only responsible for eliminating 8 percent of tbe oil,
according to tbe oil budget report. If tbat's so, wby did the federal government
effects of which have bardly been tested on the natural environment and certainly
It is important to note that 8% ofthe spilled oil represents approximately 16 million
004700
EPA continues to conduct testing to understand the toxicity of dispersants to marine life,
more toxic to the aquatic test speCies than oil alone.
mitigation efforts, how should the federal government have changed its response
efforts?
successful in dealing with nearly one third of the oiL We have also been fortunate that
NOAA and the Federal Govertunentremain vigilant- we continue to monitor shoreline
7. How long will the oil be present and visible in the Gulf?
this spill?
004701

nongovernmental and governmental specialists reviewing the calculations and conclusions. One teanl
A second interagency team, led by the Departrrient of the Interior (DOl) and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) developed a tool called the Oil Budget Calculator to detennine
what happened to the oiL The calculator uses the 4.9 million barrel estimate as its input and uses both
direct measurements and the best scientific estimates available to date, to detennine what has happened
to the oiL The interagency scientific report below builds upon the calculator and summarizes the
result of operations) as microscopic droplets into Gulf waters. The residual amount -just over one
categories and calculations. These estimates will continue to be refined as additional infonnation
becomes available.

Unified
Command

that is on or jusl below
Response
the surface a:> light
Operations
sheen and weathered

ashore or been
collected rrorYI the

shore, or i~ buried in
sand and sediments.
Skimmed
3%
Chemically ,
Oispersed*
8%
*Oil ill these 3 categories is
naturally.
Figure 1: Oil Budget - Shows current best estimates of what happened to the oiL
004702
This includes oil that was captured directly from the wellhead by the riser pipe insertion. tube and top hat
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.
. dispersed oil, even in dilute amounts, can be toxic to vulnerable species.
the surface in diffuse clouds where it began to dissipate further and .biodegrade. Previous analyses have
http://ecowatch~ncddc.noaa.gov/JAG/reports.html). Oil that was chemically dispersed at the surface
biodegrade.
evaporated or dissolved into the water column. The evaporation and dissolution rate estimate is based 011
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 (Le., recovery
004703
break down the dispersed and weathered surface oil are abundant in the Gulf of Mexico in large pali

Direct Measures and Best Estimates: The oil budget calculations are based' on direct measurements
expertise. These numbers wil] continue to be refined based on additional information and further

understanding of the fate, transport and impact of the oil. The federal goverrunent will continue to report
Vvww.restorethegulf.gov, and data from the response and monitoring can be found at
w\vw.geoplatform.gov.
004704
mitigate impacts of oil to terrestrial wildlife~ natural resources, and public lands.
Gulf ecosystem. Fully understanding the impacts of this spill on wildlife, habitats, and ,natural resources
004705

Acknowledgements
Authors
Credits
Antonio Possolo and Pedro Espina (NIST) - Statistical oil budget model encoded as an R.
program
. Kevin Gallagher, Martha Garcia, and Stephen Hammond (USGS) - Executive sponsors
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
.AI Allan, SpilTec
. Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Dating, SINTEF
004706


total amount of oil in the Gulf. Direct capture is one of the actions
004707
the oil since Day One of this spill, a nd based on the data from those efforts
estimates.

Andjust less than one quarter (24%) was dispersed, either naturally or
[kl]: I heard Sean mention this, but I

haven't independently confirmed. It's possible that I
dreamed it.
004708
While.further analysis remains to be done to.quantify the rate of

Other research efforts are currently underway to f4rther understand and


004709

We have just released a report that shows what happened to the oil. This
oil go?

the nation's best scientists, working together across a number of .
the oil since day one of this spill, and based on the data from those efforts
004710
estimates.
.

operations/including burning, skimming and direct recovery from the
An additional one quarter of the total oil naturally evaporated or dissolved}
rhe residuat amount, just over one quarter (26%), is either on or just below
We are fortunate in this situation that the rate of degradation in the gulf is
quite high.


004711
through time.

004712

The residual amount, just over one quarter (26%), is either on or just below the surface as residue
and sediments.
The dispersed anlount contains both oil dispersed naturally through the water column, which we
buoyant and thus remain in the water colwnn where they then begin to biodegrade
at the surface.
It is well known that bacteria that break down the dispersed and weathered surfaceoil are

a misconception.

surface.
004713
from this.
the case?
. analyze subsurface oil concentrations. The Joint Analytical Group will soon release chemical
. droplets, microscopic droplets and in very, very dilute concentrations falling off very steeply as
004714
DRAFT
A third (33 percent) of the total amount of oil released in the Deepwater Horizon/BP spill was
captured or mitigated by the Unified Command recovery operations, including burning,
skimming. chemical dispersion and direct recovery from the wellhead. according to a federal
Rate Technical Group estimate from Monday. More than 25 of the best government and
[PIE CHART HERE]
Quote from McNutt?

this rate.
004715
It is well known that bacteria that break. down the dispersed and weathered sur:face oil are
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, cun'ents and continued evaporation and
dissolution continue to break. down the residual oil in the water and on shorelines.
skimming numbers were also based on daily reported estimates. The rest of the nwnbers were
expertise, These estimates will continue to be refined as additional information becomes
available.
###
004716

.We have just released a report that shows what happened to the oil. This
oil go?

the nation's best scientists/working together across a number of
004717
estimates.
possible and the best available scien.tific estimates where measurements
release of 4.9 million ban:.els of oil.

. The residual amount, just over one quarter (26%), is either on or just below
been collected from the shore, or is buried in sand and sedim~nts.
We are fortunate in this situation that the rate of degradation in the gulf is
quite high.
. While further analysis remains to be done to quantify that rate of


004718
you know,
5'0 far have shown that diffuse concentrations in the low parts
through time.

studies to quantify the rate of degradation. Because that is, a key question
004719

estimates that a total of 4.9 million barrels of oil has been released from the BP Deepwater Horizon welL
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) deyeloped 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
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 refmed as additional information
becomes available.

Based on estimated refease of 4.9m barrels of oil
Unified

that is on or jus.t below
sheen and weathered
t-ar balls, has washed
ashore or been
collected from th~
sand and ;ediments.
Command
Response
Operations
8%
*Oil in these 3 categories i!o
naturally.
004720
. small are neutrally buoyant and thus remain in the water column where they then begin to biodegrade.
.
http://ecowatch.J1cddc.noaa.gov/JAG/reports.html). Oil that was chemically dispersed at the surface
biodegrade.
evaporated or dissolved into the water column. The evaporation and dissolution rate estimate is based.on
Dispersion is the process by which larger volumes of oil are broken down into smaller droplets of oil. .
operations, dispersion, and evaporation and dissolution)~ an estimated 26% remains. This figure is a .
from the shore, and some that is buried in sand and sediments and may resurface through 'time. This oil
004721
. wherever possible and the best available scientific estimates where measurements were not possible.

\vww.geoplatform.gov.
the Gulf and continues to monitor the air, water and sediments near the shoreline for the presence of '
dispersant and crude oil components with special attention to human health impacts. Numerous NOAA
and NSFfunded academic researchers and NOAA scientists are investigating rates of biodegradation,
004722
004723

Acknowledgements
Authors
Credits
Rebecca Uribe (USGS)- Graphic design
program
LCDR Lance Lindgre~ CDR Peter Hoffinan, CDR Sean O'Brien, and LT Amy McElroy
formulas, analysis methods, or reviewed the algorithms used in the calculator. The teanl continues to
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
004724
28-Jul Flow Percent Percent

Direct Recovery from Wellhead
17
5
Burned
3
Skimmed
8
Naturally Dispersed
16
25
Residual
26
1600000
..----.-- .------.-----.,.-,,- .--.-_.
~--.------------
---.-- ......
15.2
4.9
2.7
7.5
15.9
26
27.8
Low Flow'
823452
266375
144485
408792
666099
1084318
1041739
~--.~------
High %
0.151905
0.049139
0.026654
0.075411
0.15924
0.259553
0.278097
1
.--------'..
...-
1400000 -f----,----.----.,-,-.-'--..-----""-'-'----..-------"'._--..,,---------.-:
1200000 .+-----,---"..-.---,---.-----------,--,--------....-,----.--..-----,,-.......;
1000000
+------------"--------~----------,----'
800000
Deepwater Horizon Oil
600000
Based on estimated release of 4.9m
400000
200000
Residual includes ,oil

the surface as light sheen ____
and weathered tar balls,
_____
shore, or is buried in sand
and sediments.
004725
High Flow
15.2
4.9
2.7
7.5
16
25.9
27.8
100
-----"---1
15
5
3
7
16
26
28
823452
266375
144485
408792
863,211
1406991
1507515
5420821
Low Flow
823452
266375
144485
408792
666099
1084318
1041739
---~----------.-----
Budget
J barrels
of oil
Unified
Command
Response
Operations
- i
I
!
t
Skimmed
3%
. !
Chemically
Dispersed*
8%
naturally.
0
0
0
0
-197112
-322673
-465776
004726

nongovernmental and governmental specialists reviewing the calculations and conclusions. One teanl .
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 (25%) of the oil released from the wellhead .. One quarter (25%) of the total oil naturally
result of operations)as microscopic droplets into Gulfwaters. The residual amount -just over one
becomes available.

Unified
Command

Response
Operations
sheen and weathered

ashore or been
collected from the
sand and sediments.
8%
*Oil in these 3 categorie, is
naturally.
004727
showtJ. in the pie chart (Figure 1), response efforts were successful in addressing 33% of the spilled oil.
. systems (17%), burning (5%), skimming (3%) and chemical dispersion (8%). Direct capture, burning
as a result of the oil coming out of the riser-pipe at high speed into the water column, which caused some
droplets that are less than 100 microns - about the diameter of a human hair. Oil droplets that are thig
small are neutrally bU9yant and thus remain in the water column where they then begin to biodegrade.
biodegrade.
from the shore,.and some that is buried in sand and sediments and may resurface through time. This oil
004728

. Survey (USGS) Director Marcia McNutt, and a team of Department of Energy (DOE) scientists and
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
. Direct Measures and Best Estimates: The oil budget calculations are based on direct measurements

\,yTyVW geoplatfonn.gov .
001, NASA and NOAA continue to refine understanding of anlounts of remaining surface oil. NOAA
004729
004730

Acknowledgements
Authors
Credits
L TOg) Charity Drew (USCG) - Original Excel spreadsheet and application inspiration
Antonio Possolo and Pedro Espina (NIST) ~ Statistical oil budget model encoded as an R
program
formulas, analysis methods, or reviewed the algorithms used ill the calculator. The team continues to
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Dating, SINTEF
004731
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Mark W Miller; Genevieve Cantey; Justin kenney; Scott Smullen
for sanity read
.
Oil Budget description 8 3 v 215 final.docx
hopefully this is final

Mark please review
Gen is g.iving it a sanity (;Opy edit read
Jennifer Austin
Communications & External Affairs
NOAA
004732
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
"To:
Subject:
Attachments:

oil budget release
Oil Budget Press Release v 1145.docx
Jennifer Austin
282-482-5757 (office) 2e2-3e2-ge47 (cell) www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco
004733
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

oil budget TPs
Oil Budget TPs 8.3.docx
want to do anything with these based on Sean's advice?

Jennifer Austin
004735
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Mark.W.Miller
Re: talking points,
ok thanks. will check in again in a few. interview is now at 2:45~ need to finalize the doc
asap. dont' send to heather yet, let me incorporate her and Jane's most recent changes.
will send youfor a final sanity check soon
also they want to separate the
confusion. thta ok with you?
appendix~
post it onlin, but not as an attachment, to avoid
) Really good. I would probably not include >
> Therefore approximately half the oil is no longer in the system.
>
) Also looks like you are including evap and dissolved with response? So
> dissolved probably can't be assumed is out of the system.
>
) Mark
>
) Jennifer Austin wrote:
can you take a quick look at these and let me know if they seem ok.
can you add a line to describe the sentinal program toward the end.
Jennifer Austin
004736
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Tuesday, August 03, 20101:17 PM
Mark W Miller
talking pOints,
Oil Budget TPs 8.3.docx
can you take a quick look at these and let me know if they seem ok.
describe the sentinal program toward the end.
can you add a line to
Jennifer Austin
292-482-5757 (office) 2e2-392-ge47 (cell) www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco
004737
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Jennifer Austin
NOAA Communications

Tuesday. August 03.201012:59 PM
Scott Smullen
(no subject)
Oil Budget Press Release v 1145.docx
& External
Affairs
004738
Justin Kenney

Griffis, Kevin
Smullen, Scott; Kenney. Justin
Re: FW: Are you writing press release and TPs for the oil budget release?
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
yes
Griffis~
Kevin wrote:
> Are you guys working on this?

>
> -----Original Message----> From: Smith, Sean [mailto:Sean.Smith@dhs.gov]

> Sent: TuesdaYJ August 03 J 2010 12:32 PM
> To: Griffis, Kevin
> Subject: Are you writing press release and TPs for the oil budget release?
>
> Shooting to get it out the door tomorrow am. Advance story happening.
>
>
Jennifer Austin
004756
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Tuesday, August 03,2010 10:31 AM
'Pat.ASimms@noaa.gov'; Jane Lubchenco
latest oil budget
.
Oil Budget description 8.3 v 1030am.docx
attached.
Jennifer Austin
282-482-5757 (office) 282-382-ge47 (cell) www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco
26
004757
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Tuesday, August 03, 2010 10:27 AM
Jane lubchenco
'pat.a.simms@noaa.gov'
Re: Talk?
yes I've just about finished incorporating

mins.
revisions~
will come up with a latest draft in 5
I don't have TPs or PR yet. Will move to that as soon as this is finalized.
> Jen - can we check in briefly in abt 1e min so I know where we are w the oil budget
revisions~ TPs, PR~ etc.
Later is ok if you're busy.
> Thx!
>
>
>
> Jane Lubchenco
>
> Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere
>
> Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
>
> Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov
>
> (2e2) 482-3436
>
> Join me on Facebook:
>
Jennifer Austin
27
004759
29
004760
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Mark Miller
'
latest for circulation to review team
Hi,
Dr L likes the line about toxicity, so i think we leave it. She also thinks Bill should be
included as an author, unless he feels strongly, I've left him and you as authors for now.
It would be ideal if we can add author's titles or credentials, aka PhD's etc.
I know Dr L's, and I'm sure,can find Marcia McNutt online, can you track that down for the
others in the author list?
Double check my numbers please, and then I think this is as final as it gets from NOAA.
can circulate to the review group, and tell them to get comments to you and I by 10 am
tomorrow.
Thanks Mark, Jen
Jennifer Austin
202-302-9047
www.noaa.gov
www.climate.gov
30
You
004761
FINAL DRAFT

The National Incident Command (NIC) assembled a number of interagency expert scie'ntific teams to
estimate the quantity of BP Deepwater Horiz~n oil that has been released from the well and the fate of
and governmental specialists reviewing the calculations and conclusions. One teanl calculated the flow
rate and total oil released. Led by Energy Secretary Steven Chu and United States Geological Survey
(USGS) Director Marcia McNutt, this team announced on August 2, 2010 that it 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 Interior (DOl) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) developed a tool, called the Oil Budget Calculator, to detennine what happened
to the oil. The calculator uses the 4.9 million barrel estimate as its input and uses both direct
measurements and the best scientific estimates available to date, to determine what has happened to the
oil. TIle interagency scientific report below builds upon the calculator and summarizes the disposition
of the oil to date.
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 tarballs, has washed
becomes available.
i--
--_._--_._----_.._-_._-_._..__._..... _--_.__...

Unified
I
I
I
i
Command

the surrace as light
sheen and weathered
tarbalis, has washed
ashore or been
collected from the
sand and sediments.
Response
Operations
Skimmed
3%
Chemically
8%
L___._
*Oil in these 3 ca'legories is

naturally.
004762
Figure 1: Oil Budget - Shows current best estimates of what has happened to the oil.
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
that the oil will be biodegraded, both in the water column and at the surface. Until it is biodegraded"
naturally or chemi9ally 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 fornl 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 natural processes.
004763
Biodegradation: Dispersed oil in the water column and oil on the surface of the water biodegrade.
the BP Deepwater Horizon spill is biodegrading quickly. Scientists from NoAA, EPA, DOE, and
large part because of the warm water, the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, and the fact'that oil
Flow Rate: The Oil Budget Calculator starts with an estimate ofthe cumulative amount of oil released
National Incident Command's Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG), led by United States Geological
2010, at which time the flow of oil was suspended. The uncertainty on this estimate is 10% (cite:
Flow Rate Technical Group, website or report). The pie chart above is based on this group's estimate of
4.9 million barrels of oil.
Incident Budget Tool Report from Aug 1, 2010. The tool was created by the US Geological Survey in
understanding of the fate, transport and impact of the oiL The federal government will continue to report
wwvl.restorethegulf.gov, and data from the response and monitoring can be found at
\~'\"w.geoplatform.gov .
dispersant and crude oil components with special attention to human health impacts. Numerous NOAA-
004764
and NSF-funded academic researchers and NOAA scientists are investigating rates of biodegradation,
ecosystem and wildlife impacts. 001 and DOE responders are working to ensure control of the weIland
Eyen 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
004765

What has happened to the oil?
Authors
Credits
prograJ:'-':l
LCDR Lance Lindgren, CDR Peter Hoffman, CDR Sean O'Brien, and L T Amy McElroy
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Pat Lanlbert, Env. Canada
Per Daling, SINTEF
004766
dispersant and crude oil components with special attention to human health iinpacts. Numerous NOAAand NSF-funded academic researchers and NOAA scientists are investigating rates of biodegradation,
Attachments
Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Gulf Incident Budget Tool Report from Aug 1,2010, contains
004767
shore, and some that is buried in sand and sediments and may resurface through time. This oil has also
Explanati,on of Methods and Assumptions
barrels of oil flowed from the Deepwater HorizonlBP wellhead between April 22, 2010 and July .15,
FlowRfite Technical Group, website or report). The pie chart above is based on this group's estimate of
wherever possible and the best available scientific estimates where measurements were not possible:
expertise. Further information on these methods is available in Appendix A. These 'numbers will
Federal agencies and many academic and independent scientists are actively pursuing better'
activities, results and data to the public on a regular basis. Updates' and information can be found at
\\!,\\lw.restoretheguIt:gov, and data from the response and monitoring can be found at
\vww.geoplatfom1.gov.
001, NASA and NOAA continue to refine understanding of anlounts of remaining surface oil. NOAA
submerged oil, and researchers continue subsurface scanning and sanlpling to monitor the concentration,
distribution and impact of oil there. EPA and NOAA have carefully monitored Bp1s use of dispersant in
004768
shown in the pie chart (Figure 1), response efforts were successful in dealing with 33% of the spilled oil.
and skimming remove the oil from the water entirely, while chemically dispersed'oil remains in the
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 defmed 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
decreasing with distance from the wellhead. (citation: Federal loint Analysis Group Report 1 and 2,
http://ecowatch.ncddc.noaa.gov/JAG/rep0l1s.html). Oil that was chemically dispersed at the surface
biodegrade.
Dispersion is the process by which larger volumes of oil are broken down into smaller droplets of oiL
operations, dispersion,and evaporation and dissolution, an estimated 26% remains. This figure is a
004769
DRAFT 8.3v lOam

that oil. The expertise of government scientists on these teams is complemented by non-goverrunental
speci.alists 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
bru:rels of oil have been released from the BP Deepwater Horizon well. A second interagency team, led
by McNutt, 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 avaiiable 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 ofthe 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.
- - - - -_._-_..__._._.-_..-.---_ _-_ .. _......._._._--- ..._...._-_._..__._._--..-._--,
..
Based on estimated release of 4.9m barrels of oN

Unified
Command
Response
Operations
~'Residual
oil includes
oil that is on or just
below the surface as
residue and weathered
tarballs, has washed
ashore or been
collected from the
shore, i$ buried in sand
and sediments. or has
Skimmed
3%
degraded.
Chemically
Dispersed
8%
" . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ ..... _ . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ " . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . _~.
'H . . ' _ . _ ~ ~" .. _ ...... w _ . , w w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . w
,. ,
004770

Authors
Stephen Harrunond, USGS, DOl
Credits
The following scientists were involved. in developing the Oil Budget Calculator tool:
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
.Kevin Gallagher, Martha Garcia, and Stephen Hammond .(USGS) - Executive sponsors
Federal Scientists .
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Al Allan, SpilTec
, Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
004771
to ensure accurate measurement of oil released and oil remaining in the environment. DOl is leading"
Even though the threat to shorelines, fish ~d wildlife, and ecosystems has decreased since the 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
"M barrels, which is the same as the pie chart used above. The cylindrical chart on pages 3 and 5 of the
004772
naturally. While there is more analysis to' be done to quantify the rate of biodegradation in the Gulf,
the BP Deepwater Horizon spill is biodegrading quickly. 'Scientists from NOAA, EPA, DOE, and
academic scientists are working to calculate more precise estimates ofthis rate. It is well known that
Explanation
of Methods and
Assumptions
.
.
2010, at which time the flow of oil was suspended. The uncertainty on this estimate is !: 10% (cite:
. Flow Rate Technical Group, website ortepori). The pie chart above is based on this group's estimate of

understanding of the fate, transport. and impact of the oil. The federal government will continue to report
\\>'\\>w.restorethegulf.gov, and data from the response and monitoring can be found at
DOl, NASA and NOAA continue to refine understanding of amounts of remaining surface oiL NOAA
004773
'dispersed oil' is defined as droplets that are less than 100 microns - about the diameter of-a human hair.
then begin to biodegrade. Chemical dispersion also breaks the oil up into small droplets to keep it from
biodegrade.
004774
DRAFT 8.3v llam

that oiL The expertise of government scientists on these teams is complemented by non-governmental
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 determiJie what happened to
the oil. The calculator uses the 4.9mbarrel 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
microscopic droplets into Gulfwaters. The residual amount, just over one quarter, is either on or just
available.

Based on estimated release of 4.9m barrels of oj(
Unified

the surface as residue
Command
Response
Operations
and weathered tarballs,

been collected trom the
sand and sediments.
8%
*The~e 3 percEintages represent
oil initially in these categories that
is now degrading.
~.,
......... _
_._ ....
_~
..... w . . _w _ _ _ _
_ ,_
"
. . . . . . . . . . . ,-. . . . . , _ _ _ _
"
...... _ _ w . . . . . . , _ " , , _ ,
.,.
_,
Figure 1: Oil Budget Shows current best estimates of what has happened to the oil.
004775
,Deepwater HorizonlBP Oil Budget:

Authors
Credits
L TOg) Charity Drew (USCG) - Original Excel spreadsheet and application inspiration
program
LCDR Lance Lindgren, CDR Peter Hoffinan, CDR Sean O'Brien, and LT Amy McElroy
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Dating, SINTEF
004776
and are investigating the rates of biodegradation of sub-surface oiL
in the Gulf region wil1 take time and continued monitoring and research.
Attachments
Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon GuifIncident Budget Tool Report from Aug 1, 2010, contains
004777
Biodegradation: Dispersed oil in the' water column and oil on the surface of the water biodegrade
Flow Rate: The Oil Budget Calculator starts with an estimate of the cumulative. amount of oil released
barrels of oil flowed from the Deepwater HorizonlBP wellhead between April 22, 2010 and July 15,
Flow Rat.eTecimical Group, website of report); The pie chart above is based on this group's estimate of
The numbers for direct recovery and burns were measured dire,ctly and reported in daily operational
expertise. Further information on these methods is available in Appendix A. These numbers wi1l
\\'\\'w.restorethegulf.gov, and data from the response and monitoring can be found at
004778
'dispersed oil' is defined as droplets that are less than 100 microns - about the diameter of a human hair.
then begin to biodegrade. Chemical dispersion also breaks the oil up into small droplets to keep it from .
biodegrade.
Residual: After accounting for the categories that can be measured directly or estimated, i.e., recovelY
004779
DRAFT 8.3v 11:30am

The National Incident Command (NIC)assembled a number of interagency expert scientific teams to
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 tne 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 o~
microscopic droplets into Gulf waters. The residual amount,just over one quarter, is either on or just
available.

Based on estimated release oj 4.9m barrels of oil
Unified
Command

the surface as residue
and weathered tarballs,
been collected Irom the
sand and sediments.
Response
Operations
3%
emicallV
8%
*These 3 percentages represnl
oil initiClIIv in thl:!se categories tha l
is now degrading.
_'_._'0'." ............... _ .......... , .... __ .... '" w_,
............. ___ ..... _ _ _ _ ............... _ _
.~
........ _ ....... _
~
~._.
__ _ .. _ ' _ "."'" '_"' _ _
'~'_"_""'_'_"
__ '_' __
'''''_~'~'
_ .. _ .. _
......... _ .
..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . __ .. .
004780
These estimates were derived by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra.tion (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 2S of the best government and independent scientists contributed to or
reviewed the calculator and its calculation methods.
004781
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 of the oil
released from the wellhead.
An additional one quarter of the total oil naturally evaporated or di'ssolved, and just less than one
q~arter
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 arid 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 NOAA administrator. "Less oil on the surface does not mean that there
isn't oil still in the water column or that our beaches and marshes aren't still at risk. Knowing generally
what happened to the oil helps us better understand areas of risk and likely impacts."
Quote from McNutt?
This tool does not make conclusions about the long term impacts of oil on the different part so the Gulf.
Fully understanding the damages and impacts of the spill on the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem is something
that will take time and continued monitoring and research.
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.
004782

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 DQEare conducting studies to better quantify the
rate of biodegration.
As for residual oil, some of it is on shorelines, and we know that over 600
miles of Gulf shoreline have been impacted.
Much of it remains in the water where it continues to weather and degrage

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. (need a line or two about the sentinel program)
004783
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?
estimates.
The oil budget calculations are based on direct measurements wherever

were not possible. The tool uses the Flow Rate Technical Group's estimate
from yesterday as its starting point, which is a cumulative release of 4.9m
barrels of oil.

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.
004784

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 shoreline have been impacted.
Much of it remains in the water where it continues to weather and degrade

into small tarballs. At this point most tarballs are just below the surface
and are very difficult to see with our normal surveillance activities.
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)
004785
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 alt
the oil go?
estimates.
The oil budget calculations are based on direct measurements wherever

were not possible. The tool uses the Flow Rate Technical Group's estimate
from yesterday as its starting point, which is a cumulative release of 4.9m
barrels of oil.

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.
004786
These estimates were derived by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the
Department of the Interior (DOlt 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.
004787
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,
includi ng burning, skim ming and direct recovery from the wellhead removed one quarter of the 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 natiJrally 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 quic.kly.
*embed pie chart here*
//Teams of scientists and experts have been carefully tracking the oil since day one of this spill, and
useful estimates about the fate ofthe oil," says Jane Lubchenco, under secretary of commerce for
oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator. //Less oil on the surface does not mean that there
isn't oil still in the water column or that our beaches and marshes aren't still at risk. Knowing generally
what happened to the oil helps us better understand areas of risk and likely impacts."
Quote from McNutt?
This tool does not make conclusions about the long term impacts of oil on the different part so the Gulf.
Fully understanding the damages and impacts of the spill on the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem is something
that will take time and continued monitoring and research.
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.
004788

Acknowledgements
Authors
Credits
Bill Lehr (NOAA) - Lead mass balance and.oil budget scientist
program
LCDR Lance Lindgren, CDR Peter Hoffinan, CDR Sean O'Brien, and LT Amy McElroy
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Al Allan, SpilTec
Tom Coolbaugh, Exxon Mobil.
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
004789


... Government estimate of discharge ranged from 62,200 bbl on April 22, 2010 to 52.700 bbl on July 14.2010.

Report generated by sbristol@usgs.gov on 08i02/2010 05:30 PM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard
and
provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
004790
Government Estimates Through August 01 (Day 104)
1,500,000
1,250,000
(I'J
-...
1,000,000
Q)
...
(\'J
.c
750,000
500,000
250,000
o
-
May-2010
Jun-2010
Expected Value -
Jul-2010
Aug-2010

004791


*> Higher F!ow Estimate is based on the government discharge estimate pius 10% uncertainty .
... Maximum discharge ranged from 68,390 bbl on April 22, 2010 to 58.022 bbl on July 14, 2010.

Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Natlona!
004792
1, 750,000
1,500,0001
1,250,000
1
I
U)
.~ 1,000,0001
750,000
I
I
500,000
250,000 t
I
oJ ____~____--____--~----------~~~~~~~==
-
MCly-2010
Jun-2010
Expected Value -
Jul-2010
Aug-2010

Report generated by sbristol@usgs.gov on 08i02/2010 05:30 PM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Naiionai
004793

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

~1 Lower Flow Estimate is based on the government discharge estimate minus 10% uncertainty,
m
Maximum discharge ranged from 55,956 bb! on April 22, 2010 to 47,472 bbl on July 14, 2010.

Report generated by sbristol@usgs,gov on 08/02/2010 05:30 PM MDT,
See ehd notes section of the report for reference material on report elements.
Application operated by the U,S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
004794
1,300,000
1,200,000
1,100,000
1,000,000
900,000
U)
800,000
Q)
r...
r...
700,000
..Q
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
-
May-2010
Jun-2010
Expected Value -
Jul-2010
Aug-2010

004795
Reference Notes
Chart- Cumulative/Daily VolurT!e Remaining on the Surface

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

correspond to the cumulative values in the table. See the footnotes (available in the Web application by'
reference material.
Discharged
On July 31, 2010, the U.S. scientific teams charged by National Incident Commander Thad Allen with
bbllday when the well was capped on July 14 with an uncertainty factor of 10%. The uncertainty factor.
Based on reports of major explosions and burning oil from the first two days of the incident (April 20-21 ),
the estimate begins on April 22, 2010. In general, the discharge rate trended down over time du e to
45), resulted in an estimate of discharge increase of approximately 4%. Placement of the contai nment

Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Orl Budget
Report generated by sbristol@usgs.gov on 08/0212010 05:30 PM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation wHl1!he Nationel
004796
the leaking BP well was announced. The most likely now rate of oil at that time was estimated between

RITT and Top Hat are mechanical devices that British Petroleum (SP) has used to recover oil from the
the Q4000 are reported by BP,entered daily by National Incident Command personnel, and used in the
Dispersed Naturally
Natural oil dispersion is estimated using the methods described in this annotation arid background
Natural subsurface dispersion 'calculates the total discharge minus an estimation of subsurface
Report generated by sbristo/@usgs.gov on 08/02/2010 05:30 PM MOT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation wilh the Nationa!
.
004797
-Measured amount removed via RITT and Top Hat .
. -Calculated amount of subsurface dispersion

The amount available for recovery. both daily and cumUlative, is simply the remaining oil after removing
Skimmed
Skimmed oil is a rough calc.ulation based on the daily reported amount of oily water multiplied by a
Burned
Total burned values are entered daily by National Incident Command personnel and used in dally and
cumulative totals.

Report generated by sbristof@usgs.gov on 08;02;2010 05:30 PM MDT,
Application operated by the U,S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
.
004798
Dispersant Used
Oil Remaining
Volume of oil remaining after other known volume totals are removed 'from the total discharged.

Report generated by sbristol@usgs.gov on 08102/201005:30 PM MDT.
004799
DRAFT 8.2v 7pm

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

Based on estimated release oj 4.9 M barrels 0/ oil
I
I
Federal
"Residual oil includes

oil that is on or just
Response
Operations
below the surface as

residue and weathered
tarballs. has washed

ashore or been
collected from the
shore, or some is
buried in sand and
sediments.
kimmed
3%
8%
_Figure 1: Oil Budget - Shows current best estimates of what has happened to the oil.
004800
Federal Response Efforts: Response efforts to deal with the oil have been aggressive. As shown in the
pie chart (Figure I), 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
and skimming remove the oil from the water entirely. while chemically dispersed oil remains in the
water column, which caused some of the oil to spray off in small droplets. For the purpose Qfthis
analysis, 'dispersed oil' is defined as droplets that are less than 100 microns - about the diameter of a
human hair. Oil droplets that are this small remain in the water column where they then begin to
ended up both in the water column and at the surface. Dispersion increases the likelihood for the oil to
be biodegraded both in the water column and at the surface. Until it is biodegraded, dispersed oil, even
in dilute amounts, can be toxiC to vulnerable species.
All of the naturally dispersed oil and much of the oil that was chemically dispersed remained well below
the surface in diffuse clouds, where it began to diffuse and biodegrade. Previous analyses have shown
evidence of diffuse clouds of dispersed oil between 3300 and 4300 feet in low concentrations; moving in
the direction of known ocean currents and decreasing with distance from the wellhead. (citation: Federal
Joint Analysis Group Report 1 and 2, http://ecowatch.ncddc.l1oaa.gov/lAG/reports.html). Oil that was
chemically dispersed at the surface remained at the surface and began to biodegrade there.
Evaporation and Dissolution: It is estimated that 25% of the oil volume quickly evaporated or dissolved
into the water column. The evaporation and dissolution rate estimate is based on scientific research and
Dissolution in the water column is distinct from dispersion. Dispersed oil is small droplets of oil, while
dissolution describes the process by which some individual hydrocarbon molecules from the oil separate
and dissolve into the water just as sugar can be dissolved in water.
Residual: After accounting for recovery operations, dispersion, evaporation and dissolution, an
estimated 26% remains. This figure is a combination of categories that are difficult to measure or
estimate. It includes oil still on or just below the surface in the form of light sheen or tarballs, oil that
has. washed ashore or been collected from the shore, and some that is buried in sand and sediments and
may resurface through time. This oil has also begun to degrade through a number of natural processes.
004801
Biodegradation: Dispersed oil in the water column and oil on the surface of the water naturally
biodegrade. While there is more analysis to be done to quantify the exact rate of biodegradation in the
Gulf. early observations and preliminary research results from a number of scientists show that the oil
from this source is biodegrading quickly. Scientists from NOAA, EPA and DOE are working to
calculate a more precise estimate of this rate. It is well known that bacteria that break down the
dispersed and weathered surface oil are abundant in the Gulf of Mexico in large part because of the
warm water there, the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, and the fact that oil enters the Gulf of
Mexico through natural seeps regularly.
SUrvey (USGS) Director Marcia McNutt, and a team of Department of Energy (DOE) scientists and
FlowRate Technical Gtoup,webslte or report). The pie chart above is based on this group's estimate of
were based on previous scientific analyses, best .available information and a broad range of scientific

vl',\\,w.restorethegulf.gov, and data from the response and monitoring can be found at
Dor, NASA and NOAA continue to refine understanding of amounts of remaining surface oil. NOAA
distribution and impact of oil there. EPA has carefully monitored BP's use of dispersant in the Gulf and
continues to monitor the air, water and sediments near the shoreline for the presence of dispersant and
crude oil components with special attention to human health impacts. Numerous NOAA- and NSFfunded academic researchers are investigating rates of biodegradation, ecosystem and wildlife impacts.
DOl responders are working to ensure control of the well; to ensure accurate measurement of oil
004802
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
. detailed explanation of calculation methods. The tool was created by the US Geological Survey in
collaboration with US Coast Guard; NOAA, and NIST.
. segthent.1)e image on page one of Appendix A uses the c1.lm.ulative release estimate of 4.9 M barrels,
\Vllipl:l.isth~~am~as.m~ piecl1~ used above. The tfu-ee images represent the actual estimate, as well as
th~ upper aijd lower bound 9f the 10 % uncertainty of the estimate.
004803
Deepwater HorizonlBP Oil Budget

Authors
Credits
Kevin Gallagher, Stephen Hammond and Martha Garcia (USGS) - Executive sponsors
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
004804
DRAFT 8.2v 7pm

'-,
BP Deepwater HoriZon Oil Budget

, The National Incident Command (NIC) assembled a stellar scientific team composed of government and
contained, evaporated and dispersed from the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. They developed a tool.
called the Oil Budget Calculator, to determine what happened to the oil. The numbers in the calculator
The figure used for release oil, 4,.9 mill ion barrels, is the most recent estimate announced on August 2.
2010 by the National Incident Command's Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG), led by United States
Geological Survey (USGS) Director Marcia McNutt, and a team of Department of Energy (DOE)
scientists and engineers, led by Energy Secretary Steven Chu.
Based on these numbers, it is estimated that burning, skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead
removed one quarter of oil released from the wellhead. One quarter of the total oil naturally evaporated
or dissolved and just less than one quarter dispersed (either naturally or as a result of operations) as
small droplets into the Gulfwaters. The residual amount, just over one quarter, is either on or just below
the surface as residue and weathered tarballs, has washed ashore or been collected from the shore, or is
buried in sand and sediments.

Based on e~limaled release oJ 4.9 M barrels of oil
Federal
"Residual oil in,bdes

oilrhilt is on or ius!
Respon~e
Operations
bE-low lee :;;;rlacE as

resid~e a'ld wealhered
, jr.,mll", h~, ",~"h.. d
osher\! or been
<.rlet.l..u r...mlll,,,
Shore, or )ome i5
buried in sa'1d ~nd
sedimnt5.
8%
Figure I: Oil Budget - Shows current best estimates of what has happened to the oil.
004805
systems (17%), burning (5%), skimming (3%) a,nd chemical dispersion (8%). Direct capture, burning
water until it is bi~degraded, as discussed below.
-. Dispersion: Based on estimates, 16% of the oil dispersed naturally into the water column and 8% was
. water column, which caused some of the oil to spray otT in small droplets. For the purpose of this
analysis, 'dispersed oil' is defined as droplets that are less than 100 micrqns - about the diameter of a
human hair. Oil droplets that are this small remain in the water column where they then begin to
ended up both in the water column and at the surface. Dispersion increases the likelihood for the oil to
be biodegraded both in the water column and at the surface. Until it is biodegraded, dispersed oil, even
in dilute amounts, can be toxic Lo vulnerable species.
All of the naturally dispersed oil and much of the oil that was chemically dispersed remained well below
the surface in diffuse clouds, where it began to diffuse and biodegrade. Previous analyses have shown
evidence of diffuse clouds of dispersed oil between 3300 and 4300 feet in low concentrations, moving in
the direction of known ocean currents and decreasing with distance from the wellhead. (citation: Federal
Joint Analysis Group Report I and 2, http://ecowatch.ncddc.noaa.govfJAG/report~.html). ()ilthat was
chemi~nydispersedatthe surfage remained at the surface-and began to biodegrade there:
Evaporation and Dissolution: It is estimated that 25% of the oil volume quickly evaporated or dissolved
observations conducted during the Deepwater Horizon incident DitTerent evaporation rates are used for
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.
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 tarbillls, oil that
has washed ashore or been collected from the shore, and some that is buried in sand and seqiments and
may resurface through time. This oil has also begun to degrade through a number of natural processes.
004806
Biodegradation: Dispersed oil in the water column and oil on the surface of the water naturally
biodegrade. While there is more analysis to be done to quantifY the exact rate of biodegradation in the
Gul f. early observations and preliminary research results from a number of scientists show that the oi I
from this source is biodegrading quickly. Scientists from NOAA, EPA and DOE are working to
calculate a more precise estimate of this rate. It is well known that bacteria that break down the
over the course of the spill. The newest estimates reflect the collaborative work and discussions ofthe
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,
Flow Rat~TechniCaIGroup.website or report). The pie chart above is based on this group's estimate of
Our knowledge of the oil. dispersants, ecosystem impacts and human impacts will continue to evolve.
www.restorethegulf.e:ov, and data from the response and monitoring can be found at
www.geopiatform.gov.
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 shoreli ne for the presence of dispersant and
crude oil components with special attention to human health impacts. Num.erous NOAA- and NSFfunded academic researchers are investigating rates of biodegradation. ecosystem and wildlife impacts.
DOl responders are working to ensure control of the well; to ensure accurate measurement of oil
004807
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.
of the BP wellhead, federal scientists remain extremely concerned about the impact ofthe spill to the
Attachments
Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Gulf Incident Budget Tool Report from July 30, 20 IO. contains
.
categories of chemically dispersed, naturally dispersed, and evaporated or dissolved, irito one colored
segment.. The image on page one of Appendix Ausesthec\lmulative release estimate of 4.9 M barrels,
which is the sarneas. the pie chart uSed above. The three images represent the actual estimate, as well as
the:upper and lower-bound of the 10 % uncertainty of the estimate.
004808
Deepwater HorizonlBP Oil Budget

What bas bappened to tbe oil?
Authors

Marcia McNutt,. USGS, 001
Mark. Miller, NOAA,' DOC
Credits
Jeff Allen (USGS) - (nterface designer
refine the analysisand 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
004809
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Mark Miller
Re: latest version
just updated that. Justin had no comments J said it looks better.

more will send latest in a few minutes.
Jane just sent me a few
Mark Miller wrote:

> JenJ
>
> So I think we should to update the numbers in the chart before we send
> it out.
>
> Discharged - 4,928,949
> Recovered via RITT and Top Hat - 827,946 (17%) 16.8
> Dispersed Naturally - 763,936 (15.5%)

> Evaporated or Dissolved - 1,243,712 ( 25%) 25.2
> Available for Recovery - 2,993,346
> Chemically Dispersed - 498,792 (8%) 8.3
> Burned - 265,459 (5%) 5.4
> Skimmed - 165,293 (3%) 3.4
> Remaining - 1,253,811(25%) 25.4
>
>
Hi Mark - here is the latest for your review.
Justin can you have a look again too and see if you think it's better.
thanks, Jen
Jennifer Austin
292-392-9947
www.noaa.gov
www.climate.gov
004810
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Mark Miller
(no subject)
Hi Mark,
Jane mentioned it would be good for Murawski to review this sooner rather than later, as
well. Please send to him as soon as you get to take a quick look.
Jennifer Austin
202-302-9047
www.noaa.gov
www.climate.gov
004811
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Jane Lubchenco
[Fwd: latest version]
latest version, I'll plug in the new numbers now. Here they are.
Discharged - 4,928~040
Recovered via RITT and Top Hat -827,046 (17%) Dispersed Naturally - 763,936 (15.5%)
Evaporated or Dissolved' - 1,243,712 ( 25%) Available for Recovery - 2,093,346 Chemically
Dispersed - 408,792 (8%) Burned - 265,450 (5%) Skimmed - 165,293 (3%) Remaining 1,253,811(25%)

latest version
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 17:45:25 -0400
T~:
Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>,Justin kenney
<Justin.kenney@noaa.gov>

thanks, Jen
Jennifer Austin
202-302-9047
www.noaa.gov
www.climate . gov
Jennifer Austin'
202-3e2-ge47
www.noaa.gov
www.climate . gOY
004812
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Mark Miller; Justin kenney
latest version
Oil Budget description B.2 v 6pm.docx

thanks, Jen
Jennifer Austin
NOAA
202-302-9047
www.noaa.gov
www.climate . gov
004813
Justin Kenney
From: .
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Mark Miller
yet another draft
Hi Mark.,
I'm starting to go cross -eyed, but here i$ my latest draft. I still need to work in the
"What EPA is still doing to monitor part," but they sent me 3 paragraphs, so I figured I' d
send this to you now to have a look, while I work on consolidating that. I'm sure the WH is
getting anxious to see the latest. See if you think this gets at most of the comments.
Thanksl
Jennifer Austin
202-302-9047
noaa. gov
www.climate.gov
WWW.
004869
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Saturday, July31, 2010 11:02 PM
Mark Miller
Re: First attempt
Oil Budget description 7.31 v 11 pm.docx
How about this? I reworked that paragraph a bit and took the other edits.
Also who is working on the press release? have they seen our document?
we need to make sure they are consistent and that all the comments that have gone into this
also are addressed in that. Unless you mean a press release about the flow rate only. I
don't need to be involved in that~ but do want to be involved in development of any oil
budget tool press materials~ to ensure consistencYJ and b~cause I think NOAA will end up as
the spokesperson on that part.
At this point I think we call it a nightJ and see where things stand in the morning.
much more I can do from here I think.
Mark Miller wrote:
> Jen J
>
> 2 emails - just got one saying USGS is almost done with the tool
> update but am forwarding a second from some DHS folks working the
> Press Release and they say it won't be out until Monday or Tuesday.
>
> I would say that would affect our turnaround time.
>
> Mark
>
>
>

III send you some ideas on this but we're still waiting on the output
numbers right? What turn around time do we need?
Jennifer Austin J NOAA Communications J 2823829847
----- Original Message ---- From: Mark Miller <mark.w.miller@noaa.gov>

Sent: Sat Jul 31 28:22:58 2818
Subject: First attempt
Jen J
Here is my attempt at describing the Oil Budget tool flow regime.
Higher Flow Estimate = 62 J 888 +18% on Day 3 to 52 J 888 +18% on day 87
Lower Flow Estimate = 62 J888 - 18% on Day 3 to 52 J 88e - 18% on day.87
And our pie chart will use the cumulative number from the Higher Flow
Estimate
Mark
61
Not
004870
Jennifer Austin
2e2-3e2-ge47
www.noaa.gov
www.climate.gov
62
004871
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Sarri, Kristen; Mark Miller
Hi Kris,
Thanks, I do like AND better than VERSUS, let's definitely change that.
I went back and forth on percent or %. I ended with % thinking it's kind of a science
document so maybe we can get away with that. Same with using the numbers as numbers, not
written out, though it doesn't conform to AP style, I think it makes it easier for people to
follow the math and groupings we are doing, and jump back and forth between the image and the
explanations. That's my two cents. If you actually were an English teacher and feel
strongly about "percent" I could be persuaded.
> Thanks Mark. I am on standby for when we get the final document and will send forward.
>
> I have 2 edits to suggest to document. First, are we better to say Direct Measures AND
Best Estimates vs. "versus"?
>
> Second, and this is a picky junior highenglish teacher edit, when we use % in the text of
a sentence, can we change to "percent"?

>
> -------------------------------------
> From: Mark Miller [Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov]

> Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2010 4:e0 PM
> To: Austin, Jennifer

> Cc: Spring, Margaret; Conner, William; Smullen, Scott; Lubchenco,
> Janej Gilson, Shannonj Griffis, Kevinj Sarri, Kristenj Shah, Parita
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Dr. Lubchenco,
Here is the latest copy (prior to final numbers from the Oil Budget
tool). As soon as you provide the okay my understanding is that Kris
will forward to Bob Perciasepe and Marcia McNutt. Then as soon as the
Oil Budget tool team completes their update then Jen and I will update
our document and send it on to continue with the clearance process.
Mark
> If anyone else needs to be on ~he call, we have a different call in

> number than I sent outlet me know.
>
63
004872
>
------------------------------------~From: Jennifer Austin [Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov]
> Cc: Mark Millerj William Conner; Scott Smullen; Jane Lubchencoj
> Kristen Sarri (doc) (KSarri@doc.gov)j Parita Shah (Pshah@doc.gov)
>>>
> I can be on at 2 pm.
>>>

>
>
Am on phone with Jane now - can we have a call with Jane, Mark,
Jen, Bill Conner on this? 2 pm?

>> work on the"ir concerns.
>>>>
>>>>
------------------------------------From: Margaret Spring [margaret.spring@noaa.gov]

Shannon Gilson (SGilson@doc.gov); Kevin Griffis (kgriffis@doc.goV)j
Kristen Sarri (doc) (KSarri@doc.gov)j Parita Shah (Pshah@doc.gov)
(HQ)
dispersep 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%)
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):
64
004873
--------~--~--~------~~-------
From: Mark Miller [mark.w.millen@noaa.gov]
Sent: Saturday~ July 31 J 2010 11:45 AM
-To: Margaret Spring
Cc: Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Jane lubchencoj
Margaret~
'
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 3:0e AM PDT.
I have sent Jennifer a marked up copy of the doc and we are poised
to enter the new numbers from the updated Oil Budget tool which is
presently targeted to be done approximately 2:0e 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. PossoIo to discuss and address this. Bill is
on his way to the Sand Point facility in order to set up for the
Mark
> Circling in shannon, parita J kevin, kris - .

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
, >
>
>
-----------------------------------From: Margaret Spring

Scott Smullen
Cc: Jane Lubchenco
Mark,
Jennifer-

65
004874
>
>>>>>
> ------------------------------------->>> From: Mark IVliller [mark.w.miller@noaa.gov]
> Sent: Friday~ July 38 J 2818 11:88 PM
> To: Jennifer Austinj Margaret Springj William Connerj Scott
>>>>> Smullen
>
>
>>>>> Mark
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
> Jennifer Austin
> 282-382-9847
>>> www.noaa.gov
> www.climate.gov
> www.facebook.com/noaa..lubchenco
>>>
>>>
> >
Jennifer Austin
282-382-9847
www.noaa.gov
www.climate . gOY
66
004875
DRAFT 8.2v 6pnz

contained, evaporated and dispersed from the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. They developed a tool,
--
Based on estimated release 0/4.9 .'vi barrels of oil

'The rcsicual oil is
either;:lt the surface
ilslight sheen or
Federal
Response
Operations
has beer
biodcgn:dcd, or hil~
alre!ldy come ashore.
Summary of Findings
Burning, skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead removed roughly one quarter of the 4.9 m
barrels of oi I. Around a quarter of the total oil naturally evaporated or dissolved and less than one
quarter dispersed (either naturally or as a result of operations) as small droplets into the Gulf waters.
The remaining amount, just over one quarter, is either on the surface, in tar bails, on the shore, already
004876
pie chart (Figure I). response efforts were successful in dealing with 30% ofthe spilled oil. This
systems (15%), burning (5%). skimming (3%) and chemical dispersion (7%). Direct capture, burning
water column until it is biodegraded, as discussed below.
water column. which caused some of the oil to spray off in small droplets. For Ihl! purpose oflhis
analvsis. 'dispersed oW is defined as droplets that arc less than 100 microns - about the diameter of a
human hair. Oil droplets thaI are this small become neulrallv buoyant and 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 SUI't11ce and bd()w the surface. therefore the cht'mkallv
dispersed \)i/ ended up both in the water column and at the surl~l~'e" Dispersion increases the likelihood
for the oil to be naturally dissolved and biodegraded both in the water column and at the SUrfll.CC,
hO\'?e.ver~ until itisbiodegraded,dispersed oU;even dilute amounts, can be toxic to V1llnerable
species:-i~.:.wat-el eelui'l'7fi.
in
All of the natllrdllv dispersed oil and much or tile oil that was chemically dispersed remained well below
the surface in diffuse clouds. where it bce.an to dintls.;: and biodce.rade. Previous analyses have shown
evidence of diffuse clouds of disper$ed oil between 3300 and 4300 feet in low concentrations. movimr in
the direction ofknowrl ocean cmrenL'> .md decreasim! with distance l'i"Dln the wellhead. (citation: Federal
Joint Analysis Group Report I and 2, http://ecowatch.ncddc.noaa.goviJAG/reports.html). -Oil that was
chemicallv dispersed at the ~lIrrace remained at the surface and began to biodegrade there.
Evaporation und Dissolutioll: It is estimated that 26% of the oil volume quickly evaporated or dissolved
DissolutklO in the water ~'olullln is distinct from dispersion. Disper::;ed oil is small droplets of oil. while
dissolution describes the pmcess bv which some individual hvdrocarbon molecules fi"om the ~)il separate
and dissolve into the \"'llU~r jllS! as sugar can be dissl}lved in waler.
R,!,jd/!{{/: After accounting for recovery operations, dispersion, evaporation and dissolution, an
estimated 28% remains. This figure is~.combination of categorics that arc difticult 1(1 measure or
estimate. It includes oil still on or juS! below the surrace. oil that has washed a:<:hore or been collected
from the shore. and :'lome that is buried in sand and sediments and mllV resur1'ilce through lime. Thi" oil
has also be!2un w decrade through n number ofnaluml process~s.
Biodegradation: Dispersed oil in the water column and oil on the surface of the 'wah:r -naturally
biodegrads:. While there is more llnalvsis to be done (0 qu!Hllif\' the cxact rate ofbiodegruda!iol1 ill tile
Ciulf. carl\' observal'lons and preliminarv research results from a number of scientists show fha! Ihe oil
~'--'-'--~---"-'--'---'~----"""--""
i Comment [jl1: Why say this here1 Budgel

l Caleulalorsays nothing about ~~~i.~,~,_...., ... _,.,.
004877
from Ihis SNlrce is biodegrading lluicklv. Scieniis\s limn NOAA... EPA and DOE are working \()
prcciscS1itJ!!lJlt.Qfthis (!ll~,H is wdl.known that bacteria that break down the
2,dc\Ii<lte_~)'lor<!
Explanation of Methods and' Assumptions
2010, at which time the flow of oil was suspended The uncertainty on this estimate is 100/0 (cite:
F!ow Rate Technical Group, website or report). The pie chart above is based on this group's estimate
of4.9 million barrels of oil.
Ongoing Response
Continued monitoring and research: Our knowledge of the oil, dispersants, ecosystem impacts and
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.restorethegult:gov, and data from the response operations can be
found at www.geoplattorm.goY.
continues to track the movement of the oil still on the surface and in the water column. NOAA
distribution and impact of oil there. EPA continues to monitor coastal air and water, with special
attention to human health impacts. Numerous NOAA- and NSF-funded academic researchers are
investigating rates of biodegradation, ecosystem and wildlife impacts. DOl responders are working to
ensure control of the well; to ensure accurate measurement of oil released and oil remaining in the
environment; and to mitigate impacts of oil to wildlife, natural resources, and public lands. Scientists
004878
of the SP wellhead, federal scientists remain extremelyconcemed about the impact of the spill to the
in the Gulf region will take time and continued monitorhlg and research.
Attachments
004879
Deepwater Horizon/BP Oil Budget

Authors
Mark Millet, NOAA, DOC
Credits
the following scientists were involved in developing the Oil Budget Calculator tool:
The following experts were consulted on the oil budget calculations, contributed field !lata, suggested
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr. NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
AI Allan, SpiiTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
Michel Boufadel. Temple Univ.
004880
DRAFT 8.2v 6pln

Contained, evaporated and dispersed from the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. They developed a tool,

Based on estimated rc/"osc oj 4.9 ,'\If barrels oj oil
-The rcsi::uill oil is
either at the surf,,:e
'lS light .h~cn or
hasbecr.
biodegraded, or has
already come ashore.
--'\
Federal
Response
Operations
"(
\
Dispersed
7~'
Figure I: Oil Budget - Shows current best estimates of ",hat has happened to the oil.
Summary of Findings
barrels of oil. Around a quarter of the total oil naturally evaporated or dissolved and less than one
quarter dispersed (either naturally or as a result of operations) as small droplets into the Gulfwaters.
The remaining amount, j ust over one quarter, is either on the surface, in tar balls, on the shore, already
004881
Federal Response Efforts: Response efforts to deal with the oil have been aggressive. As sho\\'n in the
water column, which caused some ofthe oil to spray off in small droplets. For ti1~ pumose ofti1is
analv~is. dispersed oil is ddinc.d as droplets that arc less than 100 microns - about the diameterof a
human hair. Oil droplets th,H arc this small become neutrally bU(lvaut ;lud remain in the water column
where thev then begin to biode!!.rade. Chemical dispersion also breaks the oil up into small droplets to
Chemical disoersants wen:: applied at the surface and below the surt~lce. therefore the chemicallv
uispersed oil ended UJJ both in the water column and at th.: surface. Dispersion increases the likelihood
for the oil to be naturally dissolved and biodegraded both in the wat.:r column and at the surface.
howev~i:.until it is biodegraded, dispersed 011, ev~n iii cli1~teamoui1ts,cait betoxic to vulnerable
sp~cies!~I:!' '';;'3:t~i~ft.
Ali of the natumll\' disnased oil and much or Ill.: oil that was chemically dispersed remained wdl below
the surface in diffuse cl()uds. 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 c\111centrati\1ns. 1ll()\'il1 in
the direction ofkn()wn ocean currents lind decreasing with distance [iom the wellhead. (citation: Federal
Joinl Analysis Group Report I and 2, hltD:/lecowatch.ncddc.noaa.!!twiJAG/reports.hlml). -Oil thai was
chemicallv dispersed ilt the sllrliJce remained Ul the sur/ace and begun to biode!!,.acic there.
Evaporation und Dissoluiioll: It is estimated that 26% of the oil volume quickly evaporated or dissolved
fres~ oil and weathered oil to provide the most accurate number.
Dissolution in the water c\1lulllJl is distinct iiolll dis])ersit1ll. Dispersed oil is small dw[)Iels of oil. while
dissolution describes the process by which some individual Iwdrtlcarbon molecules Iiom the oil separate
and diss\)lve into the water just as SU!!,u can he dissolved in water.
estimated 28% ~emains. This I1g11re is a combination of categories that are difficult 10 measure or
estimate. It includes oil still on or just below the surface. oil that has washed ashore or been collected
non) tile shore. and some that is buried in sand and sediments and Olav resUltoce thwugh time. This oil
bas :Jlso bC2:un It) (kgmd.;: thromd1 a number of natural processes.
Biodegradation: Dispersed oil in the water column and oil on the surface oflhe water -naturally
biodegrads:. Wili Ie there is 1110,.-: :ll1ulvsis l\1 be done to quantif" the exact rate of biod.;."gradation in til;;:
CiuJ[ earlv observali(ltls and preliminarv r.::s.::arch results from a number or sC'ientiSI5 sht)\\' that Ill.;." pil
-------_._----._--
..
! Comment [J1J: Why say this here? Budget

:. Calculator says noth~8 .bo~~o~!:i~. _ ........ .
004882
from this source is biodegradina quickl\'. Scientists from NOAA. EPi\ llnd DOE are working to
gukull1te a more precisl.:: c:"ll!I!.!!te Q.Ltl!is mtc.)t is wdl 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
over the course of the spill. The newest estimates reflect the collaborative work and discussions ofthe
Survey (USGS) Director Marcia McNutt, and a team of Department of Energy (DOE) scientists and.
barrels of oil flowed from the Deepwater HorizonlBP wellhead between April 22, 2010 and July 15,
Flow Rate Technical Group, website report). The pie chart above is based on this group's estimate
of 4.9 million barrels of oil.
or
expertise. Further information on these methods is available in Appendix: A. These numbers will
Ongoing Response
human impacts will continue to evolve. Federal agencies andmany academic and independent scientists
government will continue to report activities, results and data to the public on a regular basis. Updates
and information can be found at www.restorethegutt:gov, and data from the response operations can be
found at www.geoolatform.gov.
distribution and impact of oi I there. EPA continues to monitor coastal air and water, with special
attention to human health impacts. Numerous NOAA- and NSF-funded academic researchers are
investigating rates of biodegradation, ecosystem and wildlife impacts. DOl responders are working to
ensure control of the weIl; to ensure accurate measurement of oil released and oil remaining in the
environment; and to mitigate impacts of oil to wildlife, natural resources. and public lands. Scientists
004883
of the Bt> wellhead, federal scientists remain extremely concerned about the impact of the spill to the
Attachments
Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Gldflncident Budget Tool Report from July 30, 20 I 0, contains
collaboration with US Coast Guard, NOAA, and NfST.
segment. The image on page one of Appendix A uses the higher flow rate estimate. which is the' same
004884
Deepwater Horizon/BP Oil Budget

Authors
Credits
Jeff Allen (USGS) - Interf~ce designer
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
AI Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
Michel Boufadel, Temple Univ;
004885
Deepwater Horizon MC252 GiJlf Incident Oil Budget

, Alilloits 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 Aprit 22.2010 to 58,022 bbl on July 14.2010.
Inland,' Recovery

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07!3H2010 08:38 PM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with tt1e Nationa!
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.,
004886

1,750,000
j
1
1,500,0001
en 1,250,000
1,000,0001
..c
750,001
500,000
250,000
May-2010
-
Expected Value -
Jun-201
Jul-201
Aug-2C

Report generated by mark,w,miiler@noaa,gov on 07/31/2010 08:38 PM MDT.
004887

Lower Flow Estimate - rhrough July 30 (Day 102)
, AU units in barrels. See end notes for assumptions ..

~ Lower Flow Estimate is based on the government discharge estimate minus 10% uncertainty.
MaximLJOl discharge ranged from 55,956 bbl on April 22. 2010 to 47,472 bbl on July 14. 2010.
Recovery
Deepwater Hortzon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/31/2010 08:38 PM ~-i1DT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the
U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
004888

1,400,0001
1 ,300,000 ~
1,200,000
i!
1,100,000 {I
1,000,0001
i
900,000 i
.!!:
Q)
800,000
::
700.000
.c
600,000
tV
500,000 .
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000]
0'~==~============~==========~===========7
May-2010
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Jul-2010
Aug-2C

Repoli generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07131/2010 08:38 PM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Nf'.llional
004889
004890
Reference Notes

into account the effective discharge (total discharge minus volume collected via Top Hat). and the
volume that is evaporated or diss~lved, skimmed, burned, or dispersed (either chemically or naturally).

reference material.
Discharged
On July 31,2010. the Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG)-released new government estimates for the
.. Deepwater Horizon incident based on the best available data. The FRTG estimated that the discharge
rates ranged from 62,000. bbl/day at the start of the incident to 53,000 bbl/day when the well was
Tool.
Based on reports of major explosions and burning oil from the first two days of the incident (April 20-21 ),
. to decreasing pressure observed after the well was capped. Severing the riser on June 4 (Day 45),
PreviolJs Fixed Flow Rate

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07131/201008:38 PM MDT.
004891
time.

RID and Top Hat are mechanical devices that British Petroleum (BP) has used to recover oil from the
Dispe'rsed Naturally

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07!31/2010 08:38 PM MDT.
Oceanic anc] Atmospheric Administration.
004892
--Reported amount of oil burned

The amount available for recovery, both daily and cumulative. is simply the remaining oil after removing
Skimmed
factored estimation of net oil content in oily water..
Burned
cumulative totals.
Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07!31i2010 08:38 PM MDT
004893
Dispersant Used
The amount of dispersant used is recorded each day of the incident by National Incident Command .
Oil
R~maining

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. Geologica! Survey in cooperation with the [,.lationaJ
Oceanic and Atmosp!1eric Administration.
.
004894
DRAFT 8.2v 5pln

and independent scientific community to produce an estimate of how much oil has been skimmed,
burned, contained, evaporated and dispersed from the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. They developed a
tool, called the Oil Budget Calculator, to determine where the oil went. The numbers in the calculator

Ba.w.d on higher flow rate e.~rimate
'--<"
"P,emilir.ingoil is
ei:her 3: th .. surf;)c"
as lieht sh....n or
weather!?c t:Jr bolls..
federal
lIe5pon!;e
Operations
"\
~-r
h.~ oe!!n
\.
bio:leeradec:i, or ~as
~Ir~"rly cnm~ a~hor~.
/
7%
Summarv of Findings
barrels oil. Around a quarter of the total oil naturally evaporated or dissol ved and less than one
quarter dispersed (either naturally or as a result of operations) as small droplets into the Gulfwaters.
The remaining amount, just over one quarter, is either on the surface, in tar balls, on the shore. already
of
includes oil that was captured directly from the wellhead by the riser pipe insertion tube and top hal
004895
Natural dispersion occurs as a result ofthe 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. For Ihe purpose orllli:;
analvsis. 'dispersed oil' is defined as droplels that are less than 100 microns - about the diameter of a
human hair. Oil droplets that :. rrc this small becomc neutrJ.llv buoyant and remain in the water c{)lumn
wh.erc they then begin to bidd<!!!rade. Chemical dispersion also breaks the oil up into small droplets to
Chemical dispersants were applied at the surface lind below the SUtiacc, therefore the chemicallv
dispersed oil ended up both in the water column and at the surface, Dispersion increases the likelihood
for the oil to be naturally dissolved and biodegraded both in the waleI' column and at the surface,
hO'wever,.untlI iUs biodegraded, dispersed.oil, even hi dil~teamountsica.n b.eto~ic Vulnerable
species~ iR fa\\! watereall:llua.
to
I CommenlUl): Why say tl.is here? B~ds;;'l Calculator says nothing about toxicity
___ .___ .
All of the nalllrall'l.' dispersed oil and much anile oil thaI was chemically dispersed ended upreflUtifl<.,,1
below the surface in diIJj.&<:_ clouds. where it began to di ff\ls~ and biodegrade. .Previous analyses have
shown evidence of diffuse clouds of dispersed oil between 3300 and 4300 feet. in low cC)}1ccntralions.
and decreasing with ([blanc..:: from Ihe wellhead. (citation: Federal Joint Analysis Group Report 1 and 2.
http://ecowutch.ncddc.noaa.govIJAG/reports,hlml). Oillilat was chcmicallv disncrsc(1 nt the ~lIrface
remained at the surface and b.egan 10 biodegrade there,
Evaporation ,;md Dissolution: It is estimated lhat 26% of the oil volume quickly evaporated or dissolved
Dissolution in the. \Vater .:-olumn is distinct li'OlD dispersion. Dispersed l)il is sOl,tll droplets of oil. while
the process bv which some individual hvdn)carbon rnoleculc::s Ii'om the oil separate
lind dissolve into the waicr just as sugar Carl be dissolved in \vater..
dis~olution describe~
After accounting for recovery operations, dispersion, evaporation and dissolution, an estimated 28%
remains. This oil is either at the surface as light sheen or weathered tar bails, or it has biodegraded or
already come ashore. Of the oil that has washed ashore, some has biodegraded. 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.
Biodegradation: Dispersed oil in the water column and surface oil are naturally biodegraded. lI-iatlJrnlly
there is morl'!
!rmlysis 10J:.s. dol1<! to quantill~th.;: ~Xllct rate ofbiode!!radation in the (jute earl".. observations :md
nreJiminal'v rese<ll"ch results rrom a numb.::r or scientists show lh'lt the oil from this s()urceis
hiodegrading quickl\;. Scientist)"; Ihml NO/\:'\. EPA and DOE are "'orkin!? to .:-ulculnte a 0101'0:: precise
estimale of this rate.
H<.-'!;1l:Il'f...Ag-'-"aett,.;-ifl-hfr ....:!-et~edafltl--eit)tle!:'f-ati1i!tkt-stgJTi+ieaHi-atl'lt)tlflk~f.t.I:t~c:- While
rComment Ol];SiiiibeSs the--;;;;;;; to ~..~
! that.lOxic? Or what is the impact of th.1.___ ._._
004896
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 tact that oil enters the GulfofMexico through natural seeps regularly.
Explal1ation of Methods and
ASSUIn(1110I1S
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 and scientists at the Dept. of Energy.
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()r 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. The pie chart above is based on this group's estimate of 4.9 million
barrels of oil. .
reports. The skimming numbers were also based on daily reported estimates. The rest ofthe numbers
analysis.
Ongoing Response
Continued mOnitoring and research: Our knowledge of the oil, dispersants, ecosystem impacts and
are actively pursuing better understanding of the fate,transport and impact ofthe oil. The federal
govemment will continue to report activities, results and data ,to the public as soon as possible.
(www.restorethegulf.gov).
.
001, NASA and NOAA continue to refine understanding of amounts of remaining surface oiL NOAA
distribution and impact of oil there. EPA continues to monitor coastal air and water, with special
attention to human health impacts. Numerous NOAA and NSF-funded academic researchers are
investigating rates of biodegradation, ecosystem and wildlife impacts. 001 responders are working to
ensure control of the well; to ensure accurate measurement of oil released and oil remaining in the
environment; and to mitigate impacts of oil to wildlife, natural resources, and public lands. Scientists
004897
Gulf ecosystem. Fully understanding the impacts of this spill on wild Iife, habitats, and natural resources
Attachments
Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon GulfIncident Budget Tool Report from July 30, 2010, contains
004898
Deepwater HorizonJBP Oil Budget

Authors

/iIIiSR\ COflnerl\-iurk MiII.::r, NOAA, DOC
Mark Sogge, USGS, DOl .
Credits
formulas. analysis methods, or reviewed the algorithms used in the calculator. The team continues to
retine the analysis and this document will be updated as appropriate.
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
004899
DRAFT 8.1v7pln
Deepwater Horizon/BP Oil Budget:
burned, contained, evaporated and dispersed. They developed a tool, called the Oil Budget Calculator to
determine where the oil went. The numbers in the calculator are based on best estimates of how much
oil was released and how this oi I is moving and degrading.

Ba.~ed on
higher flow rate estimate

Federal
'Rem~irjngoil
~i:her a~
is
the s"rt"c~
Respon~
Operations
,'S lieht sheen or

weathen~c ~r
b;;lIs,
IH~b~::n
bio:1eeradec, or has
alrc"dy come ashnm.
7%
Figure I: Oil Budget \..-<1"\.,U'<1LV' Shows current best estlimEttesofwhat has happened to the oil.
HorizonlBP wellhead, the uncertainty on this estimate is 10% (cite: Flow Rate Technic,'ll Group.
web:>ite or report l. 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.
represent the ten percent uncertainty in the flow rate estimate, the Oil Budget Calculator shows two
s~narios, 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.
To
Comment 11]: USGS team hopes to h.v~ the

actual J!O,..mmenl estimates (without the
uncertainly) programmed by COB tomOITOW ('00
MDT). They plan to have a report format Iha! has
Ihree scenarios aelual estimales. + I0%. and 10'
Then our Pie Chan could be updated 10 show the
,49Mb."!:els~ri2..._ .......... .
004900
expertise. These numbers will continue to be refined based on additional information and turther
analysis.
skimming remove the oil from the water entirely, while chemically dispersed oil remains in the water.
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
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://ecowalch.ncddc.norut.gov/JAG/report.<;.html).Asdescribedbelow,this oil appears
to be in the process of natura! biodegradation.
After accounting for recovery operations, chemica! and natural dispersion and evaporation, an estimated
28% remains. This oil is either at the surface as light sheen or weathered tar balls, or it has biodegraded
or already come ashore. Of the oil that has washed ashore, some has been removed by clean-up teams,
through time.
004901
Biodegradation: Dispersed oil in the water column and surface oil are naturaIly biodegraded. Naturally
down the dispersed and weathered surface oil are abundant in the Gulf of Mexico in large part because
quickly.
Conclusion: 1n summary, burning, skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead removed roughly
ope quarter of the 4.9 m balTl::Isof oil. Around a quarter of the total naturally evaporated or dissolved
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
(www .restorethegulf.gov).
NOAA continues to track the movement of the oil still on the surface and in the water column. NOAA
distribution and impact of oil there. DOl, NASA and NOAA conHnuetd. refinelmderstanding of
amounts ofremairurig surfal::e .oil. NOAA responders are wi:lI:ki~g withthe Unified Command to
d~v~loP.monitoringstrategies for tar balis and neJatshore s~brtierged oil. EPA ~ontinues to monitor
cOastalarrancl water, .with special attention to Quman health impacts, Numerous NOAA~ and NSF
finlded academic researchers are investigating rates of biodegradatidn, ecosystem and wildlife impacts.
roOl monitoring and research 011 '~ildlif<!'?l
Attachments
004902
segment. The image on page one of Appendix A uses the higher flow rate estimate. which is the same
004903

Authors

Mark Sogge, USGS. DOl
Credits
Bill Lehr (NOAA) - Lead mass balance and oil budget sCientist
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
AI Allan, SpiiTec .
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
004904
DRAFT 8.1v7pm
'The National Incident Command (NIC) assembled some of the best scientific minds in the government
determine where the oil went. The numbers in the calculator are based on best estimates of how much

Bosed lll'! higher flow rate estimate
Rem:iring oil is
ei:hll'r at the $j;rtace
!'Sliel1 t sheen or
.--.."
\
'\
'--r
Federal
ftespon!le
Operations
\)
weatherec t~r bulls,

biodeeradec, or has
alrt'"ny cnm(' ashore.
7%
Figure 1: Oil Budget Calculator-
estimates of what has happened to the oil.
HorizonlBP wellhead, the uncertainty On this estimate is 10% (cite: Flow Rate Technical Group.
. website 9f 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.
Torep~esent 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,
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.:
and
COmment [11): USGS team hopes to have the

actual ,government estimates (without the
uncertainly) programmed by COB tomorrow (that is
MDT), They pi... 10 have a report format that has al
three scenarios - actual estimates. + 10"10. and -10"10.
Then our Pi. Chan oould be updated to show the
4.9M barrel ..cnario.
004905
expertise. These numbers wi I! continue to be refined. based on additional information and further
analysis.
chart (Figure I), response efforts were successful in dealing with 30% of the spilled oiL This includes
water column, which caused some of the oil to spray off in small droplets (less than \00 microns - the
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 ofthe dispersed oil remained below the surface. Previous analyses have shown evidence of
diffuse clouds of dispersed oil between 3300 and 4300 feet. (citation: Federal loint Analysis Group
Report I and 2, http://ccowatch.ncddc.noaa.govIJAGircQorts.html).Asdescribedbelow,this oil appears
Evaporation: It is estimated that 26% of the oil volume quickly evaporated or dissolved into.the water
After accounting for recovery operations, chemical and natural dispersion and evaporation, an estimated
28% remains. This oil is either at the surface as light sheen or weathered tar balis, or it has biodegraded
or already come ashore. Of the oil that has washed ashore, some has been removed by clean-up teams,
through time.
004906
occurring bacteria have consumed and biodegraded a significant amount ofthe oil. Bacteria that break
down the dispersed and weathered surface oi I are abundant in the Gulf of Mexico in large part because
quickly.
one quarter of tile 4.9 m barrels of oil. Around a quarter of the total naturally evaporated or dissolved
<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.
<
(www .restorethegulf.gov).
NOAA continues to track the movement of the oil still on the surface and in the water column. NOAA
submerged oil, and researchers continue subsurface scanning and samplingtomonitor the concentration,
distribution aJ1d impact of oil there .. p,(jliNA$.~~~ NOM(ibr#i~uet(j~:refi~e:understatiding<ot
~motitit,s.Qf remal~ng s'i;lrface qtt N0:AAtespondefllru:e workiilgwiihtfie Urii:fledCQmmand to
deyelotqrio~i~ol:ings~egjes fQrta.l' billls.l:md nearshore si:1bmerged:oiL EpAconiinu~st(jmonitor
coast~Lilir<~d wate,i;with specialattentiontQ human healthunpaCts.N:umerdus< NOAA-an4NSFfti.nqepacadernic researchers. are investigating I<l~esofbiode~atiori, ecOsystem and wildlife impacts.
(DOl ITlOnitod<og and j:esc8l'ch oll'l'<ildlifc'])
in the Gulf region wiII take time and continued monitoring and research.
Attachments
Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Guifincident Budget Tool Report from July 30, 2010, cOntains
categorie,s of chemically dispersed, naturally dispersed, and evaporated or dissolved, into one colored
004907
004908

Appendix 8: Acknowledgements
Authors

Credits
Federal Scientists
Bill LehT, NOAA
Robert Jones,NOAA
AI Allan, SpiiTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
004909

, All units in barrels, See end notes for assumptions .

~ Higher Flow Estimate is based on the government discharge estimate plus 10% uncertainty.

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 Hie U.S, Geologica! Survey in cooperation with the National
004910
Higher Flow Estimate Through July 30 (Day 102)

1,750,000
1,500,000 1
'" 1.250.0001
11.000.000j
750,000
500,000
250,000
May-2010
-
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Jul-2010
Aug-2C

004911

Lower Flow Estimate - Through July 30 (Day 102) .
Alilinits 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 mark.w.miller@noaa.govon 07!31i2010 08:38 PM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation wit/) the National
004912
Expected Value -

Report generated by mark.w.mlller@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 NfJtional
004913
Reference Notes
Chart - Cumulative/Daily Volume Remaining on the .Surface


reference material.
Discharged
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 bbllday when the well was
capped on July 14 with an uncertainty factor of 1 0%. The uncertainty factor in the best government
Tool.
Based on reports of major explosions and burning oil from the first two days of the incident (April 20-21).
to decreasing pressure observed after the well was capped. Severing the riser on June 4 (Day 45).'

cut. On June 15,2010, an improved estimate of how much oil is flowing from the leaking BP we" was
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Netional
..
004914
time.

the Q4000 are reported by BP> entered daily by National Incident Command personnel, and used in the
Dispersed Naturally
-No
n~tural
surface dispersion assumed
-Subsurface natural dispersion base~ upon plume turbulent energy dissipation

method of determining oil dispersion in the water column .
.Evaporated or Dissolved

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.goY on 07!31/2010 08:38 PM MDT.
004915

The remaining amount is then multiplied with a different factor based on scientific rese?rch and

The amount available for recovery, both daily and cumulative, is simply the re~aining oil after removing
Skirrlmed
Burned
cumulative totals.
-International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation (ITOPF) "planning purpose" dosage of 20: 1 used
Deepwater Horizon l'v1C252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget
004916
Dispersant Used
The amount of dispersant used is recorded each day of the incident by National Incident Cornmand
Oil Remaining

Report generated by mark,w,miller@noaa,gov on 07/31/2010 08:38 PM MDT.
Application operated by the U,S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S, Geological Sunrey in cooperation with tl18 ~.,lational
004917
DRAFT 8.1v 2pm

The National Incident Command (NIC) assembled some ofthe best scientific minds in the government
burned, contained, evaporated and dispersed. They developed a tool, -called the Oil Budget Calculator to

Based on higher flow rate estimate
Federal
*Rem3ining oil is
as light sheen or
Response
Operations

has been
biodegraded, or has
fllrer:ldy come i1shorf>.
mmcc
3%
7%
Figure 1: Oil Budg~t Calculator- Shows what has happened to the oil.
over the course of the spill. This number is based on flow rate estimates from The Flow Rate Technical
HqrizonIBP wellhead, the uncertainty on this estimate is 10% (cite: Flow Rate T ~chl1ical Group_
\vebsite or rep0l1?). 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
004918
Direct Measures ands Best Estimates: The oil budget calculations are based on direct measurements
numbers for direct recovery and bums were measured directly and reported in daily operational reports.
analysis.
water column, which caused some of the oil to spray off in 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 shown evidence of
Report 1 and 2, http://ecowatch.ncddc.noaa.gov/JAG/reports.html).Asdescribedbelow,this oil appears
fresh oil and weathered oil to. provide the most accurate number.
an estimated 28% remains. This oil is either at the surface as light sheen or weathered tar balls, or it has
004919
down the dispersed and weathered surface oil are naturally abundant in the Gulf ofMexico in large part
quickly.
quarter dispersed (either naturally or as a result of operations) into Gulfwaters. The remaining amount~
just aver one quarter is either on the surface, in tar balls, on the shore, already removed from the shore
NOAA continues to track the movement of the remaining oil both on and below the surface. NOAA'
distribution and impact of oil there.
. of the BP wellhead, federal scientists remain extremely concerned about the impact of the spill to the
Gulf ecosystem. Fully tinderstanding the impacts of this spill on wildlife, habitats, and natural resources
Attachments
collaboration with US Coast Guard, NOAA; and NIST.
Appendix' B: Acknowledgements
004920

Authors
Credits
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
004921
DRAFT 7.31v Ilpm

and how this oil is moving and degrading .
..
_ . _ . _ . _ _ R _ _ _ _ _
----.-.---.--~.-
..
--------.------~--.--- --~

"'Remaining oil is either at
or weathered tar balis,
has been biodegraded, or
Federal
Response
Operations
5%
Skimmed
3%
8%
._._..__ . . . . . __ ....___ . . . . . . . __ ................................................l

over the course of the spill. This number is based on flow rate estimates from The Flow Rate T~chnical
Horizon/BP wellhead, the uncertainty on this estimate is 10% (cite: FlO\:v 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
004922
Direct Measures ands Best Estimates: Theoil budget calculations are based on direct measurements
numbers for direct recovery and burns were measured directly and reported in daily operational reports~
analysis.
"diameter of a human hair). Chemical dispersion also deliberately breaks the oil up into smaller droplets
biodegradation.
"
Much of the dispersed oil remained below the surface. Previous analyses have shown evidence of
Report 1 and 2, http://ecowatch.l1cddc.noaa.gov/JAG/reports.html).Asdescribedbelow,this oil appears
004923
quickly.
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
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.
Attachments
collaboration-with US Coast Guard, NOAA, and NIST.
004924

Authors
William Conner, NOAA, DOC,
Credits
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Antonio PossoIo, NIST
AI Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
,
Per Dating, SINTEF
Michel BoufadeI, Temple Univ.
004925
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Saturday. July 31.20103:55 PM
Mark Miller
4 pm version
attached latest for the group

Mark Miller wrote:
> Just highlights. Trying to get a firm read on the final flow number.
>
>' Mark
>
this is my best attempt, see what you think I stopped tracking

changes, it was getting really messy, I re-arranged it too, and did
more sub section labeling which I hope helps, but tell me what you
think.
I'll work on the graph options now, but wanted to let you read the
text now.
I'm supposed to be on this 3 pm call, but will do that from another

phone line, call me if we need to discuss.
Jennifer Austin
-~
NOAA Communications
2e2-3e2-ge47
& External Affairs
www.noaa.gov
www.climate . gOY
004926
Justin Kenney
Mark Miller
Pie chart option
DWH Budget Oil Pie Chart 7.31 v 330pm.xlsx
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Attached.
calling you now
Jennifer Austin
202-302-9047
www.noaa.gov
www.climate.gov
004927
Justin Kenney
Froin:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Mark Miller
3 pm version
this is my best attempt, see what you think . I stopped tracking changes, it was getting
really messy, I re-arranged it too, and did more sub section labeling which I hope helps, but
tell me what you think.
I'll work on the graph options now, but wanted to let you read the text now.
I'm supposed to be on this 3 pm call, but will do that from another phone line, call me if we
need to discuss.
Jennifer Austin
202-302-9047
www.noaa.gov
www.climate.gov
004928
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Apologies~

Margaret Spring
attached is the latest document.

> If anyone else needs to be on the call, we have a different call in number than I sent outlet me know.
>
>
> --------------------~~-------------From: Jennifer Austin [Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov]
> Cc: Mark Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Jane Lubchenco;
> Shannon Gilson (SGi1son@doc.gov); Kevin Griffis (kgriffis@doc.gov);
>
> I can be on at 2 pm. Will send the latest document,shortly.
>
>
Am on phone with Jane now - can we have a call with Jane) Mark, Jen, Bill Conner on this?
2
pm?
She wants to understand what was agreed to at EPA last night. And work out why this is a
better approach than the bar chart idea, but try to work on better representing uncertainty.
Then we need to loop in Marcia, then Heather, and then if we are on the same page} go back
-------------------------------------From: Margaret Spring [margaret.spring@noaa.gov]


Subj ect : RE: [Fwd: Fw: Oil budget tool update - coordination]
(HQ)
4
004929
dispersed oil is handled~ pIs communicate to Sky Bristol and Mark
Sogge
.
Adm Jackson said : (1) she was concerned about the level of certainty
instead bar chart with ranges for each bar instead -(Jane, let's
discuss what to make of this - are we going with a non-pie chart?);
it over?
--------------------------~---------------------------From: Mark Mille'r [mark.w.miller@noaa.gov]

To: Margaret Spring
Cc: Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Jane lubchencoj
Kristen Sarri (doc) (KSarri@doc.gov)j Parita Shah (Pshah@doc.gov)
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Fw: Oil budget tool ~pdate - coordination]
Margaret,
Al talked multiple times last night going over the methodology (AI
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
targeted to be done approximately 2:00 PM EDT. We will also update
the Oil Budget Report' which is included as an appendix.
>~ is contacting Dr. Possolo to discuss and address this. ~ill is on his
way to the Sand Point facility in order to set up for the FRTG
Mark
> Circling in shannon, parita, kevin, kris >>>

5
004930
>
>
> Sent: Saturday, July 31~ 2010 11:21 AM
> To: Mark Miller; Jennifer Austin; Margaret Spring; William Conner;
> Scott Smullen
>
> Mark,
Jennifer>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------From: Mark Miller [mark.w.millen@noaa.gov]
> Sent: Friday, July 30~ 2010 11:00 PM
>
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
)
) Jennifer Austin
> 202-302-9047
> www.noaa.gov
> www.climate.gov
>
Jennifer Austin
282-302-9847
www.noaa.gov
www.climate.gov
004931
Justin Kenney
Subject:

Margaret Spring
Re: [Fwd: Fw: Oil budget tool update - coordination1
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:

> Am on phone with Jane now - can we have a call with Jane, Mark, . Jen, Bill Conner on this?' 2
pm?
>
better approach than the bar chart idea, but try to work on better representing uncertainty.
>
> Then we need to loop in Marcia, then Heather, and then if we are on the same page, go back
>
>Jane is available between now (lpm) and 5 EST - can we do 2 pm?

>
> Mark -
do we have a call-in we can use?'
>
> ----------------------------------->
> Kristen Sarri (doc) (KSarri@doc.gov);.Parita Shah (Pshah@doc.gov)

>
> (HQ)
>
> Sogge
>
> implied in the pie and cylinder charts (adding to 100%) and suggests
> 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?
>
>
>
7
004932
>
> ------------------------------~--~
>
> Sent: Saturday} July 31} 2818 11:45 AM
> Cc: Jennifer Austinj William Connerj Scott Smullenj Jane Lubchencoj
> Shannon Gilson (SGilson@doc.gov)j Kevin Griffis (kgriffis@doc.gov)j
> Kristen Sarri (doc) (KSarri@doc.gov)j Parita Shah (Pshah@doc.gov)
>
> Margaret)
>
> have captured all his thoughts (his and Al Venosa from EPA). He and
> apparently was giving a presentation this AM to someone). Bill sent me
> an email at midnight PDT and then ca!led my at 3:88 AM PDT. I have
> sent ~ennifer a marked up copy of the doc and we are poised to enter
> Oil Budget Report whfch is included as an appendix.
>
> I am in regular communication with the USGS Oi~ Budget team. The one
> Upper and Lower Confidence lines in the Oil Budget Report. Bill Lehr
> is contacting Dr. Possolo to discuss and address this. Bill is on his
>
>
>
>
>
.>
>
>
Mark

Also} what is timeline for incorporating those changes?
-----------------------------------From: Margaret Spring

Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2818 11.: 21 AM
To: Mark Millerj Jennifer Austinj Margaret Springj William Connerj
Scott Smullen
Cc: Jane Lubchenco
Mark, Jennifer
Are you in th~t loop and is that document being reworked at your end?
-----------------------------------From: Mark Miller [mark.w.miller@noaa.gov]

8
004933

Mark
Jennifer Austin
202-302-9047
www.noaa.gov
www.c1imate.gov
004934
Justin Kenney

Saturday, July 31,2010 11:10AM
Mark Miller
.
Re: Sort of Final from Miller ~ Oil Budget Doc
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Roger
that~
whatever they can
do~
we'll work with it.
Mark Miller wrote:

> I actually raised that issue (the biodegradation segment) with the
> tool team. They have not responded but if they say they can then I
> will p'ass on our recommendation. They are .definitely more under the
> gun than we are so I don.' t want to contribute to more stress.
>
> Mark
>
Great, I don't think it will take much to update our document. I'll
have a look now at what you sent me this morning in terms of edits to
the text and contributors list. So we're ready to just plug in the
new numbers.
Will the new budget read out have a high and low flow estimate, or at
they zeroing in on one number? Without making any changes to their
outputs, or names~ it would be nice if they could at least add an
asterisk or explanatory phrase on their cylindrical image on the
light blue part to describe~ *'Evaporation and Biodegradation' here
is the sum of naturally dispersed J chemically dispersed and
evaporated or dissolved from chart above. If that's not possible,
that's okJ and we'll keep our explanatory note, but that's not so
much a design change as written description of what their colors
mean, so maybe they'd be willing without the full consult.
Either way~ I'll be standing by for numbers.
Mark Miller wrote:

> Jen,
>
> This has the updated Expert list with the exception that it includes
> Al Venosa from EPA and we expect to hear from him whether his
> management will permit him to be included.
>
> The numbers will change when the FRTG finalizes their numbers and
> then the Oil Budget is updated. This is expected mid afternoon.
>
> I will call you when it looks like the dust has settled and the
> numbers are final.
>
>>> Mark
Jennifer Austin
2e2~3e2-ge47
www.noaa.gov
10
004935
www.climate.gov
11
004936
004937
Justin Kenney
Saturday, July 31, 2010 9:51 AM
Mark Miller
Re: Sort of Final from Miller - Oil Budget Doc
From:
Sent:
To!
Subject:
Great~ I don't think it will take much to update our document.

I'll have a look now at what
you sent me this morning in terms of edits to the text and contributors list. So we're ready
to just plug in the new numbers.
Will the new budget read out have a high and low flow estimate~ or at they zeroing in on one
number?
Without making any changes to their outputs~ or names, it would be nice if they could at
least add an asterisk or explanatory phrase on their cylindrical image on the light blue part
to describe} *'Evaporation and Biodegradation' here is the sum of naturally dispersed}
chemically dispersed and evaporated or dissolved from chart above.
If that's not possible~ that's ok} and we'll keep our explanatory note, but that's not so
much a design change as written description of what their colors mean, so maybe they'd be
willing without the full consult.
Either
way~
I'll be standing by for numbers.
Mark Miller wrote:

> Jen,
>
> This has the updated Expert list with the exception that it includes
> Al Venosa from EPA and we expect to hear from him ~hether his
> management will permit him to be included.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
The numbers will change when the FRTG finalizes their numbers and then .
the Oil Budget is updated. This is expected mid afternoon.
I will call you when it looks like the dust has settled and the
numbers are final.
Mark
Jennifer Austin
202-392-9947
www.noaa.gov
www.climate.gov
12
004938
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:

Dave.Westerholm
Jane Lubchenco; Margaret Spring; 'Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov'; 'william.conner@noaa.gov';
'Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov'; 'David.Kennedy@noaa.gov'; 'dwh.staff@noaa.gov';
'Sgilson@doc.gov'; Shah, Parita; Sarri. Kristen; John Gray; Amanda Hallberg
Budget Tool update
"
Hi"
Margaret - is there any update on where this document is in the inter-agency clearance
process? I sense the WH still wants to release it tomorrow. They will take the lead and we
are awaiting further details from them in terms of specifics of that plan.
things:
I have added one note to the report, after talking with Mark) that simply explains the
budget tool readout document attached as Appendix A. Because they represent the numbers
t\'lO
Also, because they cannot edit the budget tool report easily, we have switched back to using
the term "natural" dispersion, rather than "physical" dispersion in our report. Steve has
suggested a switch, but again it will" cause confusion until we can make the change
consistently in all documents.
re~adding John Gray} Amanda, and Kris to this email list so they also have the latest, and
Dave.Westerholmwrote:
> different in each case. As Dr. Lubchenco points out} dispersion puts
> landfill.
> think there still may be value in looking at these pieces differently.
> The same thing could be said for the remaining oil) where at lease the
> recovered oily debris/sand/sorbent booms, etc. were (or will be)
> vir
> Dave
>
I think it would be fine to lump (burned) skimmed and recovered but

not include (chemically dispersed J The rationale is that although
they are all federal responses J they have different outcomes. In the
J
13
004939
Jane

*Sent:* Friday, July 3e, 2e1e 11:23 AM
*To:* 'Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov'; 'Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov
*Cc:* 'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov'; 'Jane.lubchenco@noaa.gov';
'william.conner@noaa.gov'; 'Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov'j
'Oave.Westerholm@noaa.gov'; 'oavid.Kennedy@noaa.gov';
head (cumulatively 3e%) as one slice labeled as ccFederal response
efforts - instead of four separate slices as represented below. Then
collection/mitigation efforts they were responsible for. i.e Oirect
the federal govt, skimming is 1e%, burning 17%, chemical dispersant
2e%. Thoughts? Ooable?"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------*From*: Mark Miller <mark.w.miller@noaa.gov>

*Cc*: 'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov' <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>;
'william.conner@noaa.gov' <William.Conner@noaa.gov>j
'Oave.Westerholm@noaa.gov' <Oave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>j
'Oavid.Kennedy@noaa.gov' <Oavid.Kennedy@noaa.gov>;
<Sgilson@doc.gov>
*Sent*: Thu Jul 29 19:53:e7 2e1e
Margaret,

l4
004940
I would like to send to NIC and OR&R operations people when the WH
clearance begins.
Mark
Margaret Spring wrote:.
.Pls confirm to me which authors have signed off so I can report
----- Original Message ---- From: Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov> <mailto:Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>

To: jane Lubchenco <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov> <mailto:Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>
Cc: Mark.W.Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov> <mailto:Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>jWilliam Conner
<William.Conner@noaa.gov> <mailto:William.Conner@noaa.gov>; Scott Smullen
<Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov> <mailto:Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>; Dave Westerholm
<Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov> <mailto:Dave.We~terholm@noaa.gov>; David Kennedy
<David.Kennedy@noaa.gov> <mailto:David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>; _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff
<dwh.staff@noaa.gov> <mailto:dwh.staff@noaa.gov>; Margaret Spring <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>
<mailto:Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>; Gilson~ Shannon <SGilson@doc.gov> <mailto:SGilson@doc.gov>
Sent: Thu Jul 29 19;29:21 2010
Subject: Re: budget tool calculator explanation~ latest
Hi All~
additional line explaining subsurface oil that Steve suggested adding
following the explanation of dispersed oil. Mark and I reviewed and
reconciled the edits. This should be final from a NOAA perspective.

I've added Shannon to this distribution list, so she can give a heads up
Any further comments~ let me know, Jen
~>
Thanks~ Mark. It~s great that all of the authors are comfortable with
the document.

15
004941

clearance.
Jane

*Cc:* Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm;
Dr. Lubchenco,
Here is the latest version that includes comments from you, me J Marcia
and Bill Lehr.
interface etc) and the calculations (Bill lehr's team).
16
004942
a long~ highly technical document but it would take some time to
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.
individuals involved plus reviewers J as per the FRTG doc.
This is urgent.
thanks
-----Original Message----
From: Jennifer Austin [mailto:Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov]
Sent: ThursdaYJ July 29 J 2010 12:57 PM
To: Mark WMiller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm; David Kennedy; _HQ
Deep Water Horizon Staff
Cc: Margaret Spring; Jane.lubchenco@noaa.gov <mailto:Jane.lubchenco@noaa.gov>

<mailto:Jane.lubchenco@noaa.gov>
Subject: Re: budget tool calculator explanation J latest
Sorry! I attached the wrong document. Please use this version dated 7.29.
17
004943
Hi,
The pie chart uses
6e,eee barrels/day flow rate, numbers from July 26
For USGS . - I would like to check with Steve Hammond (NrC IASG) to see
18
004944
I
"
Jennifer Austin
19
004945

<http://www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco> <http://www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco>
JenniferAustin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco <http://www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco>
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
20
004951
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:

Jane Lubchenco
Mark.W.Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm; David Kennedy; _HQ Deep
Water Horizon Staff; Margaret Spring; Gilson, Shannon
_
Oil Budget description 7 29 v 7.doc; DeepwaterHorizonOiIBudget20100728.pdf
Hi All,
explaining subsurface oil that Steve suggested adding following the explanation of dispersed
oil. Mark and I reviewed and reconciled the edits. This should be final from a NOAA
perspective.
Appendix A.
I've added Shannon to this distribution list, so she can give a heads up to WH communications
and be in touch with Heather ahd others about release plans as necessary.
->
> Thanks) Mark. It's great that all of the authors are comfortable-with
> the document.
>
> clearance.
>
>
> Jane
>
> *Sent:* Thl:lrsdaYJ 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, latest
>
> Dr. Lubchenco)
>
> Here is the latest version that includes comments from you) me) Marcia
> and Bill Lehr.
>
26
004952
> From the standpoint of the document review we have Mark Sogge still
> outstanding. I forwarded Steve's comments to Jennifer moments ago.
>
> but have broken them out between the actual Tool development (the web
>
> description of the process used to do the calculations"? Bill Lehr has
> a long, highly technical document but it would take some time to
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

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.
>
> A brief description of the process used to do the calculations and the names of the

>
urgent.
> thanks
>
>
-~---Original Message--~--
> From: Jennifer-Austin [mailto:Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov]
> Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2ele 12:57 PM

> David Kennedy; _HQ Deep Water Horizon"Staff
>
>
>
>
>
Hi,
>
>
>
>
> incorporating
>
>
>
>
>
>
The pie chart uses 6e,eee barrels/day flow rate, numbers from July
> 26
>
27
This is
004953
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
let us know immediately if you have comments.
>
>
>
For USGS - I would like to check with Steve Hammond (NrC IASG) to
> see
>
>
> list
>
>
>
>
should probably include Dr.

IASG)~
McNutt~
Mark Sogge, Steve Hammond (NIC
Sky Bristol (led the development team), and Tim Kern.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Jennifer Austin
292-482-5757 (office) 292-392-9947 (cell)
Jennifer Austin
28
004954
DRAFT 7.31v 4 pm

Based on 60/000 barrels/day {Jow rate
Federal
Response
"Remaining oil is either at
or weathered tar balls.
has been biodegraded. 01'
Operations
Burnecl
5%
_ _ .:""mmed
3%
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 as of July 15, between3-5 million barrels of oil had been released from the Deepwater
Hori:?:onIBP wellhead. The current flow rate estimates are 35,000 to 60,000 barrels of oil per day. The
oil budget tool calculations are based on XXXX numbers (range or number) the graphic above is based
004955
analysis.
. Federal Response Efforts: Response efforts to deal with oil have been aggressive. As shown in the pie
skiInI)1ing remove the oil from the water entirely, while chemically dispersed oil remains in the water
which keeps it from coming ashore in large surface slicks and makes it more readily availabie for
. biodegradation.
Some portion of the dispersed oil remained below the surface. Previous analyses have shown evidence
into the water column or fonn residues such as tar balls. The residual is included in the category of
because of the wann water there, the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, and the fact that oil enters the
quickly.
quarter dispersed (either naturally or as a result of operations) into Gulf waters. The remaining amount,
004956
Even though the. threat to shorelines has decreased since the capping of the BP wellhead, federal
Attachments
segment The image on page one of Appendix A uses the high flow rate estimate of 60,000 barreVday,
which is the same as the pie chart used above. The. image on page three uses the low flow rate estimate
004957

Authors

.Credits
The following scientists were involved in developing the Oil BudgetCalculator tool:
Jeff Allen (USGS)- Interface designer
Bill Lehr (NOAA) - Lead mass balance and oil budget scientist'
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
. Robert Jones, NOAA
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
004958
Direct Recovery from Well Head

Burned
Skimmed
Naturally Dispersed
Remaining*
28-Jul High Flow

Low Flow
823452
823452
266375
266375
144425
144425
421498
421498
382746
815,746
1329268
622066
370438
1395236
*Remaining
the surface,
1600000 -'-'-"-'-' -.-.-..----.-----..----....-----.-.1400000 -i----------.... ---..---".---.-.---.----.-.-
1200000 -i----------.----.. . .-.-.. -----.. .- . -.------.-.. -.-_. --..__._-.....-...-.1000000 +-.--.------.. --............-....-.. --.. --.------.-----.---.-...-....... .
800000
600000
400000
200000
II ~igh
Flow
BLowFlow
004959

Based on 60/000 barrels/day flow rate
011 is either at
as light sheen or
:ar balls, has
graded, or has
Ie ashore.
F.
R
C
Burned
5%
~_..J,,,,,mmed
3%
Chemically Dispers.
8%
004960
I
:ederal
tesponse
)perations
ed
I
I
I
I
I
_ _ _ _ _ .......... ,_ _ ...i!
~
004961
DRAFT 7.31v'3 pm
independent scientific community to produce an estimate of how mllch oil has been skimmed, burned,
-----_.-...._----------------_..
__._--_.__
.__..
_._----------,---_. __.__._.._.._------._._ .._--_ ..

*Remaining oil is
either at the
surface as light
sheen or
weathered tar
batls, has been
biodegraded. or
has already corne
ashorr:.
kimmed
/0
3 0;
8%
j
c,.. ________ ,__ ,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, ,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,_ _ ,_____ ,_,_ ..... ____
..J
Explanation of Methods and Assumptions '

Flow Rate: The Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG), assembled by the National Incident Command,
estimates that as of July 15, between 3-5 million barrels of oil had been released from the Deepwater
HorizonIBP wellhead . .The current flow rate estimates are 35,000 to 60,000 barrels of oil per day. The
oil budget tool calculations are based onXXXX numbers (range or number) the graphic above is based
004962
analysis.
chart (Figure 1), response efforts were successful in dealing with 32% of the spilled oiL This includes
Dispersion: Based on estimates, 16% of the oil dispersed naturally ihto the water column and 8% was
Natural dispersion occurs asa result of the oil coming out of the broken riser pipe at high speed into the
biodegradation.
Some portion of the dispersed oil remained below the surface. Previous analyses have shown evidence
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 th_ell is biodegrading
q u i c k l y . "
004963
quarter dispersed (either naturally or as a result of operations) into Gulfwaters. The remaining amount,
or has been biodegraded. .
Attachments
categories of chemically dispersed, naturally dispersed, and,evaporated or dissolved, into one colored
004964
004965

Authors
Credits
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
004966
IDRAFT 7.31v 2 pIn

Deepwater Horizon/BP Oil Budget Calculator:
The National Incident Command (NrC) assembled the best scientific minds in the government and
determine where the oil went. T.he numbers are based on best estimates of how much oil was released

Tf\\1maining oil
i~
either at the $urfac~

a.light Sh~l or
weathel'ed tar balls.
has been
biodegraded. or has
alreatlv come
ashore.
Figure I:
Budget Calculator- Shows what has happened to the
Explanation Of Findings
wellhead. Tile cmrent flow I<lle eSlimales are 35,000 t(1 60.000 barrels of oil reI' du\'. The grrmhic above
is basl:!d on the high cstimall:! of 60.000 barrd~ or oil per dav.
-~."--.""-""-"""".",,,,
EffOits to \'eccwer oil have bt:<!Jl agi!l'cssil'e. As shown in the pie chart (Figure 1), aggres.,iYe f'C,'!JtlfltlJ
900Ft:; 'vere 5uecessfl:llrespcmse ell-ons were successful ill dealing ~"ith 32%. of in ret'olwing a
jgAifican~efthe spilled oil. This includes S~eefl-pt'feef'fk:+fthe oil that was captured directly
from the wellhead by the riser pipe insertion tube and top hat systems {16%Lrl1l-adJiti<:4&. burning
(5':'01. -a:mt-skimming (3':'tltetx."'f~g..t't*J.esied apf!fo~<imt't~.y-8i'",*~~"Ihe-H and chemical
dispersion (8%) .
!'. Formatted:.Highlight
.. .
..
.,..~-
l Forma~:. Hig,!l~~~ __ ..
... ,, " ........,'-" ... ....

"
004967
It is estimated that 25 't~~effi ofthe oil volume quick1y evaporated or dissolved into the water column.
water column or form residues such as tar balls.
The residual is included ill the: categorv of remaining oil discussed bt:low,._The evaporation rate estimate
is based on scientific research and observations conducted during the Deepwater Horizon incident. At
EI.Qifferent evaporation rates are -is-used tor fresh oil and weathered oil to provide the most accurate
number.
.Based on estimatt's.
16
of the oil dispersed naturally into the water column: and 8
of
the
oil
was
dispersed
by
the
application
50,000 barrels of chemical dispersants.
I Natural dispersion occurs as a result of the oil comingofoutnearly
of the broken riser pipe at high speed into the
~
<}"~
~~
I water column, which caused some orllle oiliHo spray off in small droplets (less than 100 microns -the
. diameter of a human hair) ..
Some portion of the dispersed Oillha:t i:; iR d"'l(i'l!c;l!S llAlalltlf than 100 N'lieron:; remained below the
4300 feet. (citation: Federal Joint Analysis Group Report I and 2,
quantify the exact rate of biodegradation in the Gulf, early indications are that the liglu.::ruEle oil from
After accounting for rec\w.:rv operations, dispersion and evaporation, till cslimutl!d 27 ~:2l
remains. This oil is either at the surface as light sheen or weathered tar balls, or it has biodegraded or
already come ashore.
impacts of this spill on wildlife, habitats. and natural resources in the Gulf region will take time and
004968
information and a broad range of scientific expertise. These numbers wi II continue to be refined based
Attachments
Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Gulf Incident Budget Tool Report from July 28, 2010. contains
colIaboration with US Coast Guard, NOAA, and NlST.
Note: The attached report (Appendix A) contains cylindrical images, which are an altern~te way of
categories of chemicalI), dispersed, naturalI), dispersed, and evaporated or dissolved, into one colored
segment. The image on page one of Appendix A uses the high flow rate estimate of60,000 barrel/day,
of35,000 barrels/day.
004969
Deepwater Horizon/BP Oil Budget Calculator:

Authors

Credits
Jeff Allen (USGS) -Interface designer
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
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr,NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
AI Allan, SpilTec
Tom Coolbaugh. Exxon Mobil
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Pat Lambert, En\,. Canada
Per Daling, SINTEF
004970
DRAFT 7.30v2

"'Remaining oil is
as light sheen or
Ilasbeen
biodegrade.-d, or has
already come
ashQre.
5%
kimmed
3%
wellhead.
004971
Sixteen percent of the oil dispersed naturally into the water column, and 8 percent of the oil was ,
http://ecowatch.ncddc.noaa.. gov/JAG/reports.html).
that break down the dispersed and weathered surface o.it are naturally abundant in the Gulf of Mexico in
quantify the exact rate of biodegradation in the Gulf, early indications are that the light cmde oil from
waters. The remaining amount, just over one quarter is on the surface, in tar balls, on the shore; already
informatioJ1 and a broad range of scientific expertise. These numbers will continue to be refined based
on additional infonnation and further analysis.
004972
Attachments
which is the same as the pie chart used above. The image on page three uses the low flo~ rate estimate
Appendix B: Acknowledgements .
004973

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
004974
DRAFT 7.30
scientific community to produce. an estimate of how much oil has been skimmed, burned. contained,
the oil went The numbers are based on best estimates of how much oil was released and how this oil is

"Remaining oil is
(I$lighl sheen or
weathered tar balls.
has been
biodellr~ded, 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 ban-els of oil had been released from the Deepwater HorizonlBP
wellhead.
The volatile components of oil evaporate. while the components that are not volatile dissolve into the
004975
Sixteen percent of the oil dispersed physically into the water column, and 8 percent of the oil was
large part because of the wann water there, the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, and the fact that oil
the oiL Around a quarter of the total naturally evaporated and less than one quarter dispersed into Gulf
.
operational reports. The rest of the numbers were based. on previous scientific analyses, best available
004976
Attachments
cGllaboration with US Coast Guard, NOAA, and NIST.
004977

Authors

Credits
The Following Scientists created and reviewed the calculation methods used in the oi] budget calculator:
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Albert Venosa, EPA
AI Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
David Usher, ISCO
Peter Carragher, BP
004978

, All units in barrels. See end noles for assumptions.
Inland ReCovery
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gull' Incident Oil Budget

Report generated by mCl"k.w.mih~r@noaa,gov on 07i29!2010 1 i:20 Afv1 MDT
See end notes section of thEl mpor1. fix refer(mce mclterial or: reporl. eIEJ1l1,?nts.
f\pplication operated by the US Coast Guard and provided hy
()canic and Atrnosphr:n!c Ad~nfn;st:'i:~tion,
U1E:1 U.S. Gr.;o!ogica! Survey in c:ooperaiion with
lhe
N~:.~;0r'A!
004979

!
1,750,000 {
!
I,
1,500,0001
!
1,250,000i
(J)
Gi
....
1,000,000 'f
....
a:I
.Q
!
!
750,0001
I
500,000 -!
i,
250,000
OJ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
May-2010
Jun-201
-
Expected Value -
Jul-2010
Upper/lower Confidence Bounds
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil 8(,1(iget
Report generated by mark.w.milier:})noCla.qov on 07!29i20101 i:20 AM MDT,

See end notes section of lile repo!l for rc::ference material on report e i 8tnf.ents.
,ii,ppiication operated by irle LLS. Coast Guard and pmvkj(~(ioy till'-! U.S. Geolof:lie<'ii Survey in COOPf"a,\!OP will) the N;:;,tionl,{
OGean~c
<:,nd, J\trnosphi7:ric Adp1i;"jlSl! fiHon.
004980

, Ali units in barrels. See end notes for assumptions.
Deepwater Horizon MC252 GUlf Incident Oil Budget

Report generated by nv::rk.w.miller@noBa.gov on 07!29!~;OI 01 i :20 AM MDT.
end notes section of the report for reiemnce material on report ele!11e~ts.
Application operated L'iy the U.S. Coast Guard and ptovlded by the U.S. l'i(:)(;!QC!IC8:! SlIrvf:Y ir cooperatirJ:! F'fith
Oceanic 8nd .l\tmcspher!s Adm:nistrat:on.
t:'0;
\;:;:!!;o;<
004981
Low Flow Scenario (35,00~ barrels/day) Through July 28 (Day 100)

"
650,000
600,000 i
i
550,000 i
500,000
450,000
en 400,000
350,0001
as 300.000i!
.0.
250,0001
200,0004
150,000
100,0001
50.000 1
"
o j _ _ _---,,_ _ _"
May-2010
-
Jun-2010
Expected Vaiue -
~;()rizGr: rv1C;~~52
Gutf
!ncidf;n~,
Oil
Ju/-2010
Budge~
on 07/29/201 \.) '1 ~ :20 ,;f\t1 fv1D'T.

repori eiernenls.
,L\,ppHcaUon operated by the U.S. C()~~st Guard and provirJ"'Jri bv the U.S. Geoloc;iea! Survey in
Oceanic and .4trnospheric Administration.
"
--.
Repoii gt::neraied by
rn[{rk"N.nIHI.r(~~)ncaa.~Jov
See end no:es section of the report 101' reference materiai on
coopi;~ration
wHh!\)"3 Nation;;:;
004982
Reference Notes

The vo.lume o.f qil 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

The Cumulative Disposition of Oil "Barrel Graphll provides a representation of the total amo~nt of oil
released over ti.me based on low and higtn:lischarge 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 .
reference material.
Discharged
Note: Refer to the section on Leakage in the Mass Balance Formulas document for a full discussio.n of
Background
On June 15, 2010, an improved estimate o.f how much o.iI is flowing from the leaking BP well was
Deepwater Hadlar. MC252 Gu!f Incident Oil Budget
Report genermeci by mad\.w.mili~,r!?nof.1a,gov on 07/29/2010 11 :20 ;:\f\I1 MDT.
See end notes section of the report lor reference material on report elements.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast GuaicJ and provided by the U.S. G8ologica! Survey in cooperation with the Nation;;)
OCGCinic anc] P,tmosphwic Administration.
004983

spill flow. Values for the amount recovered by the
vess~ls
Helix Producer, Discoverer Enterprise and
the Q4000 are reported by BP, entered daily by National Incident Command personnel, and used in the'
Dispersed Naturally
Natural oil dispersion is estimated using the methods described in this annotation and background'
Droplets smaller than 100 micron are considered dispersed
No natural surface dispersion assumed
-Subsurface natural dispersion based upo~ plume turbulent energy dissipation
method of determining oil dispersion in the water column. A higher factor is used for the uMaximum
Removal" scenario to result in a larger amount of oil"removed." See background documentation for
more information.
DeeplN<Ji(~!'
Horizon MC252 Gulf Incidont Oil 8udgel

Report generated by ma(k.w.milier({vnoaa.gcv on 07!29!2C1 0 1 ~ :2() AM MOT
See end noles section 01 the report fo!' reference material on r'eport e!ements,
Application operated by the U.S, Coasi Guard and provided by the U.S. Genk)fJica! Survey III COO!)(~laUOn wltrl jile N<:jtbnrli
004984
Evaporation is calculated differently for "fresh" oil within 24 hours (daily totei! in the report) and older oil
for the cumulative total over time. Different factors are used to represent the di.ff~rence in this rate. The
Me~sured
amount removed via RIIT and Top Hat


Skimmed
Removal scenarios.
this calculation.
Burned
cumulative totals.
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf !ncident Oil Budgel
Report gGnerated by rnc:rk,w,millor@noaa,gov on 07f29/201Oi i :20 AM MDT.
See eo(1 notes s(~ction Of the repol"l for reference ,material on report elements.
Appiication operated ()y !he U.s. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S, Geoiooic8i Survey in coopf'r;.Jtion with the i\!aticnA:
Oceanic and AtrnosohE:ric Administration,
004985
Dispersant Used
Oil Remaining

Repor! generated by IYlfYk.w.milier@noaa.gov on 07i2f)!20 10 11 :20 AM [viDT.
Se(,! end notes s,6Gt,on of the report for referencE:1 materIa! on report e~{-.~n~ents.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by tile LJ .S. Geologic[;ii
Oceanic and l\trnospheric Adm:nistration.
004986
DRAFT 7.29
independent scientific communjty to produce an estimate of just how much oil has been skimmed,
Calculator to detennine where the oil has gone. The numbers are based on best estimates of how much
.

Based on 60;000 barrels/day flow rate
'Remaining oil is
as light sheen or
weathered t;lr balls.
has 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 tl1at
wellhead.
water column or fonn residues such as tar balls. The evaporation rate estimate is based on scientific
004987
research and observations conducted during the Deepwater HorizQn incident. A different evaporation
surface. Previous analyses have shown evidence of a diffuse clOlId of dispersed oil between 3300 and
http://ecowatch.ncddc.noaa.gov/JAG/reports.html) .
. We know that naturally occurring bacteria have consumed and biodegraded a significant amount of the
of Mexico in large part because of the wann water there, the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, and
beaches.
impacts of tIus spill on wildlife, habitats, and natural resources in the Gulf region will take time and
004988
Attachments
004989

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
004990
004991
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Steve Murawski
oil budget description and appendix
DeepwaterHorizonOilBudget Appendix Apdf; Oil Budget description 7 29 v 6 SM.doc
Appendix A to accompany the document we just worked on, including a description of

calculations.
both attached
Jennifer Austin
2e2-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell) www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco
NOAA
004992
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Jennifer Austin [jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov]

MarkWMiller
Steve Murawski
Oil Budget, Steve Murawski revisions
Oil Budget description 7 29 v 6 SM.doc
Hi Mark~ attached are rev~s~ons from Steve Murawski~ wanted to make sure these are ok with
you, or whoever else you would need to run them by.
Change name "naturally dispersed" to "physically dispersed" (nothing "natural" about oil
spewing out of a pipe)
and added some more specific mentions of subsurface oil.
track changes attached.
Jennifer Austin
NOAA
004993
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Steve Murawski
oil budget calculator
latest version
Jennifer Austin
.202-482-5757 (office) 202~302-9047 (cell) www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco
004994
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Thursday. July 29.20105:41 PM
Mark.W.Miller
Re: [Fwd: Re: NOAA wants to know if you are going to offer comments on the draft]
I'm on the phone with Murawski
now~
he wants to add a line about what is still subsurface.
> Last reviewer just checked in. No more edits.
>
> Mark
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: NOAA wants to know if-you are going to offer comments on
> the draft
> 'Date:
Thu~ 29 Jul 2010 17:01:46 -0400
> From:
> To: Mark K Sogge <mark_sogge@usgs.gov>
> 'CC: Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov
) References:
> <OFE7BBE4E1.316BDCD1-0N8525776F.007200AS-8525776F.007200A9@LocalDomain
)
> <OF469F484F.6C04F698-0N8625776F.0072C0AC-8625776F.0072D281@LocalDomain
>>
>
>
>
> Thank you sir .

.)
.>
> Stephen E. Hammond
> US Geological Survey
> Chief Emergency Operations Office ..
> National Geospatial Program
> Reston.. VA
> 703-648-5033 (w)
>
(c)
> 703-648- 5792 (fax)
.>
> -----Mark K Sogge/DO/USGS/DOI wrote:
>
>
To: Stephen E Hammond/GEOG/USGS/DOI@USGS
>
>
Date: 07/29/2010 04:54PM
>
Subject: Re: NOAA wants to know if you are going to offer comments
>
on the draft
>
>
I thought that you and Marcia covered it well. I should have
>
responded to that affect. Sorry!
>
>
Mark
>
>
>
Mark Sogge
Deputy Chair~ NIC Flow Rate Technical Group
4
004995
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Chief of Staff~ USGS Western Region

2255 Gemini Drive, Flagstaff, AZ 86001
Cell: 928-606-1286j FAX: 928-556-7266
mark sogge@usgs.gov
Stephen E Hammond---07/29/2010 03:45:15
>
>
>
From:
Stephen E Hammond/GEOG/USGS/DOI
>
To:
Mark K Sogge/DO/USGS/DOI@USGS
>
>
>
>
PM~--Stephen
E. Hammond
Date:
07/29/2010 03:45 PM
>
>
>
Subject:
NOAA wants to know if you are going to offer comments on the draft
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------> ->
>
>
>
>
Stephen E. Hammond
>
>
>
>
>

Reston, VA
703-648-5033 (w)
>
(fax)
>
>
Jennifer Austin
004996
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Mark.W.Miller
.
Re: [Fwd: Re: Where is]
I'd say it's your calIon the names. This list is slightly different than what we have now,
but it does say who did what, which is nice.
I don't see Marci McNutt, Steve Hammond, or Mark Sogge in that list though.
However ,you or the larger team thinks it's most appropriate is fine by me.
> Steven Hammond's comments.
>
> One issue >
> In the Tool there is an About where they list >

> Credits
>
> David Mack (USGS) - Lead application developer Jeff Allen (USGS) > Interface designer Bill Lehr (NOAA) - Lead mass balance and oil budget
> scientist lCDR Lance Lindgren and CDR Peter Hoffman (USCG) > Application requirements Steve Hale, Kent Morgan, Kevin Laurent, and
> Jerry McFaul (USGS) - Technical advisors Sky Bristol and Tim
.
> Kern(USGS) - Project vision and management Kevin Gallagher and Martha
> Garcia (USGS) - Executive sponsors
>
> Since we refer people to the tool can we skip listing everyone?
>
> Mark
>
> -------- Original Message -------> Subject: Re: Where is
> Date:
Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:50:2e -0400
> From:
> To: Mark.W.Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
> CC: Marcia K McNutt <mcnutt@usgs.gov>J Mark K Sogge
> <mark_sogg.e@usgs. gov>
> References:
<4C51BEEF.6080501@noaa.gov>
>
>
>
> Quick comments.
> Stephen E. Hammond
> US Geological Survey
> Chief Emergency Operations Office,
> National Geospatial Program
> Reston" VA
> 703-648-5e33 (w)
>
(c)
> 7e3-648- 5792 (fax)
>
6
004997
> -----"Mark.W.Miller" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov> wrote:
>.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
To: Marcia K McNutt <mcnutt@usgs.gov>J Mark K Sogge

<mark sogge@usgs.gov>, "Hammond, Stephen En <sehammon@usgs.gov>
Date: 07/29/2010 01:48PM
Subject: Where is
Dr. McNutt ..
Here is the latest draft of the "where is the oil" document.
Please send
any comments or question to me. Thanks.
Mark Miller
NIC IASG
>
> [attachment "Oil Budget description 7 29 v 3 Jl.doc" removed by
> Stephen E Hammond/GEOG/USGS/DOI]

Jennifer Austin
004998
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Mark.W.Miller
Re: latest draft with comments incorporated
oh good J here is what I just sent you J plus her added sentence.
version 5 attached
> Thanks for all your help. Here is Marcia McNutt's copy. She had only
> minor edits.
>
attached.
Jennifer Austin
004999
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Mark W Miller
latest draft with comments incorporated
attached.
Jennifer Austin
NOAA Communications
& External
Affairs
005002
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:

Water Horizon Staff
Sorry I I attached the wrong document..

>. HiJ
>

>
> The-pie chart uses 60,000 barrels/day flow rate, numbers from July 26
> daily oil budget report.
> 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 >
> should probably include Dr . McNutt, Mark Sogge J Steve Hammond (NIC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Jennifer Austin
12
005003
Justin Kenney
From:
. Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:

Thursday, July 29; 201012:54 PM
Water Horizon Staff
Oil Budget description 7.28 v3.doc; DeepwaterHorizonOilBudget Appendix A.pdf
Hi.,
Attached is the updated oil budget calculator two-pager., incorporating edits from this
morning.
The pie chart uses 60)000 barrels/day-flow rate) numbers from July 26 daily oil budget
report. The latest of htese reports would be attached as an appendix to explain calculations
in further detail.
Mark will share with the authors listed in his earlier email For USGS - I would like to check with Steve Hammond (NIC IASG) to see who USGS thinks should
be identified for this document. A short list should probably include Dr. McNutt) Mark Sogge)
Steve Hammond (NIC IASG) Sky Bristol (led the development team) and Tim Kern.
. For NOAA - Bill Lehr.
Jennifer Austin
13
005004
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Thursday, July 29, 2010 9:07 AM
Mark W Miller; William Conner
latest versions
Shoreline_Threat_Update 7.29.doc; Oil Budget description 7 29.doc; 07xx10
_ShorelineThreatUpdate 7.29.doc
attached) for our conversation with Dr L
Jennifer Austin
14
005005
-Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:

Jane Lubchenco
Mark W Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; David Kennedy; Irobinson@noaa.gov; Dave
Re: pie chart
Oil Budget description 7.28-v3.doc
Hi Dr lubchenco)
Attached. is a draft document to describe the oil budget calculator. This was drafted in the
Communications Office and reviewed by Bill Conner.
After we hear from you, Mark can share with his colleagues at the NIC J as you suggested in
point 1.
>
> Mark Bill, Scott and Jen,
>
> thoughts/suggestions:
J
>
> 1. It would be good to id a few key folks from other agencies to work
> on this early on so they are not blindsided.
>
> 2. I think it's likely that the 'new J rate will not be outside the
> bounds of the current range, so it might be useful to prepare two pie
> charts: one at the low flow rate (35)eee) and the other at the high
> rate (6e,eee).
>
> 3. ItJ s my understanding that 'Remaining J simply means 'left over
> after subtracting the other categories from the total', (i.e' J at the
> surface J on beaches J in tar balls or biodegraded, removed from
> beaches J etc.) as opposed to 'remaining at the surface and on beaches'
> (which is what most folks will think). It will be important to clarify
> this.
>
> 4. In the text, it will be useful to bin the categories:
>
> a. removed by response efforts at the surface (burning + skimming +
> recovered)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

c. evaporated
S.Other questions folks will ask: what fraction of oil released made
15
005006
> it to surface?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Jane
>
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
16
005007
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachmel1ts:

Scott Smullen
Caitlyn Kennedy
oil budget
Oil Budget_ck_v2 JA.doc
Hi Scott, want to have a quick look at this.
then we can circulate back to Bill and Mark.
Jennifer Austin
. 292-482-5757 (office) 292-392-9947 (cell) www. facebook. com/noaa .lubchenco
17
005008

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

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07!27i2010 09:27 AM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geologica! Survey in cooperation with tIle !\iatiot1ai
005009

1,750,0001
1,500,000 .,
1,250,000
t/)
1,000,000
j
I
::::::: 1,
250,000
r
;
OJ~==~~____-=====~__________~==
May-2010
-
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Jul-2010

Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geologica! Survey in cooperation \,vith the National
Oceanic and Atmospl1eric Administration.
005010

AI! units in barrels. See. end notes for assumptions.

Report generated by mark,w,milier@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 th(" N atiofl;:li
005011
Low Flow Scenario (35,000 barrels/day) - Through July.26 (Day 98)

700,000
650,000 ~
600,000 !
550.001
500,000
I
..
(I)
(I)
cu
450,000
400,000
350,000
.c 300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,OO~
j
May-2010
-
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Jul-2010

Report generated by rnark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/27/201009:27 AM MDT.
005012
Reference Notes

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

budget model. The values used in the chart come from the calculations ina statistical model and
reference material.
Discharged
Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG) for the Deepwater Horizon incident. Discharge
rate~
are adjusted
Background
On June 15, 2010, an improved estimate of how much oil is flowing 'from the leaking BP well was
Deep.vater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget
See end notes section of the report fOf reference material on report elements.
005013

Di$persed Naturally
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.
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget .

Report generated by marb'/,miller@noaa.gov on 07/27/201009:27 AM MDT,
005014
Evaporation is calculated differently for "fresh tl oil within 24 hours (daily total in the report) and older oil
The remaining amount is then multiplied with a different factor pased on scientific research and

The amount available for recovery, both dailyand cumulative, is simply the remaining oil after removing
-Measured amount removed via. RITT and Top Hat
-Calculated amount of subsurface disperSion
Skimmed
Removal scenarios.
this calculation.
Burned
cumulative totals.
Report generated by mark,w,miiler@noaa,gov on 07/2712010 09:27 AM MDT
AppUcation operated by the U,S.Coast Guard and provided by the U.S, Geological Survey in cooperation with tile National
005015
Cherrlically Dispersed
Dispersant Used
Oil Remaining

Report generated by mark.w.miller@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 tt18 National
005016
DRAFT 7.29
The Natiollal 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)

Based on 60,,000 barr~/s/day flow rate
*Remaining oil is
as light sheen or
has been
biodegraded, or has
already come ashore
on beaches.
kimmed
3%
the oil budget.)
005017
It is estimated that %% percent of the oil volume quickly evaporated or dissolved into the water column.
water column or fomi residues such as tar balls. The evaporation rate estimate is based on scientific
%% percent of the oil has dispersed p-hvsicallv naturally into the water column, and %% percent of the
oil was dispersed by the application of nearly 50,000 barrels of chemical dispersants. Nffiural Phvsical
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).
sUlface. Other analysis have shown evidence of a diffuse cloud of dispersed oil at depths of 3300 and
4300 ft. (cite: JAG 1 and 2). Further analvsis .
. 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. WIllIe there is more analysis
beaches.
NOAA continues to track the movement of the remaining oil.:--afI:l.-lLwill issue daily surface oil
trajectories for as long as necessary and continue subsurtace sampling to monitor the concentration and
distribution of oil there. 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 detailed
explanation of calculation methods. The tool was created by the US Geological Survey in collaboration
005018
infonnation and a broad range of scientific expertise. These numbers will continue to be refined based
Science Team
Marcia McNutt
Mark Sogge
Steven Hammond
Sky Bristol
TimKem
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Albert Venosa, EPA
Al Allan, SpilTec
Tom Coolbaugh, Exxon Mobil'
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
David Usher, ISCO
Peter Carragher, BP
005019
DRAFT 7.29

"'Remaining oil iy,
as light sheen or
has been
biodegraded, or has
already come ashore
on beaches.
kimmed
3%
- - ..........
".~~,,"...
. ._.-
as of July 15 between 3~5 million barrels of oil had been released from the Deepwater Horizon/BP
the oil budget.)
005020
It is estimated that %% percent of the oil .volume quickly evaporated or dissolved into the water column.
water column or fonn residues such as tar balls. The evaporation rate estimate is based on scientific
%% percent ofthe oil has dispersed phvsicallv naturally into the water column, and %% percent of the
oil was dispersed by the application of nearly 50,000 barrels of chemical dispersants. Natural Physical
dispersion occurs as a result of the oil coming out of the broken riser pipe at high speed into the water
colu.nin, 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 bdow the
sUlface. Other analysis have shown evidence of a d.iffuse cloud of dispersed oil at depths of 3300 and
4300 ft. (cite: JAG 1 and 2), Further analysis .
. oil. Bacteria that break down the dispersed and weathered surface oil are naturally abundant in the Gulf
beaches.
In summary, burning, skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead have removed roughly 1/4 of the
NOAA continues to track the movement of the remaining oil.:--B-R4-Itwill 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
005021
operational reports. The rest of the numbers were based on previous scientific analyses, best available .
Science Team
Marcia McNutt
Mark Sogge
Steven Hammond
Sky Bristol
TimKem
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Albert Venosa, EPA
.Ron Goodman, U. of Calgary
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
David Usher, ISCO
Peter Carragher, BP
005022
DRAFT 7.29
Calculator to determine where the oil has gone. Thenumbers are based on best estimates of how much
I-----~---,.,......----~~~~-~--
I)
I
;
i
I
,I
I
Ii
I
!
"Remaining oil is
as light sheen or
weathered tar bans,
has been
biodegraded, or has
already come ashore
! on beaches.
I,
l
!
I
!,
!
the oil budget.)
005023
-and observations conducted during the Deepwater Horizon incident. A different evaporation rate is used
dispersed by the. application of nearly 50,000 -barrels of chemical dispersants. Natural dispersion occurs
Dispersed oil that is in droplets smaller than 100 microns could potentiallv remain below the surface.
Other analysis have shown evidence of a diffuse cloud of dispersed oil at depths of 3300 mld 4300 ft.
(JAG 1 and 2),
the fact that oi,l enters the Gulf of Mexico through natural seeps regularly. While there is more analysis
beaches.
See Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon GulfIncident Budget Tool Report from July 26, 2010 for detailed
005024
Note on degree of confidence in ~alculations: The Oil Budget calculations are based on direct
information and a broad range of scientific expertise. These numbers will continue to be refined ~ased
Science Team
Marcia McNutt
MarkSogge
Steven Hammond
Sky Bristol
TimKem
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Albert Venosa, EPA
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
David Usher, ISeO
Peter Carragher, BP
005025
DRAFT 7.29
,-------I
*Remaining oil is
1
i as light sheen or
iI weathered tar balls.
has been
biodegraded, or has
already come ashore
on beaches.
ed
.M
the oil budget.)
005026
as a result of the oil coming out of the broken riser pipe at high speed into the water column, which.
After accounting for operations, dispersion and evaporation, %% percent remairis. This oil is either at
beaches.
oil. Around aqu~er of the total has been naturally evaporated and another quarter dispersed into Gulf
waters. The remaining amount, rOtighlyl/4 is on the surface, in tar balls, on beaches, removed from
NOAA continues to track the movement ofthe remaining oil and will issue daily surface oil trajectories
explanation of calculation methods. The tool was created by the US Geological Survey in col1aboration
005027
Science Team
Marcia McNutt
Mark Sogge
Steven Hammond
Sky Bristol
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
MichelBoufadel, Temple U.
005028
DRAFT 7.29
burned, contained, evaporated and d~spersed. 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
Deepwater Horizon on Budget

*Remaining oil is
as light sheen or
has been
biodegraded, or has
already come ashore
on beaches.
kimmed
3%
the oil budget.)
significant portion of the spilled oiL %% percent of the oil was captured directly fr0111 the wellhead by
005029
column -or form residues such as tar balls. The evaporation rate estimate is based on scientific research
We know that naturally occurring bacteria have consumed and biodegraded a significant amount ofthe
of Mexico in large part because of the warm water there, the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels; and
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 quartet dispersed into Gulf
monitoring strategies for
balls and near shore submerged oil.
tar
..;,
scientists remain extremely concerned about the impact to the Gulf ecosystem. Fully wlderstanding the
.continued monitoring and research.
See Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Gulflncident Budget Tool Report from July 26, for detailed
measurements where possible and the best available scientific estimates where measurements were 110t
005030
Science Team
Marcia McNutt
Mark Sogge
Steven Hammond
Sky Bristol
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Albert Venosa, EPA
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Pat Lanlbert, Env. Canada
Per Daling, SINTEF
David Usher, ISCO
Peter Carragher, BP
005031
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident
on Budget
.. All units in barrels. See end notes for assumptions.

ft.pplication operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Nation!';!
005032

1,750,000
1.500,000
1,250,000
-...
CD
...
1,000,000
cu
.Q
I
I
(I)
750,000
500,0001
,
250,00:
j
May-2010
-
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Jul-2010

Report generated by marl\.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, Geologica! Survey in cooperation with tile National
005033

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

Report generated by mark.w.milier@noaa.govon 07!27i2010 09:27 AM MDT.
005034
700,000
650,000
600,000
550,000
500,000 -I
450,000
-...... 400,0001
th
CD
C'CS
.c
350,000
300,0001
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
OJ
May-2010
-
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Jul-2010
Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.goM on 07/27/2010 09:27 AM MDT.

005035
Reference Notes

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

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.
Background
Deepwater Horiz.on MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

005036
to, collect additional data and refine these estimates, it is important to realize that the numbers can

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 subsurfa,?e
Removal" scenario to result in a larger amount of oil "removed." See background docLlr:nentation for
more information.
-Evaporation formulas include diss,olution as well

See end notes section of tile report for reference material on report elements,
Application operated by the U.s. Coast Guard and provided by the U,S, Geologicai Survey in cooperation with the i'-latiopal
Oceanic and Atmospl,eric Administration.
005037
-The remaining amount is then mulUplied with a different factor based on scientific research
an~


Skimmed
Removal scenarios.
this calculation.
Burned
cumulative totals.
005038
oDifferent rates for non-emulsified and emulsified oil
Chemicalfy Dispersed
Dispersant Used
personnel. It is an actual measurement of the total dispersant used via all methods employed .
. Oil Remaining

Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. GeolofJicai Survey in cooperation with the National
005039
DRAFT 7.29

"'Remaining oil is
as light sheen or
has been
biodegraded, or has
already come ashore
on beaches.
. . Figure 1: Oil BudgetCiuculator~sIiows what has happened to the oil.

the oil budget.)
the riser pipe insertion tube and top hat systems. In addition, bruning and skimming operations
005040
oiL Bacteria that break down the dispersed and weathered surface oil are naturally abundant in the Gulf
of Mexico in large part l:>ecause of the warm water there, the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, and
beaches.
oiL Around a quarter of the total has been naturally evaporated and another quarter dispersed into Gulf
of this spill on wildlife, habitats, and natural resources in the Gulfregion will take time and continued .
005041
DRAFT 7.29
The National Incident Command has assembled the best scientific minds in the government and .

*Remaining oil is .
as light sheen or
has been
biodegraded, or has
already come ashore
onbeache::..
Figure 1: Oil Budg~t Calculator- Shows what has happened to the oil.
... _ __
the oil budget)
As shown in the pie graph (Figure I), aggressive response efforts have been successful in recovering a
significant portion of the spilled oiL %% percent of the oil was captured directly from the wellhead by .
collected just over %% percent of the oiL
005042
aild observations conducted during the Deepwater Horizon incident. A different evaporation rate is used
%% percent of the oil has dispersed naturally into the water column, and %% 'percent of the oil was
beaches.
waters. The remaining amount, roughly'l/6 is on the surface, in tar balls, on beaches, removed from
of this spill on wildlife, habitats, and natural resources in the Gulf region will take time and continued
See Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon GulfIncident Budget Tool Report from July 26, for detailed
infonnation and further analysis.
005043
DRAFT 7.28

Chemically
Dispersed
11%
3%
Dispersion
13%
Deepwater HorizonIBP wellhead. (*When announced later this week (t), new FRIG
005044
evaporation rate estimate is based on scientific research and observations conducted .
(less than 100 microns - the diameter of a human hair) ..
through natural seeps regularly so that the bact~ria there are accustomed to breaking it ,
beaches.
Gulf region will take time and continued monitoring and research. '
005045

~ AU units in barrels. See end notes for assumptions.

005046

I
1 J50,000
1,500,000
1
,
1,250,0001
I
t/)
1:000,000
i
t
750,0001
I
500,0001
250,000
j
J_---,-___--,..-____--,-____
May-2010
-
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Jul-2010

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07!27i201 009:27 AM l\.:lDT.
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
~~ationai
005047

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

Report generated by marl<.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/27/2010 09:27 AM MDT.
005048

700,000
650,000
600,000
550,000
500,000
450,000
tJ)
Gi 400,000
:: 350,000
C'G
..c 300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,001
50,000
a
May-201O
-
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
JUI-2010

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07127i2010 09:27 AM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geolo~Jicaf Survey:n cooperation with the Nation",!
Oceanic and Atmosptieric Administration.
005049
Reference Notes

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

dispersed
by both natural
and management Imethods, and the total remaining oil calculated by the oil
.
reference material.
Discharged
The Discharge values shown in the reports come from the low andhigh estimates determined by the
Discharge rates use flow limits from FRTG Plume Team PIV measurements.
. the scientific methodology used in this calculation.
Background

Oceclllic and Atmospheric Administration.
.
005050
Re"covered via RITT and Top Hat

Dispersed Naturally
-Subsurface natural dispersion based.upon plume turbulent energy dissipation
Natural subsurtace dispersion is a calculation of the total discharge minus a calculation of subsurface
more information.
Evaporation and dissolution occur naturally with oil on the surtace. This element in the report is the
documentation. The following assumptions and factors apply;

Report generated by mBrk.w.miller@noaa.govon 07127/201009:27 AM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S, Geologica! Survey
III
cooperation vvith
tl10
National
005051
. for a full discussion of the scientific methodology used in this calculation.

-Measured amount removed via RITT and Top'Hat
Calculated amount of evaporation and dissolution
Skimmed
Removal scenarios.
this calculation.
Burned
cumulative totals.
Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/27i2010 09:27 AM MDT.
005052
-American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) bum rate standards are used
-Different r~tes for non-emtllsified and emulsified oil
-No natural surface. dispersion assumed
Dispersant Used
Oil Remaining

005053
DRAFT 7.28

govel11l1'lent 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.

Chemically
Dispersed
11%
8%
Dispersion
13%
Deepwater HorizonlBP wellhead. (*When announced later this week (t), new FRTG
005054
It is estimated thai%% percent of the oil quickly evaporated or dissolved into the water
beaches.
005055
July 27, 2010
DRAFT
Not for Public Release
Shoreline Threat Update: Florida and East Coast

Deepwater Horizon MC252 BP Oil Spill
Now that the Deepwater Horizon/BPwelihead has been capped, the National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is issuing this update of its shoreline threat analysis. Given current
conditions, Florida and the East Coast are not likely to experience any effects from the remaining oil on the
surface of the Gulf.
[ Comment [wgc1]: Suggest a link to the
i original analysis. And propose that we add tl

i longer (last) version oflhis write up 10 the
; ORR web site as part of that site with the
original model results.
.
l http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/dwh.php
~'2':,.id=8IS __ ..__._._............_._ ............ .
The updated shoreline threat predictions for Florida and the East Coast are based on two factors: I) the current amount of
oil on the surface ofthe water and, 2) the present configuration of the Loop Current. This analysis is based
on the assumption that there will be no further release of oil from the BP wellhead.
Over flights in the wake of Tropical Storm Bonnie have found only scattered patches of light sheen near the
Mississippi Delta- an indication that the oil is naturally dispersing and biodegrading.
.
Around May 24, a large Loop Current eddy, called Eddy Franklin, started to "pinch otT," or detach, from the
Loop Current. For the next six weeks, Eddy Franklin and the Loop Current showed varying levels of
connectivity. As of July 25,2010, Eddy Franklin was more than 100 miles from the nearest surface oil
associated with the Deepwater Horizon/BP source. Eddy Franklin now appears to be cleanly separated
(Figure I), and will likely migrate to the west over the next few months.
There is no clear way for oil to be transported to Flo!'ida.,or along the East Coast ofthe United States unless
the Loop Current fully reforms with Eddy Franklin, or moves northward. These occurrences are not
projected for several months. At that point, essentially all of the remaining surface oil will have dissipated.'
r~'-"''''''", ~
."'"J...,)
"'.
4.~~!~~.""..
~\..
....:
......~
ta.:"
..... :........... .
!,
...........
/",,-::::-
,/
62.5'25
!
!,
250
,!
Mires
Figure I. Configuration of the loop Current and footprint of sheen from satellite analysis on July 26. 2010. Eddy Franklin has now
separated from the loop Current.
: comment [JKA2]: Is this all Fl or South

j FL?
005056
July27,2010
DRAFT
Not for Publ ic Release
Tracking the Loop Current

The Loop Current is a warm ocean current in the Gulf of Mexico that flows northward between Cuba and the
Yucatan Peninsula, moves north into the Gulf of Mexico, loops east and south before exiting to the east
through the Florida Straits. The Loop Current is one of the world's strongest currents, sometimes reaching
speeds of up to 4 knots.
When in its classic configuration, the northern edge of the Loop Current can extend quite close to the site of
the Deepwater Horizon MC252 spill site. Often times, tlll.LLoop Current can serve as a significant transport
mechanism from the northern Gulf of Mexico to the Florida Straits, and ultimately the East Coast.
When the Deepwater Horizon spill began on April 22, the Loop Current was in its classic configuration, with
its northern boundary approximately 60 miles from the spill site. About a month after the accident. a counter
clockwise eddy formed along its northeast boundary that served to move some ofthe surface slick toward the
Loop Current. Most of that sliak, which was comprised of sheens and tar balls, appeared to stay primarily in
the counter-clockwise eddy, rather than entering the main Loop Current. T~ere has been no sheen detected
in the eddy since June 9. No oil has been found anywhere else in the Loop Current system that has been
identified as Deepwater Horizon oil.
Previous Projections
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is committed to providing timely and useful
scientific information about the spill through tactical observations, monitoring, modeling, and specific
studies. Previous projections of shoreline threat, available at this web site, used an oil trajectory model driven
by historical data records of ocean currents and winds. Tra,jectory modeling is not the preferred method for
.making prediCtions at this time because recent overflights report very small amounts of surface oil.
005057
DRAFT 7.28
Prepared By: Caiilyn Kennedy, Jen Austin
The National Incident Command has assembled the best scientific min4s in the

Chemically
Dispersed
11
8%
3%
Dispersion
13%
buming and skimming operations collected justover %% percent of the oil.
005058
. during the Deepwater Horizon incident. A different evaporation rate is used for fresh and
the oil was dispersed by the application of nearly 50,;000 barrels of chemical dispersants.
. pressures into the water column, which caused some of it to spray off in small droplets
amount of the oiL Bacteria that break down the dispersed and weathered surface oil are
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
beaches.
In summary, burning, skimming and recovery efforts have removed roughly 113 ofthe
oiL Around a quarter of the total has been naturally evaporated and another quarter
.dispersed into Gulf waters. The remai~ng amount, roughly 1/6 is on the surface, in tar
balls, on beaches, removed from beaches or has been biodegraded.
005059
DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Chris Vaccaro

202-536-8911
July XX, 2010
NOAA: Gulfs Surface Oil Not a Threat to Florida and East Coast
Florida and the East Coast are not likely to experience any effects from the
remaining oil on the surface of the Gulf as it continues to degrade and is cut off from the
loop current, according to a new NOM analysis that assumes the Deepwater
HorizonlBP wellhead will remained capped.
"For Florida and the .Eastern Seaboard, the coast remains clear," said Jane
Lubchenco, Ph.D., under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA
administrator. "With the flow stopped and the loop current at a distance, the light sheen
remaining on the Gulfs surface will continue to biodegrade and disperse, but will not
travel far."
This latest report is part of NOAA's ongoing work related to the Deepwater
Horizon/BP response and recovery efforts, including aerial and satellite-based
observations of surface oil and monitoring of the loop current.
Overflights in the wake of Tropical Storm Bonnie found only scattered patches of
light sheen near the Mississippi Delta - an indication that the oil is naturally dispersing
and biodegrading.
A large Loop Current eddy, called Eddy Franklin has pinched off and detach frofTI the
Loop Current. As of July 25,2010, Eddy Franklin was more than 100 miles from the
nearest surface oil associated with the Deepwater Horizon BP source.
Until the Loop Current fully reforms, there is no clear way for oil to be transported to
Florida or beyond, which is not projected to occur for several months. At that pOint.
essentially all of the remaining surface oil will have dissipated .
.;J,' :~tl.~\.
iP:;~,~::t:
"
.,.~\.
;.: .: . -: ,. .:.:..
1'lf':. ONpot...r 1"""- M(:l~
,..............
...
~.:;......
.~ !
. #l
.:
lJ
fIJ..
..........
..' ..:'
.....
J
... ,. ...... .
005060
DRAFT 7.28
Scientists at the National Incident Command have developed a tool, called the Oil Budget
Calculator, to help quantifY what has happened to all the oil that has spilled into the Gulf.
This tool assumes no further releases of oil from the well as of July 15 when the cap was
put in place. Conclusions are based on estimates of how much oil was released and our
understanding of how this oil is moving and degrading.
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
from the Deepwater HorizonlBP wellhead.
As shown in the pie graph (Figure 1), 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 ofthe 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'r~sidu~s such 3$ tar. "'~IIs,.
the oil was dispersed by the application of nearly 50,000. barrels of chemical dispersants.
amount of the oil. Bacteria that break down oil are naturally abundant in the Gulf of
Mexico in large part because of the warm water there and because of favorable nutrient
and oxygen levels. While there is more analysis to be done to quantifY the exact rate of
biodegradation in the Gulf, early indications show that light crude oil is biodegrading
quickly.
These estimates leave us with about %% percent of the oil remaining in the form of
surface slicks, tar balls, and deposits 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.
-~~---.------.--.-.-----.-.-.
i comment [lKA1]: Need a liRe to better describe

i evaporation.
Whar evaporates whar doesn't?

I Aren't tar bells lefr behind, part of what is counted 1I!
L:!_~aining1'~
__
"_*. ___ ._.M _____ "'" .....
~_
005061
understanding impacts of this spill on wildlife, habitats, and natural resources in the Gulf
region will take time and continued monitoring and research.
005062
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:

Wednesday, July 28, 2010 3:00 PM
Mark A Miller; William Conner
Caitlyn Kennedy
Oil Budget 2 pager
Oil Budget_ck_v2 S5 JAdoc
Hi Mark and Bill,

Attached is a draft one and a half page document about the oil budget calculator.
We would plan to add in the pie chart, and obviously fill in the newest numbers.
Please let us know what you think.
Jennifer Austin
NOAA
005063
DRAFT 7.28
developed a tool, called the Oil Budget Calculator based on estimates of how much oil
was released and their understanding of how this oil is moving and degrading, to
determine where the oil has gone.
'
Findings
The Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG), assembl,ed by the National Incident Command
Center estimates that as of July 15 between 35 miUion b~ls of oil had been released
from the Deepwater HorizonlBP wellhead. (*When announced later this week (t), new
FRTG flow rate I total escape will adjust this and the percentages in the oil budget.)
As shown in the pie graph (Figure I), aggressive operations on the water's surface have
been highly successful. %% percent ofthe oil was captured directly from the source by
the riser pipe insertion tube or various top hat systems. In addition, burning and
skimming operations collectedjust over %% percent of the oil. These numbers are based
on the daily operational reports received by the Unified Command.
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. The
evaporation rate estimate is based on scientific research and observations conducted on
the Deepwater Horizon incident. A different evaporation rate is used for fresh and
weathered oil to provide a more accurate estimate.
the oil was dispersed by'the application of nearly 50,000 barrels of chemical dispersants.
Natural dispersion happened under the water and occurs as a result of the oil coming out
of the broken riser pipe at high pressures into the water column, which causes some of it
to spray off in small droplets Droplets smaller than '100 micron are considered dispersed.
amount of the oil. Bacteria that break down the dispersed and weathered oil are naturally
abundant in the Gulf of Mexit::o 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 the
light crude oil from this well is biodegrading quickly.
These estimates leave us with about %% percent of the oil to he accounted for. This oil
is either at the surface as light sheen or weathered tar balls, has been biodegraded, or has
already come ashore on beaches.
Comment [lKAl]: Can you give me lUI cxampll

of how small a micron is?
005064
Recent satellite imagery indicates the surface oil is Continuing to break up into smaller
scattered patches. Some ofthe 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.
Even though the threatto shorelines has decreased since the capping of the BP wellhead,
understanding impacts of this spill on wildlife, habitats, and natural resources in the Gulf
region will take time and continued monitoring and research.

Oil Budget Doc Production 11-24-10 - Batch 20 - FINAL

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Oil Budget Doc Production 11-24-10 - Batch 20 - FINAL

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

002940

Environment and Public Works Committee Hearing

Senator Bernard Sanders

Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand

Senator James M. Inhofe

BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Budget:

Deepwiater Horizon Oil Budget

Residual includes oil

Explanation of Methods and Assumptions

Continued monitoring and research:

Deepwater HorizonlBP Oil Budget:

Environment and Public Works Committee Hearing.

Senator Bernard Sanders

Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand

Senator James M. Inhofe

Environment and Public Works Committee Hearing

Senator Bernard Sanders

Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand

Senator James M. Inhofe

dir~cted them to us.

From: Gilson, Shannon <SGilson@doc.gov>

From: Leistikow, Dan [mailto:Dan. Leistikow@hg.doe.govj

Subject: funding lor professors

To: William Conner <Willlam.Conner@noaa.gov>, Dave Westerholm

Subject: Re: funding for professors.

Bill Lehr wrote:

. Subject: [Fwd: RE: an unfortunate incident]

From: Wereley, Steven T. <wereley@purdue.edu> [mailto:Wereley, Steven T. <wereley@purdue.edu>]

Steve Wereley, Professor of Mechanical Engineering

----- Original Message ----From: Bill Lehr < Bill. Lehr@noaa.gov>

Dear Dr. McNutt,

William G. Conner, Ph.D.

need quick help with Q on Oil Budget NRDA

Subject: RE: need quick help with Q on Oil Budget NRDA

need quick belp with Q on Oil Budget NRDA

. Subject: Re: need quick help with Q on Oil Budget NRDA

Is this helpful? Bob

Robert Haddad, Ph. D.

Message----From: Jennifer Austin [mailto:Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov]

need quick help with Q on Oil Budget NRDA

Subject: Re: need quick help with Q on Oil Budget NRDA

this helpful? Bob

Robert Haddad, Ph. D.

-----Original Message----From: Jennifer Austin [mailto:Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov]

Hi Bob and Tony and DWH Staff,

this afternoon, Can you answer this question? Thanks, Jen

, if any, will this report have in determining BP's financial

Subject: RE: nesd quick help with Q on Oil Budget NRDA

;, Is this helpful? Bob

Subject: RE: need quick help with Q on Oil Budget NRDA

'_HQ Deep Water

this helpful? Bob

Robert Haddad, Ph. D.

Hi Bob and Tony and DWH Staff,

> expected to be released shortly. The report will contain fluorometric

"FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PRIVACY SENSITIVE"

-----Original Message----From: Bernstein, Kristi LCDR

Good Morning NIC and CG-545 leadership,

"FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PRIVACY SENSITIVE"

Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

Deepwater Horizon MC2S2 GulfIncident Oil Budget

National Incident Command personnel to input daily variables;