I have a growing concern that even when (if) reasonable heads prevail and we're able to implement sane climate policy in most developed nations, corporations with a vested interest in externalizing costs will simply ignore the law and self-report compliance while actively covering up evidence of non-compliance. This isn't a theoretical thing, we've already seen it happening. It's widespread in fossil fuels (nearly every major player has had disasters, often directly causing human death and injury, in recent years caused by cutting corners, neglect, failure to comply with regulations, etc.), but also in the automotive sector (VW), animal agriculture (e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/20/north-caroli...), and others.
Even with our current dangerously lax regulation of these externalities, corporations are doing everything they can to skip out on their responsibilities, and often getting away with it with barely a slap on the wrist. So, what happens when the policies get a lot stricter (I'm being optimistic and assuming the current anti-science rule will somehow end and we'll get some responsible leadership that understands we don't have time to cut emissions gradually any more...we missed that chance by a decade or more) and companies just say, "nah, we're going to keep doing what we were doing"?
In this case, I have no doubt the company knew what they were spewing into the ocean for 14 years, or at least had a good hunch. There's tons of data involved in off-shore wells. And, yet, nobody will go to jail for the immeasurable harm they knowingly caused. Nobody will answer for it, and the executives probably went on to drilling new dangerous wells, while their financial backers probably continue to invest in fossil fuels and profit from it.
A few options: shame the companies, confront the executives, boycott the products, organize with your coworkers and strike if your employee engages in such practices, write your elected representatives, write poetry or paint pictures about how angry they make you
Something that's not mentioned in the article: why wasn't it detected/measured at the source/destination? They say the leak is from "bundle of undersea pipes ruptured" - so this is an active line and someone's losing $6.3k/day according to these estimates, or $32M over the time of the leak. Did nobody notice the difference (either in volume or in billing) - is this a rounding error for them?
With no experience in oil transport, I'd expect them to measure things like that, even if just to find the leaks.
Subsea multiphase flow measurement is very hard. The equipment is really expensive. For full range multiphase flow measurement you probably need a nuclear source for density measurement which companies don't want to put down there. When oil comes out of the ground it isn't just oil. There is gas and water as well. TO figure out what is what it takes a multi-phase meters.
You seem knowledgeable. Do you know what radioisotope they'd need for accurate density measurement? Are there non-nuclear gamma ray generators that could be used instead?
I’m not knowledgeable, but I’m curious why you have such a specific question: is this something that you’re interested in, or is this something that you have a practical use for?
I'm not being glib here:
Does the leak represent a meaningful increase over the background oil leak rate?
Are any people being harmed by the leak?
Is any endangered wildlife being harmed by the leak? Global warming being unduly exacerbated?
Ultimately, does the human cost of leaving the leak outweigh the human cost of fixing the leak? Without the balance of probability putting the answer in the affirmative fixing the leak and not '"putting profit first"' is hurting people, not helping.
I'm pretty sure one end of these pipes is oil wells. No one knows exactly how much oil is coming out of them until they can be measured without a leak in between.
