More thoughts on Prudhoe Bay

As the situation up in Prudhoe Bay has become clearer, over the course of the day, and thanks to information that has appeared in comments, it might be worth an attempt at summarizing some of the issues.

To begin with, thanks to Westexas, the cause of the corrosion appears to be known.

And a tip of the hat to Mike A for an UPDATE, I have moved into the post on these bacteria. (8:35 AM)
And (10:35 AM) I also added a note on where Platts suggests the relief supplies might come from. It gives an idea of the global nature of the business. I also add a comment from the Oil and Gas Journal that perhaps I got out too far by assuming that the new corrosion was the same as the old.

[editor's note, by Prof. Goose] EIA says Prudhoe Bay back to normal after January (thanks Darwinian).

The information comes from a Petroleum News article written after the first spill that occurred back in March. To begin with, oil production from a number of adjacent wells is collected at one of six Gathering Centers that serve the field. (As Triffin found the field has a total of around 1,111 active producing wells, 39 gas reinjection wells, 82 water injection wells and 136 water and miscible gas injection wells). The leak in March, for example occurred beside one of these Centers that serviced 230 wells which had been drilled from a 12 drill pads. The gathering center separates the oil, natural gas and water that comes out of the wells, and then passes the oil into a transit pipeline that carries it toward the main Trans Alaska Pipeline (TAP) terminal. The major corrosion that was found in March was in the line from Gathering Center 2, before it joined with the flow from Gathering Center 1 to flow on to the terminal.

Flow from the individual wells in the field has been decreasing, Triffin (ibid) also noted that:

The average well production rate was about 546 barrels of oil per day in 2001, 375 barrels per day in 2002, 350 barrels per day in 2003, 317 barrels per day in 2004 and 293 barrels per day in 2005.
Since the diameter of the pipeline remains the same, as the flow drops, then so does the speed of the oil through the line.

The petroleum news article explains further.

All indications are that the corrosion that caused the hole in the transit line was biological in origin, caused by sulfate reducing bacteria inside the pipeline, Johnson said. . . . . The bacteria form in water, so that problems associated with microbiological corrosion tend to be associated with water carrying pipelines, such as the lines that are used for waterflood operations. . . . . . BP has viewed oil carrying transit lines, such as the line from GC-2 that developed a leak, as much less susceptible to corrosion than a water bearing line. But the company has regularly monitored the Prudhoe Bay oil transit lines for internal corrosion using two techniques: ultrasonic testing and the use of corrosion coupons. . . . . . The company ran a smart pig through the GC-2 transit line in 1990 and again in 1998. According BP's incident investigation report for the transit line oil spill, the 1990 pig run "noted nothing of significance" and the 1998 pig run "showed moderate internal and external corrosion". The evidence for corrosion in 1998 was confirmed by ultrasonic testing -- BP subsequently used the ultrasonic testing to monitor any continuing development of corrosion in the line. . . . It was only in an inspection in September and October of 2005, that evidence of increasing corrosion activity started to appear. . . . . . . However, an inspection of the line after the March 2006 leak showed evidence of high rates of corrosion, even in place that had been free of corrosion in the fall 2005 inspection. Clearly, there had been an exponential growth of corrosion, culminating in the hole that caused the oil spill.
It was in surveying the miles of pipe following this initial accident that the problems with the corrosion damage throughout the transit pipe network have become apparent. Corrosion pits have penetrated almost all the way through the wall in over 12 places. The article notes that the accelerated rate of corrosion is of considerable concern, and posits two different possible causes. The first is due to the nature of the oil that comes from GC-2, which has a higher solids content. These might have adsorbed some of the corrosion inhibitors that are injected into the line, diluting the concentration beyond the point that they were effective.

The other possible cause is a little more worrying. It was noted that the corrosion occurred in the section of the pipe from GC-2 before it joined the flow from GC-1 on the way to the terminal. The speed of the oil is slower where the flow is from only one center. This suggests that as the field production declines, and flow slows, the corrosive bacteria are being able to settle and pit into the walls of the pipe. There are two worries here, one for the transit network, as flow declines, but also now perhaps for the main Trans-Alaska line also, since as flow diminishes (as it now is) both now, transiently, and permanently in the future, then the speed at which the oil moves will also drop. And apparently there may be a speed at which, all of a sudden, bacteria, and thence corrosion, blooms.

The need to make sure that the problem is completely addressed, BP cannot afford another spill, is probably behind the decision to replace at least 16 miles of the pipeline. Since they must also satisfy the Alaskan authorities, the process is likely to take longer rather than shorter.

Oil production at Prudhoe Bay could take six months or, perhaps, as much as a year to return to normal, Societe Generale said, citing an assessment by one of the bank's engineers with an oil-field services background.
"Three weeks is the absolute minimum," said Deborah White, an energy analyst with Societe Generale in Paris. "Six weeks makes a more likely base case." . . . . . Signaling that the pipeline maintenance effort would be more complex than originally thought, Bob Malone, president of BP America, said BP would replace the field's main transit lines as part of a "wider plan in restoring production and operations in a safe manner." BP will also conduct a study, together with supervising government agencies, to determine if it's possible to continue production from some parts of the field, Malone added.
So what do we do in the meanwhile.

Totonella pointed to where the Alaskan oil went, when there was more of it:
Puget Sound: 419,521 barrels/day
San Francisco 123,870 barrels/day
Los Angeles 333,006 barrels/day
Hawaii 42,682 barrels/day
Exports 78,763 barrels/day
Source: Alaska Department of Revenue.

And if one goes to the EIA, they have correlated spot shortages with retail gas prices. It does note, perhaps a little smugly, that the west coast (PADD 5) is almost self-sufficient in gasoline and low-sulfur diesel. However, the downside to that is that gas prices have been the most volatile of the country.

There are two principal reasons for the greater price volatility in California. First, only 13 refineries in California supply the gasoline and diesel fuel markets in that State. The unexpected loss of supply from one of the larger refineries represents the loss of a significant share of supply. Second, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) product quality requirements for both reformulated gasoline and diesel fuel are more stringent than any other in the United States and all other countries. Because California does not routinely receive product supply from outside the region, refiners in the U.S. Gulf Coast and other countries that may be able to supply CARB quality products do not maintain inventories of these products and any possible response to meeting California supply shortfalls will be delayed. Consequently any unexpected disruption of supply from a California refinery results in short-term price increases.
On the other hand they did not find a consistent response to incidents. So I suppose we will have to watch this one play out.

In the same way it will be interesting to see, given that the oil seems to need to be refined in CA to meet their specifications, where they get it. It can either be piped from the Gulf, or it might come from OPEC. Well if we look at where Intertanko tells us that China is getting their oil, maybe we can see who is shipping that way.

Well Saudi supplies to China have been dropping, and they have those tankers full of oil, with no place to go . . . . . .? (Of course the refineries would have to be able to refine that oil . . . .)

It will be interesting to see.
UPDATE: 8:35 AM EST And, thanks to Mike A there is more information on the bacteria that are causing the problem.

I'm a corrosion engineer in the industry with some experience with sulphate reducing bacteria (SRB) so I'll give a quick primer on SRB for those that are interested.

SRB are small (5 microns long by 1 micron wide), anaerobic (require absence of oxygen) and ubiquitous, a typical North Sea concentration might be 1 cell per gram. When conditions are right they can multiply to the level of millions of cells per gram and generate significant quantities of hydrogen sulphide (H2S). The H2S together with the stagnant conditions formed by the colony on the pipewall lead to enhanced pitting corrosion rates, which are on the order of 1-2mm/year, depending on conditions.

SRB get their energy from the reduction of sulphate(SO4 2-) to sulphide (S 2-). They thus require another species to be oxidised, usually volatile fatty acids (VFAs) such as acetate (i.e. vinegar!) which are present in most reservoir waters. The requirements for their growth are:
1 Nutrients, ie. sulphate & VFAs for their metabolism, together with trace nutrients such as Nitrogen & Phosphorous
2 Moderate temperature 5-50 deg C, although some thermophiles can grow at temps up to 70 deg C
3 Moderate pH (~5-10), salinity (less than 5-10%) and pressure (less than 500 bar).
4 Absence of poisoning species such as oxygen or biocide chemicals
5 Low enough flowrate to establish colonies on the pipewall

I'd say in the alaskan pipelines all the physical conditions of temperature, pressure, salinity, lack of oxygen and flowrate were met. Acetate and other VFAs will normally be presented in produced reservoir formation waters.

Often reservoirs will sour (ie. start producing H2S) after seawater injection as the seawater provides a large source of sulphate ions. It normally takes many years for injected seawater to make its way back to the producing wells but if this has occured that that could be the source of the sulphate for the SRB.

One thing that this event has the potential to show is that oil is possibly entering a phase where it stops being fungible. We have seen some of that in the difficulty that Saudi Arabia have encountered in selling some of their heavier crude. Now, from the other side, the serious question arises as to where the California refineries can find a crude that they can refine. It is not that easy, as an article in Platts discusses. (Hat tip for the tip ). However, it also suggests that BP are not totally unprepared.
"There's about 3 to 4 million barrels of unsold Persian Gulf crude in September; this will help clear it," said one Asian crude trader. He added that "it's in a small number of hands, so will get done quietly." The source noted BP and Shell recently had been buying additional volumes of Persian Gulf crude, possibly in anticipation of a Prudhoe Bay shutdown, which has been experiencing problems for several months.
I just noticed a couple of sentences in the story in the OGJ that suggest that the corrosion is not the same as that discussed above, and which caused the March pipe failure.
BP Alaska Pres. Steven Marshall reported a wall thickness loss of more than 70% in the 30 in. pipeline. He said the corrosion appears to be of a different type than the corrosion that was responsible for a Mar. 2 leak in Prudhoe Bay Operating Area pipelines. "Clearly, there is another corrosion mechanism occurring here," Marshall said.
they can take all their oil and stick it right up their ass.
Ok?

So if this issue of corrosion is problematic due to reduced flows, has this been documented elsewhere (like in West Texas for instance) or is it only the reduced flows in combination with the arctic climate and specific nature of the crude from that basin?

Basically, is this a problem that could recur elsewhere (or has already occured) anytime flow through pipelines drops a certain amount below the optimal range.


major, you know how we like charts here.....can you deliver a chart to demonstrate the validity of that position?
:-)

...you gottta' laugh, this has without a doubt been one of the most outragous days I CAN EVER RECALLL, in logic, in press coverage, in wild and stupid assertions both here on TOD and all over the energy and national press.....it has now completely entered the real of "Bizarro World".  I have NEVER SEEN such an open and obvious attempt to whip up histeria to the max, to creat fear, and to drive the price higher with assertions that are COMPLETELY STUPID ON THE FACE OF IT.  Linking this idiotic situation to "peak" in any way will only serve to discredit peak as a subject of serious study,

With the histrionics I have heard today, I would like for someone to tell me how anyone is going to accept any advice from anyone involved in the "energy speculation game", and the operative word here is GAME.

What a freakin' joke.....

Roger Conner  known to you as ThatsItImout

Bacteria are eating the oil pipelines!!!!
It's in the amazing, but true category.  In another life I was a pipeline engineer in Ponca City and Lake Charles for a major.  I'll bet you insiders have no idea who THAT is.

Once a sulfur-reducing bacteria colony gets a good toe-hold they create a tough-as-hell shell.  Scraper pigs won't dislodge them in the worst case.  Then the acids that they metabolize burn a very neat hole straight down.  You'd swear that some holes had to have been done with a drill; perfectly circular with clean, straight sides.  These guys are really bad news.

I managed a few smart pig surveys like the ones that I imagine found the corrosion in Alaska.  The technology is was pretty amazing 10 years ago, and it must be Star Wars-like today.  With decent maps and a good odograph (yuk, yuk), we could usually make one backhoe hole to find the corrosion.  And the corrosion was always there.  Although sometimes the anomoly was actually from some very, very lucky backhoe operator sometime in the past who almost had a really bad day.

In another life I was a pipeline engineer in Ponca City and Lake Charles for a major.  I'll bet you insiders have no idea who THAT is.

Heh, heh. I spent two years in Ponca City myself. But I will never, ever move to Lake Charles.

The scale of equipment at CRMT and LCPL were impressive.  Great big pumps that could flat get up and move some oil!

Gotta love zydeco.

Smart Pigs and now Scraper Pigs..
  Sounds like a new John Carpenter movie is in the works..  maybe Jim Cameron.
There's a whole taxonomy:  brush pigs, batch pigs, rescue pigs, de-waxing pigs, de-watering pigs, tow pigs, magnetic cleaning pigs.

You even have to provide the appropriate ecosystem: pig launchers, pig traps, pig signallers, etc.  A pipeline system is much more than just some round steel that you punch a hole through.  Just make sure that OD > ID.

BTW they got their name from the sound they make as they travel the line.

I heard a story from an old oilman to the effect that in the very olden days they actually ran a real live pig (or piglet, depending on size of pipeline) down the pipe to test for obstructions. The pipeline was too narrow for the pig to turn around, and so it could go in only one direction. If the pig got stuck, then you could hear exactly where the problem was and bring the steam shovel to the appropriate location.

True story? I don't know. Does anybody know?

I don't know if that is true but some years ago New Scientist had a small news item about a new instrumented pig that was going to be used in the North Sea and the resident cartoonist decided to illustrate the item with a cartoon showing the four legged sort of pig being put in a pipeline. The magazine was inundated by animal lovers protesting at such cruelty.
No idea.  But I have seen formerly-live chickens that were found in the pig trap.  There were some known malcontents who had motive and opportunity.  Also, wildlife will creep into the open ends of pipelines under construction.  Good work practice is to cap off the ends at the end of the day, but we all know that every best practice is always followed, eh?
Mark Twain story.
The Romans had lead pipelines that carried aquaduct water under pressure down and up a valley to save on building one of those masonry aquaduct bridge things. Pigs might go back farther than you think...
We've seen bacteria corrode stainless steel pipe in nuclear plants.  Different conditions, of course, but those little bugs can go anywhere.
I would like to suggest that this problem does have an indirect link to peak oil, in that because of peak oil, supply is in such tight margins that ANY disruption (even if for normal maintence) will cause a dramatic effect in prices.

I find it interesting to consider the timing of this event. If energy prices soar before November, the republicans stand a poor chance in the polls. If however, a great deal of oil is let out of the strategic reserve around that time, energy may take the back burner to whatever contrived panic the media stirs up that week. Furthermore, if an energy event occurs in the late summer/fall causing consumer to become accustomed to $4 per gallon gasoline, then this event is suddenly resolved in, say, late October, I think we could be looking at the same strategy as releasing oil from the reserve. Hopefully, the whole situation will backfire and leave us with $5 per gallon gas by election day...

I don't think it works that way.  I think the shock of seeing oil at $4.00 will create a lasting impression even if the price goes back down.  I really don't think there is any way to manipulate this for true electoral advantage, and I also think that the electoral implications are probably of a secondary nature.  In other words, if everything was going great for Republicans then this would only be a minor knock to them.  With everything hardly going great, and arguably closer to the poor end of the scale, this could just make the situation worse.  In the best case scenario I don't see how they, as the party in power, benefit from this, as even releasing oil from the SPR is not going to reverse the impacts, only mute them.  If they don't try to combat higher prices with the SPR then they get hit by the shock factor I mentioned earlier, even if they can get gas prices to go back down by the election.  

Another interesting timing factor: BP, Exxon, and COP have now potentially arrived near the closing phase of a $20-30 billion natural gas deal (with arguably extraordinary "incentives," credits, and tax bennies regarding both oil and gas).

Alaska governor Murkowski has adopted a posture of being more eager to close even than the Big 3, who simply seem to have outfoxed the governor from day one. Meanwhile, for re-election this fall, Murkowski is not doing well in the polls, and for some time it has seemed that the legislature would not approve a variation on his package deal.

Now, suddenly, with the pipeline closing, Alaska's primary revenue source (90%-ish?) has dried up. Gasp. Suddenly during the last days of legislative special session, we've been delivered a new incentive to close the deal.

Hello,
   I have been pretty much only reading here and the articles linked here, but shutting down the largest U.S. oil field for an indefinite period is connected to peak oil in one concrete sense - which producer or combination of producers will now make up for a significant shortfall likely to last months?

Since I don't believe in any oil industry meta-conspiracy (I do believe that oil companies will act in a normal fashion to maximize profit in ways which many would consider indecent), this is one of those rare windows into reality - the pipeline will truly be delivering less.

If the shortfall can be compensated (which opens its own can of worms between short and long term), obviously with a time lag, peak is not really here. If replacing 400,000 barrels a day of formerly fairly average quality crude on the world market is not possible in any realistic time frame, I would consider it a sign of peaking to peaked production.

I do wonder how crazy the speculation has been.

I do wonder how crazy the speculation has been.

If you look at NYMEX crude prices over time and did not know there was a pipeline issue starting would you really be able to point out that the price was so different there had to have been an event this week?

I think NYMEX crude prices are close to business-as-usual. Only a slight increase has occurred yet.

Linking this idiotic situation to "peak" in any way will only serve to discredit peak as a subject of serious study
Which idotic situation are you referring to? If it's the fact that 400,000 bpd is off line, then of course that's linked to peak. Do you understand what peak is?

Although there may be "plenty" of oil in the ground, it gets harder and harder to produce. This results in a peak well before all the oil is produced. One of the things that makes oil production more difficult is corroding infrastructure. It's not difficult to understand. If we're near peak, then this could rush us to peak a little earlier. The return of the 400,000 bpd, if it happens, may not make up for declines following the premature peak, which would make that the actual peak.

Tony

Do you understand what peak is?

Is there a standard definition?  To me "Peak Oil" is short for "peak (maxium) oil production rates".

I have seen articles, even from ASPO, that use the term "peak" to refer to non-global oil production rate peaks.  For instance Colin Campbell writes that the FSU had multiple production peaks.

FSU has had one peak so far. A second, but lower peak is still in the future. The first peak was in 1988 at 12.053 mb/d. But that was for the entire Former Soviet Union. Russia is working on a second peak and reached 9.5 mb/d last December. If you add the output from the other FSU states it would probably be above the previous peak. But they are slowing down. Current growth is about 2.5% per year, much lower than 2003, 2004 and 2005. Many expect them to peak in the next two or three years.
Tony, you are exactly correct, this has everything to do with Peak Oil. If we were not at or near the peak, then 400,000 barrels off line would be no big deal. Only in a very tight oil market could such panic be caused by such a small cut in oil supplies.

400,000 barrels off line for two or thre months, will insure that US oil production in 2006 will be lower than hurricane reduced US production in 2005.

US domestic oil production of crude only (not counting condensate) averaged 5.097 mb/d in 2005. This year through week ending July 28, US crude production had averaged 5.083 mb/d. But production was climbing fast as we continued to recover from hurricane damage. It had reached a yearly high of 5.275 mb/d the week ending July 7th. But last week we saw production drop to 4.94 mb/d. And I suspect it will drop a little further this past week. Now there is little chance that US 2006 production will surpass 2005 production.

The data for week ending August 4th will be on the net tomorrow at 1PM Eastern time at:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/twip/twip_crude.html


"Tony, you are exactly correct, this has everything to do with Peak Oil. If we were not at or near the peak, then 400,000 barrels off line would be no big deal. Only in a very tight oil market could such panic be caused by such a small cut in oil supplies."

That's exactly my point....400,000 barrels is no big deal.

"Only in a very tight oil market could such panic be caused by such a small cut in oil supplies."

Give carte blanche control over OPEC and and Alaska supplies, and I can make a tight oil market....I don't need peak to do that.....no conspiracy theory either before folks start screaming their head off, just good control of your product, you would do it in any business.....

Roger Conner  known to you as ThatsItImout

That's a ridiculous statement - "carte blanche control over OPEC and [sic] and Alaska supplies" - as it presumes that some single entity controls Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Khazakistan, Angola, Venezuela, the North Sea, continental US, Alaska, Brazil, and most other major suppliers. You claim no conspiracy needed then cite one as the basis of your post. Circular logic in the extreme.
GreyZone, to paraphrase..."Senata', I have heard some ridiculous statements....I have made some ridiculous statements...But that senata', is no ridiculous statement!"  :-)

Now of course, we assume coordination between these players....
Algeria, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Venezuela....uhh, that's called OPEC, a sum greater than the combined nation areas you mentioned....and over half world production the last time I checked.  Let's play through a few of the remaining ones you mentioned...Nigeria, small player, but we need um', Khazakistan, let the devil have the hindmost, no one knows where to find Khazakistan, and only the Europeans care...Angola, we keep hopin', but a marginal, the North Sea, call the ambulance, this ones on life support...continental U.S., still important to us, but I think Hubbert himself kind of explained our "flexibility" after 1970, Alaska, please, don't, laughter causes my side to hurt, Brazil, who "supplies" themselves, and the loose catagory of "most other major suppliers" (???? Addresses, names, we need NAMES!!)

Now most folks here assume that the majority of the nations above are peaked (conspiracy theory?  No, it's a fact of history in many cases, and consensus based on visible evidence in some others....but some say they are not peaked, so there would need to be a conspiracy to hide it), and proceed to say of OPEC (we don't know if it's peaked or not...conspiracy to hide it?) that of OPEC, "as Saudi Arabia goes, so goes OPEC, and as OPEC, so goes the world (check the very good posts by Westexas), so The long and short of it is, do I need to be in "conspiracy" with Khazakistan to create a tighter oil market?

Greyzone, I think you were involved in a string on Aug 5th called " Heinberg: Middle East at a Crossroads" in which I was also involved.  In explaining the incongruities of explanation for what seemed to be almost exactly the same  results in 1979 through 1981 as we are seeing today, they used  two major explanations:  War  (question:  Is it possible there could be a war issue in the Persian Gulf today?) and to use another poster of long standing at TOD's own words,

"But the vast majority of us knew very well that OPEC was manipulating production and that the production swings was due to OPEC control and not anyone peaking."

My answer remains as it did then:  And yet, if control and " "manipulating production"  then (1979-1981) could create a situation where every Gulf state and in fact world production could drop for a half decade, and Saudi Arabia could stand at "plateau" for the full decade of the 1990's, why is it considered the ultimate horrendous sacralige to be considered remotely possible today?  Do we assume the world oil producing nations have renounced all desire for Earthly gain, and taken at last the vow of poverty (chastity? ummmm....perhaps later....)

J'accuse...you say....
"You claim no conspiracy needed then cite one as the basis of your post. Circular logic in the extreme."

Whom did I accuse of conspiracy with who, who are the conspirators?  I would make the case that if I accept the logic right here at TOD, then Saudi Arabia could engage in a conspiracy of one....no one knows their true production, their true capability, their true URR, and as the wise men say, "as Saudi Arabia, so goes the world"....it is to be noted that here, to speak of a "conspiracy of one" would be forbidden because it uses the concept of conspiracy!  But to call the Saudi's bold faced liars is considered a great sport!  (o,k, it may be justifiable sport and great fun, but still...)

 I must close confronting you with some hard questions my friend.
 How is it that folks here at TOD will blush as though they have seen a great sin,  foul indecency, or Lady Godiva upon her stallion, will cringe and turn away (!) from any suggestion that the producers of oil would act in their own behalf, and exercise their right to hold some sway over supply, (gad, man, De Beers has been doing it for over a century!!),... while having no difficulty accepting with no evidence or proof the idea that their suburban neighbors will in fact beat them with shovels to a merciless death in their happy post peak garden just to steal a bushel basket of their rutabagas!

P.S.  you guys have got to help me kick this writing habit, it is just too much fun!  :-)

Roger Conner  known to you as  ThatsItImout

"Linking this idiotic situation to "peak" in any way will only serve to discredit peak as a subject of serious study,"

I think that the common link regarding "Peak Oil" is aging infrastructure and rising water cuts in the large fields.  Simmons talked about the problems the Saudis are having with increased corrosion as their water cuts rise.  

As I noted elsewhere, all of these old, large fields are on their way to where the East Texas Field is now--99% saltwater and 1% oil (oil stained brine, as Matt Simmons put it).

Having said that, the Ghawar decline (probable but not officially confirmed) and the Cantarell decline (officially confirmed) stories are actually much bigger stories than Prudhoe Bay.  I would guess that the ratio of Prudhoe Bay stories in the MSM to Ghawar/Cantarell stories is on the order of about 100:1.  

Ghawar has produced about five times as much oil as Prudohoe Bay, and the (Heinberg) reported decline of about 2 mbpd at Ghawar is five times what Prudhoe Bay was producing before the shut-in.  

The rise and fall of the large oil fields is the reason that we can compare all of these regions to each other using the HL method, and the fact that we now have credible reports that all of the four largest producing fields are now declining is a key reason that I believe that we are on the downslope of peak production.  

Hubbert accurately predicted the Lower 48 peak.  An associate of Hubbert's, Deffeyes, using a simplified version of Hubbert's technique, predicted a world peak for late 2005 (within a range of 2004-2008), and world production is down since late 2005. I don't see any conspiracies here.  I see simple--and relentless--depletion.

As Campbell and others continually point out, the moment of "Peak Oil" isn't the real problem, it's when supply fails to meet demand.  And demand MUST grow or economic growth stops.  And Capitalism fails.  This can happen well before we reach geologic peak (which we probably have anyway).
Not to mention that they said already that production could be up to 10% lower when it is brought back online. And thats before they even start I expect the news will only get worse.
"Linking this idiotic situation to "peak" in any way will only serve to discredit peak as a subject of serious study"

What are you nuts? A lightbulb goes out in Bangladesh and it taken as proof of peak oil. A rusting pipeline must be triple proof. Maybe quadruple.

ThatsItImout, it's called groupthink. Humans act a lot like a herd animal. One panics, and the whole group follows. One person's hysteria sparks off another's, which compounds the first, and you have an exponentially increasing panic until something brings it to a halt.
I see little sociological evidence of "panic" here.  
Perhaps you could elaborate?
I wasn't referring to TOD, but to the markets and the media. Didn't you notice the escalation of the fear and hysteria, and the bizareness of some of the reports yesterday? It didn't get too bad thankfully, but if BP can't fix that pipe it might.

A good example of everyone panicing would be 9/11, when half the country went mad that day. Rumors, gossip, hearsay. People lining up at the pumps to try and get gas, runs on the stores for everything from milk to clothing.

Another minor example -here in the South, everytime there's a hurricane in the Gulf (and we're nowhere near the coast), or a winter storm coming through, everyone and their brother runs to the store for milk, bread, flashlights and the like.

Okay, I'm with you now. There is an almost palpable "feel" in the media and populace as a whole that, while not panic, is somewhat frentic, a growing sense of uneasiness and agitation.
External stimuli finally illiciting a response?
I think so. People are starting to realize that something is up.
Now, if it all blows over and things go back to 'normal', people will forget and go back to their normal habits like nothing ever happened. I think it will take a few more shocks for people to wake up to the fact that PO is real, this is serious, and the situation is likely to be permanent.

Just MHO.