Plug the Damn Hole!

[Mark 3 Pointer]

Does anybody else think that these people over think things that should be simple... I drew a picture of how I would plug the hole until relief wells could be drilled.

https://mail.google.com/mail/?attid=0.1&disp=emb&view=att&th=128daa809443db24

My buddy also suggested that we plug the hole with the people who are deciding how to plug the hole. I like that idea too.

Feel free to make your own suggestions.

[Kahns Krazy]

I don't think plugging the hole with a little red x would do anything.

I watched the 60 minutes thing on the rig explosion. I am personally not going to BP anymore. I don't know if I'd call it a boycott, but that company is even shadier than the one I work for.

[xavierj]

I blame George Bush. Can you imagine the heat he would be taking if he were still president?

[DC Muskie]

My buddy also suggested that we plug the hole with the people who are deciding how to plug the hole. I like that idea too.

That would be the best Top Kill method.


I blame George Bush. Can you imagine the heat he would be taking if he were still president?

Oh yes, poor George Bush.

[XUglow]

I blame George Bush. Can you imagine the heat he would be taking if he were still president?

I would have brought General Honore out of retirement a few days into the disaster. He would have taken names and kicked tails. It might not have gone any faster, but one would feel confident that every avenue was being expolred.

...and yes, if Bush had jumped in one month and 7 days into the disaster and declared that he was in charge, the press would have had a field day with him.

[94GRAD]

Where is Red Adair when you need him?

[bobbiemcgee]

http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/object/785/80/n2253393325_36818.jpg


and Harry Stamper

[Mark 3 Pointer]

I know politics would never let this happen but it seems to me that a large bomb (possibly nuclear) would cause the well to plug itself as it caves in after the initial explosion. It will never happen but it seems like a rather simple fix.

I was also trying to figure out why BP and the Feds have refused to accurately calculate how much oil was being released. I can only think of two reasons why they wouldn't provide more information:

1)The Feds don't want other countries to know how productive or even unproductive Gulf wells are. Such information could be considered a matter of national security. Given enough information other countries might be able to accurately estimate the Gulfs reserve, possibly giving an organization such as OPEC the ability to manipulate prices.

(Conspiracy theory starts now) I've been a believer for a long time that Feds are intentionally keeping the size of our reserves secret and untapped as long as Persian Gulf countries are willing to provide us with cheap oil. Once we bleed their wells dry we'll have the only reachable oil left and control the worlds cheap energy reserve. (Conspiracy Theory Over)

and the more logical answer

2)The Feds know how bad it is and don't want to take any more heat than they already are.

[Snipe]

One of the scientists that was working on the spill was kicked off the dream team for his political views.

Now that is something.


Taking a veiled jab at Bush, Obama said the scientific process is about evidence and facts that “are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology.”

Scientist booted off oil panel over writing (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/20/scientist-booted-off-oil-spill-panel-over-writing/)

They picked the top 5 scientists they could find in the field. Then they discovered that they don't like his politics. He was fired because of his politics.

Talk about politicizing science. They kicked a scientist off the spill team because of his political views.

I wonder how much time they waste vetting scientists for politics while oil was spilling into the Gulf.

Obama was going to 'restore science to it's rightful place'. The man is a liar and a fraud. He was also clearly unprepared to lead this country.

[picknroll]

Wait til the next Gulf hurricane roars through. Hurricane season starts June 1. God help everyone and everything down there if that happens. You could have oil all the way to Baton Rouge and/or wipe out those beautiful beaches at Destin :mad:

[SixFig]

obvious response to the thread title...


...thats what she said.

[Jumpy]

I know politics would never let this happen but it seems to me that a large bomb (possibly nuclear) would cause the well to plug itself as it caves in after the initial explosion. It will never happen but it seems like a rather simple fix.

As this thing drags on, this scenario is looking more and more likely. Apparently, the Russians have had success plugging underwater oil leaks like this with nukes.

[MADXSTER]

I don't know about Nukes, but I would imagine there would be some type of bomb could be tried.

[muskienick]

Based on the title of this thread, I thout the topic for discussion would be Natalie Gulbis or some equally lovely young lady from Glow's stable.

[GoMuskies]

On the plus side, Gulf Shores rentals should be cheap this summer.

[Snipe]

I thought this summed it up better than I could:

From Yuval Levin at The Corner: 'Obama's Katrina' (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjVlYjlmZWJhNzdlZWUwMjVlMzZhYzE0ODQzNDg3ZTE=)



I think it’s actually right to say that the BP oil spill is something like Obama’s Katrina, but not in the sense in which most critics seem to mean it.

It’s like Katrina in that many people's attitudes regarding the response to it reveal completely unreasonable expectations of government. The fact is, accidents (not to mention storms) happen. We can work to prepare for them, we can have various preventive rules and measures in place. We can build the capacity for response and recovery in advance. But these things happen, and sometimes they happen on a scale that is just too great to be easily addressed. It is totally unreasonable to expect the government to be able to easily address them—and the kind of government that would be capable of that is not the kind of government that we should want.

Let’s say a major hurricane hits a large and densely populated American city with five hundred thousand inhabitants. Much of the city is below sea level, and the flood-waters that follow in the wake of the storm quickly overrun it, filling nearly every street with water, in many places fifteen feet in depth. The magnitude of human suffering and destruction of property is mind-boggling. But within six days, everyone is out of the city and in total approximately one thousand people—one in five hundred residents—lost their lives in the calamity. Hour by hour, the government response was messy and ugly—it could hardly be otherwise given the magnitude of the disaster. But looked at with a little perspective, is that really a story of a failure of government response, or is it an example of how to contend with an immense natural disaster in a densely populated urban center? Is it a model of incompetence, or the most effective mass evacuation in human history?

Now let’s say a massive oil drilling platform, working with a variety of flammable and explosive liquids and gases in huge amounts more than 40 miles out in the ocean suddenly experiences a catastrophic failure that sets off a fiery explosion, sets the rig on fire, and causes it to sink—releasing an enormous gush of oil into the ocean more than 5,000 feet below sea level. Vast quantities of oil spill into the sea, threatening fish, wildlife, and coastal industries. The company that owns the rig, together with federal regulators, scientists, and engineers, tries a variety of different techniques—from remotely operated vehicles to containment domes to pumping heavy fluids down large pipes onto the well head—some of them invented on the fly, while 80 ships and several thousand people engage in a sophisticated cleanup and containment effort. Is this a failure of regulation and a model of slothful inefficiency, or is it an impressive display of human ingenuity and power in response to a terrible accident? We don’t yet know how long the spill will continue or how bad its consequences will turn out to be. And obviously it would have been great to avert such an accident, or to respond even faster and more effectively when it happened. But can we really say that not having done so is a massive failure of government, or of the oil industry?

We seem to think that given our modern powers, there ought to be no accidents and no natural disasters anymore, and when those happen we blame the people in charge. Well, call me crazy but I don’t want a government so powerful that it could move half a million people in mere hours in response to a hurricane, or would have such total control over every facet of every industry that the potential for industrial accidents would be entirely eliminated. Such power would come at enormous cost to a lot of things we care about.

We who live in the 21st century West have the least messy, least dangerous, least uncertain lives of any human beings in history. We should be very grateful for that, but we should not let our good fortune utterly distort our expectations of life, and we should not react with unrestrained indignant shock anytime the limitations of our power make themselves seen or the cold and harsh capriciousness of nature overcomes our defenses. We should expect a firm response from the institutions we have built to protect ourselves—science, technology, and modern government—but we cannot expect a perfect response. Not from Bush, and not from Obama.

I think that was particularly well said. A sense of perspective can go a long way.

[waggy]

'Scumbags' are what are needed.

And Mr. Chief Scumbag is on the case now.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704596504575272702149862906.html?m od=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsTop

[nuts4xu]

I like the next fact they already named the next method of containment "the junk shot". They plan to shoot old tires, golf balls, and any other crap they can shoot into the oil rig.

Talk about throwing shit against a wall and hoping it sticks.

[Muncie]

Maybe Sarah can give us a chant to go with this situation, like her famous, "drill baby drill!" Doesn't sound so great now does it?

[smileyy]

It is totally unreasonable to expect the government to be able to easily address them—and the kind of government that would be capable of that is not the kind of government that we should want.

Funny. That's the kind of government I _do_ want. Because our oceans and shores are a national resource, owned by the country and its citizens, not by BP, not by Transocean.

What I don't want is a government that privatizes profit (BP's profits), while socializing risk (the oil all over the gulf and shores).

[Strange Brew]

What I don't want is a government that privatizes profit (BP's profits), while socializing risk (the oil all over the gulf and shores).

So are you saying that if the Gov't owned the rig it wouldn't have exploded? I'm not sure what your point is. I guess you're saying that profits cause explosions? Or are you saying that BP is shirking on safety to make more money. There is no evidence to support that. In fact the administration recently gave THIS VERY RIG an award for safety.

We all need to face the fact that shit happens. I hope BP and Gov't fix the problem soon.

[Kahns Krazy]

So are you saying that if the Gov't owned the rig it wouldn't have exploded? I'm not sure what your point is. I guess you're saying that profits cause explosions? Or are you saying that BP is shirking on safety to make more money. There is no evidence to support that. In fact the administration recently gave THIS VERY RIG an award for safety.

We all need to face the fact that shit happens. I hope BP and Gov't fix the problem soon.

I saw an interview with a guy that jumped into a burning ocean to save his own life that would disagree with your statement.

[Snipe]

I think BP should cut the budget for all that expensive "green energy" and take that money and dedicate it to oil rig saftey. I don't need to see another greenwash commercial about how BP stands for beyond petrolium, they need to cut all that pc crap.

[smileyy]

I don't need to see another greenwash commercial about how BP stands for beyond petrolium, they need to cut all that pc crap.

This might be the first (and last?) time we're in agreement about something outside of XU hoops. The commercial part at least, not the green energy development. Though I doubt BP will ever pay much beyond lip service, as long as oil makes them billions of dollars.



Or are you saying that BP is shirking on safety to make more money.


Yes. Because every energy company has always done as little as legally required (or less) in the name of short-term profits.

My point about "privitization of profit; socialization of risk" is that BP is more than happy to take the profits when the rig works like they hope it to, but are clearly passing along massive damages to everyone along the Gulf Coast when something bad happens.

In some fashion, the rig needs multi-billion dollar insurance policies benefitting the residents and business of the entire Gulf should this happen, as well as the government(s) that have to clean up the rest of the fallout. If this is done through private insurance, fine. If this is done through government fees and regulation, fine.

It doesn't disturb you that this rig was operational, with neither BP, the government, or apparently any other entity being able to deal with catastrophe for months?

[Pablo's Brother]

The only logical answer is to put Bob Huggins and Al Gore into the hole. They are the only people fat enough in the world to "plug the hole."

[Strange Brew]

This might be the first (and last?) time we're in agreement about something outside of XU hoops. The commercial part at least, not the green energy development. Though I doubt BP will ever pay much beyond lip service, as long as oil makes them billions of dollars.



Yes. Because every energy company has always done as little as legally required (or less) in the name of short-term profits.

My point about "privitization of profit; socialization of risk" is that BP is more than happy to take the profits when the rig works like they hope it to, but are clearly passing along massive damages to everyone along the Gulf Coast when something bad happens.

In some fashion, the rig needs multi-billion dollar insurance policies benefitting the residents and business of the entire Gulf should this happen, as well as the government(s) that have to clean up the rest of the fallout. If this is done through private insurance, fine. If this is done through government fees and regulation, fine.

It doesn't disturb you that this rig was operational, with neither BP, the government, or apparently any other entity being able to deal with catastrophe for months?

Smiley, I don't disagree that the spill is a problem that no one seems to have an answer for. However, we do not know the cause of the explosion as of yet so to say that BP ignored safety concerns for profit is a bit premature. What we do know is that Gov't regulators deemed this rig to be safe. In fact, they were given an award for safety. So it is hard to say at this point that BP turned a blind eye for profit. A logical analysis would be that something terrible happened (we don't know what at this point, accident, corp malfeasance or sabotage) and the bigger issue is how the heck do we fix it. It does us no good to point blame until one of us comes up with a solution to the true immediate problem.

BTW, who profits more off of a gallon of gas; the oil company or the Gov't?

[SixFig]

The only logical answer is to put Bob Huggins and Al Gore into the hole. They are the only people fat enough in the world to "plug the hole."

http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/therundown/p1_majerus4.jpg

'Nuff said. His ego is enough alone to keep the oil down.

[smileyy]

What we do know is that Gov't regulators deemed this rig to be safe.

And we're also now painfully aware of how incredibly wrong they were. There's plenty of blame to go around here, and I'll apply it liberally. It's also clear to me that these rigs simply cannot operate until there's measures to contain these failures.



So it is hard to say at this point that BP turned a blind eye for profit.


Honestly, I think it's just safe to assume that this is a general business practice. If you were BP, would you do anything more than the government required you to do, even if it were woefully inadequate?

[Snipe]

And we're also now painfully aware of how incredibly wrong they were. There's plenty of blame to go around here, and I'll apply it liberally. It's also clear to me that these rigs simply cannot operate until there's measures to contain these failures.



Honestly, I think it's just safe to assume that this is a general business practice. If you were BP, would you do anything more than the government required you to do, even if it were woefully inadequate?

BP is losing a lot of money and their stock price is tanking. If the government had no regulations on oil drilling BP still would have an incentive to operate in a way that doesn't waste all that oil. The cleanup is going to be expensive.

Nobody wants an oil spill. Not BP, not the government, not any of us.

[DC Muskie]

What we do know is that Gov't regulators deemed this rig to be safe. In fact, they were given an award for safety. So it is hard to say at this point that BP turned a blind eye for profit.

These regulators also took a lot of gifts from companies like BP. Heck they even got laid. I need to work for MMS because I might actually have a real shot at getting some.

From my understanding, and I could be wrong, BP took the easy, cheap way of building this rig, and the way it set up the drill. It's not that unheard of for a company to turn that blind eye for profit.

[Snipe]

These regulators also took a lot of gifts from companies like BP. Heck they even got laid.

That is government for you. Isn't worth much if you ask me.

[smileyy]

So who should have oversight? Anyone?

[Strange Brew]

And we're also now painfully aware of how incredibly wrong they were. There's plenty of blame to go around here, and I'll apply it liberally. It's also clear to me that these rigs simply cannot operate until there's measures to contain these failures.

Would blame also then lay with enviromentalist whose policies have pushed drilling off the coastal shelf and into deep water which is making this spill very difficult to contain?

Honestly, I think it's just safe to assume that this is a general business practice. If you were BP, would you do anything more than the government required you to do, even if it were woefully inadequate?

Asinine, I hope you are not involved in business. The rig is a very expensive asset of BP. They would not risk the long term revenue and yes evil profits of said rig for short term gain. BP has been to well run to this point for anyone who understands business to come to that conclusion without concrete proof (please provide proof not speculation and generalities).

Further, I've yet to hear of the cause of the explosion. Until that happens it is intellectually dishonest to infer that BP or the Gov't acted negligently (to do so it must be proven that either knew of the threat and ignored it). Instead, let's analyze what we do know. First, gifts taken or not, the regulators deemed the rig safe. Second, BP has a monetary and PR interest in this rig NOT exploding. Three, we don't know what caused the rig to explode (bear in ind that there has not been, to my knowledge, an explosion such as this on a rig in history). Thus, what we DO KNOW is that that a rig, deemed safe by third party inspection inexplictably exploded......on Earth Day.

[XULucho27]

Further, I've yet to hear of the cause of the explosion.

Best explanation I've heard thus far is a combination of the following factors.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37107033/

Bad wiring and a leak in what's supposed to be a "blowout preventer." Sealing problems that may have allowed a methane eruption. Even a dead battery, of all things.

As for why the thing is spewing oil like crazy:
http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/05/safety_fluid_was_removed_befor.html

An attorney representing a witness says oil giant BP and the owner of the drilling platform, Switzerland-based Transocean Ltd., started to remove a mud barrier before a final cement plug was installed, a move industry experts say weakens control of the well in an emergency.

When the explosion occurred, BP was attempting to seal off an exploratory well. The company had succeeded in tapping into a reservoir of oil, and it was capping the well so it could leave and set up more permanent operations to extract its riches.

In order to properly cap a well, drillers rely on three lines of defense to protect themselves from an explosive blowout: a column of heavy mud in the well itself and in the drilling riser that runs up to the rig; at least two cement plugs that fit in the well with a column of mud between them; and a blowout preventer that is supposed to seal the well if the mud and plugs all fail.

In the case of the Deepwater Horizon, Scott Bickford, a lawyer for a rig worker who survived the explosions, said the mud was being extracted from the riser before the top cement cap was in place, and a statement by cementing contractor Halliburton confirmed the top cap was not installed.

Mud could have averted catastrophe
If all of the mud had still been present, it would have helped push back against the gas burping up toward the rig, though it might not have held it back indefinitely.

From what I've read it seems that methane pockets are contained inside of these oil reserves and the blowout preventer, along with other equipment, is supposed to control and suppress these spikes in methane that are released as a by-product of drilling.

A reasonable explanation is that a failure in this equipment led to a "methane eruption" which could have been dealt with under normal circumstances. However, failure in the aforementioned equipment combined with the methane, triggered an explosion.

What really scares/bothers me about this catastrophe is that neither the federal government nor BP will admit that they have NO CLUE how to stop this. This oil slick can DECIMATE the entire economy of Gulf Coast communities in Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama etc. In fact, 20+ years after the Exxon Valdez incident there are still large quantities of petroleum that can be found in Alaska. We'll be feeling the effects of this for years to come...

The sad part is most people stopped caring once it left the 24hr. news cycle. This is thing is FAR from over.

[Snipe]

The sad part is most people stopped caring once it left the 24hr. news cycle. This is thing is FAR from over.

First off, please cite your sources. I don't doubt you or them, but I like to check them out for more information.

Second, to my knowledge this has not "left the 24 hour news cycle", it is still all oil all the time. I agree it is far from over. The coverage is far from over as well.

"Top Kill" just happened and failed last week. It was in all the news. The news tonight was all about the oil. This is going to continue at least until people get bored and the ratings go down. Nobody talks about Haiti anymore, but I can assure you that country is still a cesspool of humanity. And we are spending billions of dollars there that we don't even have. Actually, maybe that means the Chinese are spending billions down there that we don't even have.

If we can get it sealed quickly I have faith in mother nature to make things right, but they are now talking about August as a probably date and December as a worst case date. It is depressing.

One item I haven't heard talked about is other countries drilling in the gulf. The Chinese are interested in drilling in Cuban Waters deep in the Gulf. A disaster there would still affect our shores. And what happens if our spill hits Mexico or Cuba? We regulate BP. We have the oversight. We have some duty there.

If this was a Chinese deep well just outside our international water range, what would people say? And it makes a new definition of international waters. If I drill right outside the international barrier but a disaster would flow into the US, how can I do that if I can't stop the flow?

Nobody is really talking about that, but once you get into no mans land we don't really have rules. Maybe I think too much.

[smileyy]

BP's stellar safety record with some of its investments:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prudhoe_Bay_oil_spill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_City_Refinery_explosion



What really scares/bothers me about this catastrophe is that neither the federal government nor BP will admit that they have NO CLUE how to stop this.


This. Actually, to me, they pretty much have admitted that. That scares and bothers me even more.

More from wikipedia on causes:



Attention has focused on the cementing procedure and the blowout preventer, which failed to fully engage.[37] A number of significant problems have been identified with the blowout preventer: There was a leak in the hydraulic system that provides power to the shear rams. The underwater control panel had been disconnected from the bore ram, and instead connected to a test hydraulic ram. The blowout preventer schematic drawings, provided by Transocean to BP, do not correspond to the structure that is on the ocean bottom. The shear rams are not designed to function on the joints where the drill pipes are screwed together or on tools that are passed through the blowout preventer during well construction. The explosion may have severed the communication line between the rig and the sub-surface blowout preventer control unit such that the blowout preventer would have never received the instruction to engage. Before the backup dead man's switch could engage, communications, power and hydraulic lines must all be severed, but it is possible hydraulic lines were intact after the explosion. Of the two control pods for the deadman switch, the one that has been inspected so far had a dead battery.[234] Preliminary findings from BP’s internal investigation released by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on May 25 indicated several serious warning signs in the hours just prior to the explosion.[235][236]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill#Investigations

I had read earlier that workers wanted to shut the well down shortly before/during the explosion, but required offsite permission to do so, and by the time they got it, control systems had been destroyed.

[Snipe]

BP's stellar safety record with some of its investments:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prudhoe_Bay_oil_spill


From your first link:



BP estimated that it would cost US$100 million to replace the 16 miles (26 km) of corroded pipeline. The company had to face tough questions from the public and shareholers about why the US$200 million a year it spent in maintenance wasn't enough to keep the 400,000-barrel-per-day (64,000 m3/d) field, the country's largest, running smoothly.

It seems as if the owners and shareholders (the same) put aside some substantial contributions and things still didn't go well. That is a problem for them and for all of us, but it doesn't seem like the intent was to screw us. They spent a bunch of money and after the leak they had to face tough questions. You have to wonder where some of that money went.

Our own government gave the seal of approval to the deep well that just blew. It passed inspection just 10 days before the explosion. Christ, don't trust your government.

B.H. Obama got more money from BP than any politician that has ever lived. If George Bush had done this the media would be going apeshit. The Obama administration got more money than Bush from BP. They got more money than anyone. The United States Government had just declared this rig safe and they had just declared that it was safe to drill more often in deep waters.

George W Bush would have been crucified and you and I both know it.

I guess sometimes things don't go as planned. I guess we should all blame BP and ignore the 800 pound Gorrilla that funded B.H. Obama's campaign.

[smileyy]

GW Bush may have been crucified, Barack Obama may be getting ignored. At the end of the day, they both would have had the same result. Some sort of dog and pony show that doesn't produce any effective change.

Are we actually in generally agreement about our corporatist government being useless here?



It seems as if the owners and shareholders (the same) put aside some substantial contributions and things still didn't go well. That is a problem for them and for all of us, but it doesn't seem like the intent was to screw us.


When things don't go well enough times, you have to think that they're not going to go well a lot of the time, and assume that failures are going to happen. Any industry or public official who throws up his hands and says "Who could have imagined that this would happen?" I have to answer with "You, actually. It's your job to imagine that this could happen."

[XULucho27]

Second, to my knowledge this has not "left the 24 hour news cycle", it is still all oil all the time. I agree it is far from over. The coverage is far from over as well.

"Top Kill" just happened and failed last week. It was in all the news. The news tonight was all about the oil. This is going to continue at least until people get bored and the ratings go down. Nobody talks about Haiti anymore, but I can assure you that country is still a cesspool of humanity.

Perhaps declaring that it has "left the 24 hour news cycle" was a bit premature. I guess I'm more upset by the fact that people are slowly forgetting about this catastrophe. I've overheard more than one conversation in which somebody inevitably claims "that oil thing is still going on?"

You're correct about Haiti as well. Nobody talks about Haiti anymore and that country is still in ruins. It's just upsetting how quickly people can either forget, or choose to ignore, emergencies of this magnitude.

[smileyy]

Well, Haiti was in economic ruins before, is in physical ruins now. I could fit the amount of shit that people give about Latin America, the Carribbean and South America in the dixie cup on my desk.

Unless, of course, they want to push political hot buttons. Then they say Cuba.

[smileyy]

Continuing my prior post about Obama and Bush:

Bush never did anything to make one think he wasn't a coporatist, and his political base supporters didn't mind that at all.

Obama paid bits of lip service to not being a corporatist, but also did little to demonstrate that he wasn't. His fervent supporters, however, are perfectly willing to believe that he's not, in spite of all evidence.

That's a big difference in the perceptions of the two. Moderate democrats just aren't letting go of their fantasies about Obama.

[GuyFawkes38]

IMHO, this entire oil leak disaster is really boring (no deaths....just slightly discolored water).

I give it only a D- (for comparison sake, I gave Katrina a B-).

[smileyy]

IMHO, this entire oil leak disaster is really boring (no deaths....just slightly discolored water).


The 11 men killed in the initial explosion beg to differ...

[Strange Brew]

Continuing my prior post about Obama and Bush:

Bush never did anything to make one think he wasn't a coporatist, and his political base supporters didn't mind that at all.

Obama paid bits of lip service to not being a corporatist, but also did little to demonstrate that he wasn't. His fervent supporters, however, are perfectly willing to believe that he's not, in spite of all evidence.

That's a big difference in the perceptions of the two. Moderate democrats just aren't letting go of their fantasies about Obama.

Please define Corporatist?

[smileyy]

Here's a good example of Obama's coporatism, and how it is largely unchanged from pre-2008. The analysis of Secy. of the Interior Ken Salazar, starting after the "* * * * *" topic break:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/03/salazar/index.html

Essentially, government that exists to ensure profitability of (large) corporations and their investors above all else.

[LadyMuskie]

I know I'm in the minority here, but at this point I don't really care who is to blame, who is taking money from whom, or who said what. I just want the oil to stop leaking so that we don't destroy an entire ecosystem and way of life for people along the Gulf Coast. I want us to focus on what's really important RIGHT NOW. Once we get the damn thing stopped, there will be an infinite amount of time to point fingers and end political careers and so on, and I will have no problem with that.

Its just that right now, this is not just some abstract political event that gives people an opportunity to show which side of the political aisle they favor. This oil spill is effecting real people who are not sure what they are going to do for a living if they can't shrimp or fish. If the fishermen can't fish, then the restaurants can't serve fresh shrimp, fish and lobster. Plus, the price of these items goes up around the board to compensate for an entire industry not producing. Its effecting tourism in places like Pensacola, Destin and Gulf Shores that rely solely on tourism for money. Beyond the immediate impact, the destruction of the marsh lands and reefs that surround Louisiana mean that more Katrinas can happen in the future, which means that more money will have to be spent there. This is the kind of disaster that will impact my grandchildren's children if we don't stop it soon.

We are part of a larger ecosystem on this planet, whether we want to admit it or not, and when we screw up the way we have here, there will be a price to pay from Mother Nature. Count on it.

[GuyFawkes38]

A little off topic, but I can't stand it when the word "literal" is used wrong.

Just now on the news, a resident from Louisiana said, "Worst case scenario, we literally die. Our souls won't survive." Yeah, sure. In addition, I literally died of heartbreak when Xavier lost to K. State. Sure.

Truly awful stuff. It's really an epidemic. Damn it, use the word "literal" the correct way.

[Cheesehead]

A little off topic, but I can't stand it when the word "literal" is used wrong.

Just now on the news, a resident from Louisiana said, "Worst case scenario, we literally die. Our souls won't survive." Yeah, sure. In addition, I literally died of heartbreak when Xavier lost to K. State. Sure.

Truly awful stuff. It's really an epidemic. Damn it, use the word "literal" the correct way.


Guy: shut the F up, please. It's beyond old. I am waiting for you to get banned once again. I know I have nothing of real value to add to this board but I realize that... problem is...you don't.

[Kahns Krazy]

A little off topic, but I can't stand it when the word "literal" is used wrong.

Just now on the news, a resident from Louisiana said, "Worst case scenario, we literally die. Our souls won't survive." Yeah, sure. In addition, I literally died of heartbreak when Xavier lost to K. State. Sure.

Truly awful stuff. It's really an epidemic. Damn it, use the word "literal" the correct way.

Literally, you are an annoying message board troll. Figuratively, you are a douchebag.

Is that better?

[Emp]

The only logical answer is to put Bob Huggins and Al Gore into the hole. They are the only people fat enough in the world to "plug the hole."


http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/therundown/p1_majerus4.jpg

'Nuff said. His ego is enough alone to keep the oil down.

How about http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=125721827457718

[Emp]

Second, BP has a monetary and PR interest in this rig NOT exploding. .[/QUOTE]



"BP" is several people working for BP, not a giant omniscient brain. BP operates in the same way every other for profit enterprise does, and each person working there has a monetary interest in doing things as inexpensively as possible and thereby and maximizing profit, raising share prices, etc. No one at BP is in charge of big picture safeguards.

The BP guys in charge of underwater drilling at 500,000 smackaroos a day are not thinking about environmental disaster, they are thinking about going way over the allocated number of days and the budget, and getting fired or demoted for not making schedule.

No one at BP had any economic incentive, before the well blew, to consider what would happen if plan A safeguards failed.

BP has argued against required safeguards for provisional relief wells in the event of a blowout in Canadian Artic drilling. The issue never even got addressed on the US coastal shelf. Why? No one had any incentive to do so: not BP, not the underpaid staff of government employees. No one gets money, private or public, to do research into preventing catastrophe until after a catastrophe. It's a waste of our tax dollars, of course to pay pointy-headed engineers to tell truth before the consequences are visited on us.

BP is uninsured/selfinsured for this disaster. Someone or some team of finance and risk managers thought through the worst case, and weighted that against the yearly cost of excess insurance premiums, and profit-saving from self-insuring was the short term economic decision. No one required them to think of and be prepared to pay for a disaster like this. No one required them to set up in advance a mechanism for timely compensation of victims of a disaster like this. The result is that the thousands of small businesses in the gulf coast fishing industry and the vacation industry are going to collapse well before claims can or will be paid.

I love gasoline, and I love my personal chariot. We all do. But the cost of gasoline includes the dirty bits, sometimes the big dirty chunks. Tthere are consequences and costs, and those range from dead teens drinking (or texting) and driving, as well as the wars we fight over access to oil and the costs of disasters like this.

Contending that BP had a monetary interest in this not happening is specious logic. It assumes naively that each employee and contractor at every step is told "whatever you do, above all think about the consequence of a huge oil leak." It's the last thing the people on the ground or in the corporate HQ are really thinking about.

Thinking that these profit-incentivized folks need no oversight by some entity that has the common good in mind is the fantasy that will continue to drive the unregulated free market, and leave the small businesses and the individuals who happen to get in the way to fend for themselves.

[Strange Brew]

Second, BP has a monetary and PR interest in this rig NOT exploding. .



"BP" is several people working for BP, not a giant omniscient brain. BP operates in the same way every other for profit enterprise does, and each person working there has a monetary interest in doing things as inexpensively as possible and thereby and maximizing profit, raising share prices, etc. No one at BP is in charge of big picture safeguards.

The BP guys in charge of underwater drilling at 500,000 smackaroos a day are not thinking about environmental disaster, they are thinking about going way over the allocated number of days and the budget, and getting fired or demoted for not making schedule.

No one at BP had any economic incentive, before the well blew, to consider what would happen if plan A safeguards failed.

BP has argued against required safeguards for provisional relief wells in the event of a blowout in Canadian Artic drilling. The issue never even got addressed on the US coastal shelf. Why? No one had any incentive to do so: not BP, not the underpaid staff of government employees. No one gets money, private or public, to do research into preventing catastrophe until after a catastrophe. It's a waste of our tax dollars, of course to pay pointy-headed engineers to tell truth before the consequences are visited on us.

BP is uninsured/selfinsured for this disaster. Someone or some team of finance and risk managers thought through the worst case, and weighted that against the yearly cost of excess insurance premiums, and profit-saving from self-insuring was the short term economic decision. No one required them to think of and be prepared to pay for a disaster like this. No one required them to set up in advance a mechanism for timely compensation of victims of a disaster like this. The result is that the thousands of small businesses in the gulf coast fishing industry and the vacation industry are going to collapse well before claims can or will be paid.

I love gasoline, and I love my personal chariot. We all do. But the cost of gasoline includes the dirty bits, sometimes the big dirty chunks. Tthere are consequences and costs, and those range from dead teens drinking (or texting) and driving, as well as the wars we fight over access to oil and the costs of disasters like this.

Contending that BP had a monetary interest in this not happening is specious logic. It assumes naively that each employee and contractor at every step is told "whatever you do, above all think about the consequence of a huge oil leak." It's the last thing the people on the ground or in the corporate HQ are really thinking about.

Thinking that these profit-incentivized folks need no oversight by some entity that has the common good in mind is the fantasy that will continue to drive the unregulated free market, and leave the small businesses and the individuals who happen to get in the way to fend for themselves.[/QUOTE]

Please explain HOW it is specious logic. BP has lost a large sum of money on this disaster and will for years. Believe it or not coporations protect their expensive assets and evil profit makers. BP has been a very well run company and one could thus logically surmise that they would understand the value of meeting safety protocal to protect that which drives revenue generation.

Once again, what we know....The Gov't and the EPA/environmentalist pushed this rig very far off shore, the Gov't inspected (lackluster at best) and deemed it safe (in fact, gave it an award), it exploded (oddly, historically rigs do not explode) and now we have a mess. You want to blame profits. I'd prefer to blame lackluster investigators, Gov't payoffs, environmentalist and yes BP.

I will not, without proof make the incredibly illogical leap that "It's the last thing the people on the ground or in the corporate HQ are really thinking about". You have no proof of that motive and therefore your agrument becomes somewhat..dare I say.. specious?

[Emp]

I dont disagree that there is plenty of blame to go around here, Brew.

I was responding to a post that I quoted, and not trying to cover the waterfront of blame, a point you surely can recognize.

As for proof, there is a very simply proof that no one at BP HQ or on the ground was thinking about, or motivated to think about, a deepwater blowout and how to control it. Where is that proof? There is no fix. BP engineers have tried several things, none have worked. They know -- and knew before the fact -- about prophylactic relief wells being put in place, but chose not to take that step because it would of course cost a lot of money. This is not a theoretical precuation: since there is clear evidence that Canadian regulators raised the same issues for BP's Arctic Sea drilling.

I am interested in your repeated assertion that environmentalists drove deep water wells into the gulf and off the continental shelf, and are therefore to blame. Unlike the movie fantasy in There Will Be Blood (I drink your milkshake), oil fields under the deep ocean cannot be sucked out of the earth from shallower, continental shelf drilling. I could well be wrong, so please, explain to me how deepwater drilling such as this well --down a mile of water and several more miles of subsurface to get to an oil and gas field -- is affected by wells drilled (or for that matter, not drilled) on the shelf?

Oil companies go drill where they can find oil and extract it at a profit. I doubt very much anyone "forced" BP to drill deepwater.

[Snipe]

Emp,

You argue that BP was uninsured. BP was insured by the government. BP paid into a government insurance fund. The money was put away to use for disasters. They capped the liabilities that BP could face. That is government insurance. How well did that work out?

You say “No one at BP had any economic incentive, before the well blew, to consider what would happen if plan A safeguards failed.”

If you look at the losses that BP will take from this spill and you look at the hit they took on their stock price and market capitalization, I would say you are wrong. The economic incentive to avoid this is always there.

I quoted an article early in the thread about the Prudhoe Bay oil spill:


“The company had to face tough questions from the public and shareholders about why the US$200 million a year it spent in maintenance wasn't enough to keep the 400,000-barrel-per-day (64,000 m3/d) field, the country's largest, running smoothly.”

Those shareholders want things to run smoothly. They are the owners. They are wondering where their $200 million a year is going and why can’t we have a safe and smooth operation when we are spending all that money. BP would rather be pumping and selling that oil than organizing cleanup efforts. Trust me on that.

You also seem to believe that a “for profit enterprise” is always going to skirt costs. There are 4,000 deep water wells out of 50,000 total wells in the gulf. Something horrible happened at this one and the investigation into what happened isn’t even over. At the end the investigation, I expect that BP will share some blame. I don’t know. They didn’t own the rig, they didn’t make the defective blowout preventers. I expect we will find that the they all share some of the blame, and we will probably find that the government did not live up to it’s obligations either.

But take the “for profit enterprise” again, and look at our nuclear power industry. I don’t think we have had one death at a privately owned nuclear power plant in the history of this country, including Three Mile Island. Compare that to Chernobyl, located in a communist country with no “for profit enterprise” and no private property. Everything was done with (using your words) “oversight by some entity that has the common good in mind”. If you look at the worst polluter in the planet right at this moment, it is Communist China.

Check this out: China pollution (http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china/)

You can talk about the bane of the unregulated free market, but free market capitalism has given us better outcomes than state directed methods. It has given us better outcomes for the environment, for the market, and for the standard of living of all the people. Those 50,000 wells in the gulf do a lot to power this nation, and don’t forget the fact that the government makes more money on every gallon of gas than any private corporation. Uncle Sam gets his cut. What he does for that cut and the services he gives us is up for debate, and this oil spill has given us more questions than answers.

Now the Soviet Union of old Chernobyl and the Chinese we see today are extreme examples for sure. You spoke of a Canadian example talking about the idea of drilling another hole first so that you can have another option. That seems like a good idea to me. I don’t know the logistics to it. I don’t know if drilling two holes in some cases could increase the chance of danger or not. But on the face of it I like your thoughts going forward. I wouldn’t mind having two blowout preventers if that is possible for the sake of redundancy. We need oil and the deep sea has a lot of it. We aren’t going away from oil anytime soon. We need to manage this in a way that is cost effective.

I love oil. I love the mobility it has given us and the raise in our standard of living. We can make oil synthetically from a nuclear powered plant design and it would initially cost about $4 or $5 bucks a gallon. The great thing about that process is that they would capture the carbon from the atmosphere and turn it into gas, and then the gas would put it back into the atmosphere again. It wouldn’t add anything, it would just be recycling the same base components through the atmosphere, and we could make it all here ourselves. Now that oil is well below the $4-5 dollar range, people don’t want that, but making it here would have some desirable outcomes. The problem is that many people hate nuclear power, and many people hate oil and would doubly hate oil that was made by nuclear power. Politically it is a lose-lose for the left, and on the right if we had to lock in high rates for gas they wouldn’t like it either.

This oil spill happened under Obama’s watch. It was an accident. It isn’t his fault. That doesn’t make it Bush’s fault either. You seem to want to blame Bush with lax regulation. Regulation is always taken over by industry, that is an age old standard. Who has the money and power to influence? Who does it really matter to?

Our government started regulating industry with the train monopolies way back when. It didn’t take long before the moneyed interests in the train industry had stacked the boards. We can see this with government regulation with every single industry. BP gave more to the Obama administration than any other administration. Obama was singing with praise the virtues of the safety of off shore drilling not long before this happened. The rig had been inspected and passed right before this happened. Many of the people that work for the government took money, gifts and even prostitutes from the oil lobby. Speaking of lying down with pigs, Rahm Israel Emanuel is the Presidential Chief of Staff, and he lived rent free in Washington in an apartment from an oil lobbyist. He didn’t even report the free rent as income on his taxes. It is a bunch of bought and sold whores who brought you this confluence of business and politics.

I think we need to learn from this situation to better combat the next situation. I don't think we need to bash our system of free enterprise that brings us a high standard of living and all of these delightful desirable goods. I don't think the government is the answer, because the government hasn't done real well in this endeavor. Who is to say it will do well next time? Saying Hope and Change over and over again doesn't actually solve problems.

[GuyFawkes38]

great post by snipe. I completely disagree with Emperor's belief that private companies don't have incentive to run a safe and clean operation. Bad stuff happens despite all of the effort we put into preventing it.

[SixFig]

We all can point the finger at BP...and for good reason. But they are only doing what we as a society demand. We, like Pontius Pilate, wash our hands of the dirty work that goes with enjoying the results of oil. That accidents happen such as Exxon Valdez and this is inevitable when you try to control nature on this scale. The best we can do is fix the problem and learn from our mistakes.

Gas
Jet Fuel
Plastic
Synthetic Rubber
Fertilizers and Pesticides
Paint
Detergent
Medicine
Candles

BP, the Government, Citizens...We all have blood "Oil" on our hands

[GuyFawkes38]

Sixfig's post strikes me as a bit to negative towards oil. We all use oil and there's nothing wrong with that. I have absolutely no guilt from using oil. We, as humans, should do what makes us happy and that is, without a doubt, using oil. To be blunt, it's worth all of the spills and wars.

[BENWAR]

We all can point the finger at BP...and for good reason. But they are only doing what we as a society demand. We, like Pontius Pilate, wash our hands of the dirty work that goes with enjoying the results of oil. That accidents happen such as Exxon Valdez and this is inevitable when you try to control nature on this scale. The best we can do is fix the problem and learn from our mistakes.

Gas
Jet Fuel
Plastic
Synthetic Rubber
Fertilizers and Pesticides
Paint
Detergent
Medicine
Candles

BP, the Government, Citizens...We all have blood "Oil" on our hands

What's your point?

Should I stop taking my blood pressure medicine for BP?

[SixFig]

Au contraire Ben and Guy, I'm simply saying we need to accept Oil as a necessity and with necessity comes growth and consequent struggle.

Perhaps the Pontius Pilate analogy was a bit much.

[Mark 3 Pointer]

Still no exact rate of flow calculations from BP or the Government. Doesn't seem like either one is really trying to quantify the magnitude of the spill. Which at least to me makes no sense...

Any guesses to why that is?

Here's mine:

I posted this last week but at this point I'm starting to think it might be true.

It's a matter of national security- The government doesn't want other countries to know how much oil we have in reserve. By announcing a rate of flow any respectable scientist could calculate the reserves approximate volume. That information could lend itself to market manipulation.

Your thoughts?

[boozehound]

Still no exact rate of flow calculations from BP or the Government. Doesn't seem like either one is really trying to quantify the magnitude of the spill. Which at least to me makes no sense...

Any guesses to why that is?

Here's mine:

I posted this last week but at this point I'm starting to think it might be true.

It's a matter of national security- The government doesn't want other countries to know how much oil we have in reserve. By announcing a rate of flow any respectable scientist could calculate the reserves approximate volume. That information could lend itself to market manipulation.

Your thoughts?


I would think that they may be able to calculate (estimate) the amount of oil in that particular well but that is just one of many many oil reserves that the Unites States has. Most estimates I have seen place the bulk of our oil in Alaska. I don't know that people knowing how much oil we have in 1 oil reserve is going to jeopardize our national security or lend itself to market manipulation.

[Kahns Krazy]

Until the oil stops flowing into the ocean entirely, I don't think any effort should be spent trying to quantify how big it is. It's catastrophically huge. Beyond that, let's just start fixing it and cleaning it up.

[smileyy]

Bad stuff happens despite all of the effort we put into preventing it.

How bad does it have to get before we stop doing it at all?

Also, excellent Rolling Stone article on the matter:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/111965?RS_show_page=0

The short part: BP had no plans for handling a blowout, and the government didn't care. Ladies and gentlemen, your 2010 coporatist government!

[Emp]

[QUOTE=Snipe;201887]Emp,

You argue that BP was uninsured. BP was insured by the government. BP paid into a government insurance fund. The money was put away to use for disasters. They capped the liabilities that BP could face. That is government insurance. How well did that work out?

Wrong. The cleanup fund is not insurance, it is a cleanup fund. It doesn't pay for economic losses, ecological disaster, property losses (your small businessman's shrimp boat, the condo owner who can't rent because the beach is fouled, the small restaurant owner who serves the tourists relatively inexpensive gulf seafood.

But take the “for profit enterprise” again, and look at our nuclear power industry. I don’t think we have had one death at a privately owned nuclear power plant in the history of this country, including Three Mile Island. Compare that to Chernobyl, located in a communist country with no “for profit enterprise” and no private property. Everything was done with (using your words) “oversight by some entity that has the common good in mind”. If you look at the worst polluter in the planet right at this moment, it is Communist China.

[I]Straw dogs. You love to paint anyone who questions unregulated free market economy as a commie marxist socialist [insert derogatory brickbat du jour.] Black or white, no greys for Snipe.

You can talk about the bane of the unregulated free market, but free market capitalism has given us better outcomes than state directed methods. It has given us better outcomes for the environment, for the market, and for the standard of living of all the people.

I like market based economies, I don't deny, and embrace the strengths of the markets. I like entrepreneurs who are free to figure out how to make a better mousetrap. I also like roads paid for by everyone, rather than toll roads only the rich can afford. But that doesn't mean I like unregulated highways any more than unregulated markets. We have police on the highway and traffic court because stupid self-centered drivers do really bad things, and they often hurt other people and property in the process. This is why we have speed limits, laws against reckless and drunk driving, and we require car insurance so that there is some source to pay for the damage done by. It is why we have antitrust laws, so that producers can't fix prices and skew the competition for price essential to a valid market .


Those 50,000 wells in the gulf do a lot to power this nation, and don’t forget the fact that the government makes more money on every gallon of gas than any private corporation. Uncle Sam gets his cut. What he does for that cut and the services he gives us is up for debate, and this oil spill has given us more questions than answers.

I would raise the federal gas tax 25 cents, no brainer. Are your roads falling apart, potholes? Uncle Sam and the states hire private contractors to design, build and repair roads. They employ millions of workers. Got money to clean up the brownfields left over from leaking tanks at old gas stations? The total cost of having gasoline and fuel oil and diesel includes all of the contamination that occurs. My point is that we should pay as we go. Everyone talks about government leaving the bill for the next generation. The market economy does the same thing by not cleaning up after itself......unless compelled. BP isnt going to set up a fund to pay for the contamination of its gas stations unless someone requires it.


This oil spill happened under Obama’s watch. It was an accident. It isn’t his fault. That doesn’t make it Bush’s fault either. You seem to want to blame Bush with lax regulation. Regulation is always taken over by industry, that is an age old standard. Who has the money and power to influence? Who does it really matter to?

So, if gangsters always take over drugs and gambling, we shouldn't regulate or police them, its just going to be a loss anyway, and the societal costs are just the way of the world? I never get the logic. I didn't even mention Bush. Its way bigger than Bush. Its the concept of the role of government in an age of the consolidation of economic and political power in the hands of corporations and the merger of entire industries. Who speaks for the general welfare, with any clout, against an abuse of power, if not the government? If things were kinder and nicer and more distributed, if power were not so concentrated, I might be able to swallow the small government premise. But its not the case.

The folks in Louisiana who want less government -- leave us alone, dont tell us how to manage wetlands or stop us from drilling for oil -- are now screaming for more action by....... the feds? Really, Bobbi Jindal, you want MORE feds and fed money when it finally occurs to you that you aren't going to have the money to save the state? Get out there with a rake and a plastic bag and find a market for cleaning up the oil, I say.

[drudy23]

How can BP survive this without going under? You look at the recent pictures of beaches in Pensacola and hear words like "life as we know it will never be the same."

It looks like BP is going to be held accountable, and I know they make many billions, but I can't see them getting through this when they're going to be held accountable for many more billions in claims.

There will be entire beach communities all along the Gulf that this will be catastrophic for. And there's no end in sight.

[kyxu]

How can BP survive this without going under? You look at the recent pictures of beaches in Pensacola and hear words like "life as we know it will never be the same."

It looks like BP is going to be held accountable, and I know they make many billions, but I can't see them getting through this when they're going to be held accountable for many more billions in claims.

There will be entire beach communities all along the Gulf that this will be catastrophic for. And there's no end in sight.

I read somewhere that BP gas is integral in most gasoline sold. So anytime you fuel up, you're putting money in BP's pocket, even if you're at a Shell or Mobil.

[smileyy]

It looks like BP is going to be held accountable, and I know they make many billions, but I can't see them getting through this when they're going to be held accountable for many more billions in claims.

BP's profits for the past 4 years have averaged $20B a year.

[GoMuskies]

I read somewhere that BP gas is integral in most gasoline sold. So anytime you fuel up, you're putting money in BP's pocket, even if you're at a Shell or Mobil.

Does BP own refineries? Is there any such thing as "BP gas"? Or is it gas made with oil sold to the refineries by BP?

And many of us with 401(k)s and/or mutual funds probably are BP. At least we're BP stockholders. Even doing something that feels as good (to some) as killing BP will just hurt many more Americans.

[kyxu]

Does BP own refineries? Is there any such thing as "BP gas"? Or is it gas made with oil sold to the refineries by BP?

Yeah, I don't know the answers to any of those questions. I just wanted to feel informed by jumping in on this conversation.

[waggy]

I remember wondering in the past how an oil leak on the ocean floor could be stopped, but always shrugged if off assuming the powers that be had a solution to such a problem. Looks like I was dead wrong. I love how the politicians keep telling us everything they are doing down there - all the people and boats employed. WGAF? Plug the damn hole!

[Mark 3 Pointer]

I remember wondering in the past how an oil leak on the ocean floor could be stopped, but always shrugged if off assuming the powers that be had a solution to such a problem. Looks like I was dead wrong. I love how the politicians keep telling us everything they are doing down there - all the people and boats employed. WGAF? Plug the damn hole!


Seriously... Blow the damn thing up already. Now is not a time to be PC. If we have a bomb that can destroy this thing do it!

Apparently Bill Clinton was being interviewed yesterday and said if the relief wells don't work then a bomb might be the only remaing option.

[Muskie1000]

Just asking - I didn't read this whole thread - but if they blow it up, could it not create some kind of Tsunami?

[boozehound]

I don't see how blowing it up would work. Obviously there is something I don't understand. How would bombing a hole in the Ocean floor that is spewing Oil cause the hole to stop spewing oil?

[Mark 3 Pointer]

Just asking - I didn't read this whole thread - but if they blow it up, could it not create some kind of Tsunami?

Negative... The power needed to create a tsunami is so incredibly large it's hard to even comprehend. The largest bomb ever created detonated at depth would cause a localized tsunami but would lose it's destructive properties as it propagated (think of ripples on a lake).

To put things in perspective... i snagged this from wikipedia.

The energy released on the Earth's surface only (ME, which is the seismic potential for damage) by the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami was estimated at 1.1×1017 joules (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule),[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_tsunami#cite_note-23) or 26.3 megatons of TNT. This energy is equivalent to over 1502 times that of the Hiroshima atomic bomb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bomb), but less than that of Tsar Bomba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba), the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated. However, this is but a tiny fraction of the total work (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_work) done MW (and thus energy) by this quake, 4.0×1029 ergs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erg) (40 ZJ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zettajoule)),[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_tsunami#cite_note-24) the vast majority underground. This equates to 4.0×1022 J, over 363,000 times more than its ME. This is a truly enormous figure, equivalent to 9,560 gigatons of TNT equivalent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent) (550 million times that of Hiroshima), or about 370 years of energy use in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_use_in_the_United_States) at 2005 levels of 1.08×1020 J.

[Mark 3 Pointer]

I don't see how blowing it up would work. Obviously there is something I don't understand. How would bombing a hole in the Ocean floor that is spewing Oil cause the hole to stop spewing oil?


Check this out...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N84Gdxxx8rs

[Muskie1000]

ok so my guess is that BP doesn't want to do that because then, oh gee, they would no longer have access to the oil there. However, if this solution would trully work - why wouldn't the government step in and just do it?

[Snipe]

I am saying a prayer today that the new cap takes hold and does not leak. I still think that nature will recover faster than people think, they just need to stop the bleeding...

[SixFig]

My question is where are all the telethons and tv specials and celebrities supporting the people of the Gulf of Mexico?

Sure for hurricane in Haiti and tsunami in Indonesia we will give billions out of generosity but for our own people not a thing.

[Kahns Krazy]

I am saying a prayer today that the new cap takes hold and does not leak. I still think that nature will recover faster than people think, they just need to stop the bleeding...

I'm with you on this. The gulf is an active, warm area. Assuming the spill is around 60,000 barrels a day, the total spilled oil still represents less than one third of one day's oil usage in the US.

The mipact will be significant, but I think for a relatively short term. I'd say in three years there will be little evidence of the spill.

I base this on absolutely nothing at all.

[XUglow]

It is definitely an economic disaster for the Redneck Riviera. I generally go to Orange Beach and/or Destin 2 to 3 times per summer. I am not even considering a trip down there. Traffic is about 1/3 to 1/2 of normal, and the news is filled with people saying that it smells horrible and the oil in the water and on the beach is worse than the press is reporting.

[Snipe]

The warm water will help evaporate oil and also help the micro organisms that feed on it. And don't forget hurricanes, over the next few years they should do a good job of scouring the sea shore. Might seem odd to root for the big storm but they have cleaned up the mess before. Think about how efficient a dispersal that a hurricane would give you.

[Kahns Krazy]

My question is where are all the telethons and tv specials and celebrities supporting the people of the Gulf of Mexico?

Sure for hurricane in Haiti and tsunami in Indonesia we will give billions out of generosity but for our own people not a thing.

There was a guy on "Last Comic Standing" who made the crack that things are so bad in Detroit that Haiti was holding a relief concert for them.

[X-band '01]

The warm water will help evaporate oil and also help the micro organisms that feed on it. And don't forget hurricanes, over the next few years they should do a good job of scouring the sea shore. Might seem odd to root for the big storm but they have cleaned up the mess before. Think about how efficient a dispersal that a hurricane would give you.

Peak hurricane season is still about a month away, and we've already had one storm reach hurricane status (Alex) late in June. Still, I would have thought that a hurricane would spread the oil even further out to places like Florida's Gulf Coast and even parts of Texas. Unfortunately that already seems to be the case in spots.

[xu95]

It is definitely an economic disaster for the Redneck Riviera. I generally go to Orange Beach and/or Destin 2 to 3 times per summer. I am not even considering a trip down there. Traffic is about 1/3 to 1/2 of normal, and the news is filled with people saying that it smells horrible and the oil in the water and on the beach is worse than the press is reporting.

I was in Destin 2 weeks ago and it is not bad there yet......yet.

xu95

[XUglow]

Does anyone have an explanation for the government delay on the new cap? It seems they are worried about making things worse. The oil is pumping out at 100% now. Is there something worse than that?

[Kahns Krazy]

Does anyone have an explanation for the government delay on the new cap? It seems they are worried about making things worse. The oil is pumping out at 100% now. Is there something worse than that?

Willie Cunningham has a Jerry Springer-ish TV show in a pilot right now. I think the prospect of that turning into an actual syndicated TV show is worse than 60,000 bbls of oil spewing into the Gulf every day.

[Snipe]

Gulf boats having trouble finding any oil: US official (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hkmir-yGBuclKUXtje0SJQ1d9IKQ)


WASHINGTON — Some 750 boats drafted in to scoop up oil from the Gulf of Mexico are having "trouble" finding any crude in the sea, a top US official said Wednesday, almost a week after a busted well was capped.

"We are starting to have trouble finding oil," US pointman Admiral Thad Allen, who is in charge of handling the government's response, told reporters.

Maybe this isn't going to be the worst environmental disaster in the history of the United States...

[Snipe]

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/CNBC/Sections/News_And_Analysis/_News/_TEMPLATES/_SLIDESHOWS/VisualizingTheOilSpill/SS_Oil_Spill_visualized_football.jpg

If The Gulf Was A Football Stadium... (http://www.cnbc.com/id/38294088/What_Does_184_Million_Gallons_of_Oil_Look_Like?sli de=9)


If the Gulf of Mexico - the 7th largest body of water in the world, containing approximately 660 quadrillion gallons of water (that's 660 with 15 zeros) - was represented by Cowboys Stadium in Dallas - the largest domed stadium in the world - how would the spill stack up?

In this example, the amount of oil spilled - if the Gulf of Mexico was the size of Cowboys Stadium - would be about the size of a 24 ounce can of beer.

Cowboys stadium has an internal volume of approximately 104 million cubic feet, compared to the just over 50 cubic inches of volume in a 24-ounce can.

Just like the can, the spilled oil represents only .00000002788% of the liquid volume present in the Gulf of Mexico, although as the oil is dispersed, the amount of water affected becomes substantially greater.

[X-band '01]

We can only hope that it is harder finding spillage - Tropical Storm Bonnie is set to pass over South Florida today and is expected to track towards Louisiana and over the spill area on Saturday. It doesn't appear that it will become a hurricane given its current storm track and speed.

[Kahns Krazy]

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/CNBC/Sections/News_And_Analysis/_News/_TEMPLATES/_SLIDESHOWS/VisualizingTheOilSpill/SS_Oil_Spill_visualized_football.jpg

If The Gulf Was A Football Stadium... (http://www.cnbc.com/id/38294088/What_Does_184_Million_Gallons_of_Oil_Look_Like?sli de=9)

Wouldn't it be a lot more like a 24oz can of oil? If that well was pumping beer out, I don't think we'd have much of a problem at all, except for the millions of gallons of wasted beer. Also, it's not spread over the entire gulf. It's concentrated in a relatively small area. Sure it's in the gulf, but it's more like a 24 oz can of oil spread between the 40 and 50 yard line. It won't bother you in the cheap seats, but I wouldn't attempt any 52 yard field goals right now.

[XUglow]

Wouldn't it be a lot more like a 24oz can of oil? If that well was pumping beer out, I don't think we'd have much of a problem at all, except for the millions of gallons of wasted beer. Also, it's not spread over the entire gulf. It's concentrated in a relatively small area. Sure it's in the gulf, but it's more like a 24 oz can of oil spread between the 40 and 50 yard line. It won't bother you in the cheap seats, but I wouldn't attempt any 52 yard field goals right now.

Additionally, the oil is either lighter than water and on the surface or denser that water and on the ocean floor. Some smaller particles will be suspended between the top and bottom, but volume is a fairly irrelevant term. Gold domes are covered with ounces of gold. The volume of the gold is tiny compared to the volume of the dome, and yet it manages to cover the dome completely.

[bobbiemcgee]

http://epaper.orlandosentinel.com/OS/OS/2010/07/23/ArticleHtmls/23_07_2010_006_008.shtml

[RealDeal]

Gulf boats having trouble finding any oil: US official (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hkmir-yGBuclKUXtje0SJQ1d9IKQ)

Maybe this isn't going to be the worst environmental disaster in the history of the United States...

Could have something to do with the corexit used by bp. Bad stuff.

[Snipe]

Could have something to do with the corexit used by bp. Bad stuff.

I wish they didn't use dispersants. I think many times the reaction can do more damage than the oil. Oil is part of nature and it seeps into the environment on it's own. Microbes exist that feed on it and break it down. Most of it just evaporates rapidly if it is on the surface. The key I think is keeping it off of the beaches and out in the water.

I think the best case scenario is that everything could vanish in just a couple of months. The sun, wind and rain and a hurricane or two could really do the oil in, breaking it up and dispersing it so that the oil eating microbes can get at it. When it is in large plumes the microbes only eat at the edges. Once it breaks up it is toast. Keep it out of the marches and the beaches and nature will do its thing. Those microbes will multiply and eat it up and then once it is gone they will become part of the food chain. Nature is an amazing thing. The thing that scares me is the chemicals we are dumping into the gulf. While an oil seep is natural, those chemicals probably are not. The unintended consequences always scare me.

I have more faith in nature than I do in good intentions. We know that nature can take care of the oil. We don't know the long term consequences of the chemicals that we are dumping into the gulf.

I wonder if this all does get resolved rather quickly what affect it will have on public opinion on oil, deep water drilling and BP.

[Snipe]

BP Oil Spill: Clean-Up Crews Can't Find Crude in the Gulf (http://abcnews.go.com/WN/bp-oil-spill-crude-mother-nature-breaks-slick/story?id=11254252)


For 86 days, oil spewed into the Gulf of Mexico from BP's damaged well, dumping some 200 million gallons of crude into sensitive ecosystems. BP and the federal government have amassed an army to clean the oil up, but there's one problem -- they're having trouble finding it.

...

At its peak last month, the oil slick was the size of Kansas, but it has been rapidly shrinking, now down to the size of New Hampshire.

Today, ABC News surveyed a marsh area and found none, and even on a flight out to the rig site Sunday with the Coast Guard, there was no oil to be seen.

...

Salvador Cepriano is one of the men searching for crude. Cepriano, a shrimper, has been laying out boom with his boat, but he's found that there's no oil to catch.

...

Even the federal government admits that locating the oil has become a problem.

"It is becoming a very elusive bunch of oil for us to find," said National Incident Cmdr. Thad Allen.

Skimmers Pick Up Less Oil

The numbers don't lie: two weeks ago, skimmers picked up about 25,000 barrels of oily water. Last Thursday, they gathered just 200 barrels.

Still, it doesn't mean that all the oil that gushed for weeks is gone. Thousands of small oil patches remain below the surface, but experts say an astonishing amount has disappeared, reabsorbed into the environment.

" mother nature doing her job," said Ed Overton, a professor of environmental studies at Louisiana State University.

Experts: Gulf of Mexico Oil is Breaking Up

[I]The light crude began to deteriorate the moment it escaped at high pressure, and then it was zapped with dispersants to speed the process along. The oil that did make it to the ocean's surface was broken up by 88-degree water, baked by 100-degree sun, eaten by microbes, and whipped apart by wind and waves.


Let's hear it for Mother Nature!

Maybe Oil and Water mix pretty well after all.

[SixFig]

I wonder if in 1 year anyone will remember this? Remember the beer summit with Obama? That was a big deal last year. Now no one remembers or cares. Time and mother nature can take care of a lot of problems.

A hearty congrats to everyone who helped fix this problem. There are many unsung scientists and engineers both for BP and the government who have earned their bonuses this year.

[Snipe]

I wonder if in 1 year anyone will remember this? Remember the beer summit with Obama? That was a big deal last year. Now no one remembers or cares. Time and mother nature can take care of a lot of problems.

A hearty congrats to everyone who helped fix this problem. There are many unsung scientists and engineers both for BP and the government who have earned their bonuses this year.

Obama was an idiot for his beer summit incident. I still remember that. He didn't need to get involved. What good came of that? What was the purpose? He brought that on himself.

As for the oil, I think that people will remember the claims that this was the "worst environmental disaster in the history of the United States", that a "way of life" was dying in on the Gulf Coast, and that this disaster would be "felt for decades"...I certainly won't forget.

Dumping all of that oil in the water is a bad thing. It certainly will cost BP a lot of money, but they will pay. In the end we might all come to the conclusion that the risks of deepwater drilling aren't as bad as some enviro-faschists like to say they are.

The only long term consequence that could come out of this is the Obama administrations attempts to ban drilling. Once again, the Government Cure could be much worse than the disease. That is no surprise to me. We should etch that in stone somewhere....

The Government Cure is Worse Than The Disease. Rinse. Repeat. Reapply as necessary.

[Emp]

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The problem is that the free market is not motivated on its own to take steps for prevention that protects the public interest in clean water, clean fish, clean real property.

Turning off the alarms that would have detected the pre-explosion levels of combustible vapors is but one example of free market disincentives to doing the right thing.

If my choice is free market vs government regulation on something this big and this disastrous, its not a choice, unless we are simply willing to live and die in our own excrement.

[Snipe]

Emp,

Would this not qualify as a failure of government regulation? I thought this well had just passed an inspection by your government regulators just 10 days before it blew. Sometimes I wonder what we get with all the money we spend on this stuff.

[XU 87]

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The problem is that the free market is not motivated on its own to take steps for prevention that protects the public interest in clean water, clean fish, clean real property.

Turning off the alarms that would have detected the pre-explosion levels of combustible vapors is but one example of free market disincentives to doing the right thing.

If my choice is free market vs government regulation on something this big and this disastrous, its not a choice, unless we are simply willing to live and die in our own excrement.

I couldn't disagree more that the free market doesn't help prevent disasters like this. BP has lost billions as a result of this. They are in the business of drilling for oil, and they have every incentive to make sure the oil doesn't instead get pumped directly into the ocean.

BP may not care about clean fish. But the fish get dirty if BP has leaky oil wells. And BP loses lots of money if their wells leak. So BP doesn't want their wells to leak. So the fish benefit because BP cares about making money.

[chico]

Emp,

Would this not qualify as a failure of government regulation? I thought this well had just passed an inspection by your government regulators just 10 days before it blew. Sometimes I wonder what we get with all the money we spend on this stuff.

Not so much a failure of regulation but of enforcement. Usually we have the regulations in place, it's just that they're not enforced. Looks like that was the case here. But people will still clamor for more enforcement and our politicians will by and large accommodate that request because it's always easier to pass a regulation than to enforce it. Plus they look like they're doing something.

[smileyy]

Hypothetical question:

If you're a sufficiently empowered person at BP, do you spend $1B on a safety program that would prevent an accident that has a 1% chance of happening, where the accident costs you $50B?

Does your answer change if it becomes a 10% chance? Or a $100B loss? or maybe only a $20B loss?

[GuyFawkes38]

This interview just happened on Cnn:

Anderson Cooper: "So how long will it take for the Gulf to recover."

Biology expert: "Nature is resilient. In just 2-3 years well over 90% of the habitat will fully recover."

Anderson Cooper looks uncomfortable and lobs a question to a S. Louisianan politician: "Does it worry you that some people think the environment will almost fully recover in just 2-3 years."


The hackish politician gave an incoherent response about how a whole culture is ruined and that there will be substance abuse (thank god he didn't use the word "literally", or I would have really freaked out).

It shouldn't be surprising that Tony Hayward is a bit bitter about how the media handled the spill.

[smileyy]

Amusing, in a gallows humor kind of way:

http://www.salon.com/news/louisiana_oil_spill/index.html?story=/tech/htww/2010/07/28/the_republican_oil_spill_single_payer_health_care_ plan

[GuyFawkes38]

terrible news for CNN:

The BP Spill: Has the Damage Been Exaggerated?

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2007202,00.html


Holy sh*t cable news sucks (CNN is by far the worst). Tony Hayward is a great Englishman (doesn't have the same ring to it as American, but nevertheless true).

Good news for the people of S. Louisiana who thought their "souls will literally die".

[Snipe]

The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/us/28spill.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss): "The oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico appears to be dissolving far more rapidly than anyone expected"

Time Magazine: The BP Spill: Has the Damage Been Exaggerated? (http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,2007202,00.html)


President Obama has called the BP oil spill "the worst environmental disaster America has ever faced," and so has just about everyone else. Green groups are sounding alarms about the "catastrophe along the Gulf Coast," while CBS, Fox and MSNBC are all slapping "Disaster in the Gulf" chyrons on their spill-related news....

while it's important to acknowledge that the long-term potential danger is simply unknowable for an underwater event that took place just three months ago — it does not seem to be inflicting severe environmental damage. "The impacts have been much, much less than everyone feared," says geochemist Jacqueline Michel, a federal contractor who is coordinating shoreline assessments in Louisiana.

Yes, the spill killed birds — but so far, less than 1% of the number killed by the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska 21 years ago. Yes, we've heard horror stories about oiled dolphins — but so far, wildlife-response teams have collected only three visibly oiled carcasses of mammals. Yes, the spill prompted harsh restrictions on fishing and shrimping, but so far, the region's fish and shrimp have tested clean, and the restrictions are gradually being lifted. And yes, scientists have warned that the oil could accelerate the destruction of Louisiana's disintegrating coastal marshes — a real slow-motion ecological calamity — but so far, assessment teams have found only about 350 acres of oiled marshes, when Louisiana was already losing about 15,000 acres of wetlands every year.

No Evidence To Suggest An Environmental Disaster:


Marine scientist Ivor van Heerden, another former LSU prof, who's working for a spill-response contractor, says, "There's just no data to suggest this is an environmental disaster. I have no interest in making BP look good — I think they lied about the size of the spill — but we're not seeing catastrophic impacts." Van Heerden, like just about everyone else working in the Gulf these days, is being paid from BP's spill-response funds. "There's a lot of hype, but no evidence to justify it."

The scientists I spoke with cite four basic reasons the initial eco-fears seem overblown. First, the Deepwater oil, unlike the black glop from the Valdez, is unusually light and degradable, which is why the slick in the Gulf is dissolving surprisingly rapidly now that the gusher has been capped. Second, the Gulf of Mexico, unlike Alaska's Prince William Sound, is very warm, which has helped bacteria break down the oil. Third, heavy flows of Mississippi River water have helped keep the oil away from the coast, where it can do much more damage. And finally, Mother Nature can be incredibly resilient. Van Heerden's assessment team showed me around Casse-tete Island in Timbalier Bay, where new shoots of Spartina grasses were sprouting in oiled marshes and new leaves were growing on the first black mangroves I've ever seen that were actually black. "It comes back fast, doesn't it?" van Heerden said.

BH Obama said that "the worst environmental disaster America has ever faced".

Seriously!

Who should pay the hotels and restaurants that have lost all of the business? Who is at fault in hyping "the worst environmental disaster America has ever faced"? Should BP pay those hotels in Florida where the beaches never got touched? Should they pay the restaurants that lost business? Is BP to blame for the eco-hype machine?

Scientist Ivor van Heerden claims that "There's just no data to suggest this is an environmental disaster". No data to suggest an environmental disaster, let alone "the worst environmental disaster America has ever faced". What happened to the "We will be cleaning up this mess for decades crowd?

Looks like the eco-nuts and the Obama hype machine just destroyed Gulf Coast tourism for no good reason other than political expedience. It is no wonder that citizens don’t trust the government. We even got the pleasure to hear our own Emp get on his soapbox and pontificate to the masses. I think that all the hot air these ladies keep belching out is going to give us global warming.

Congrats to BP on a job well done!

In other news of your Government in Action:

Firefighters Flooded Rig, Caused Oil Spill, Suit Says (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-07-15/firefighters-flooded-rig-caused-oil-spill-suit-says.html)

From The Center for Public Integrity: Haphazard Firefighting Might Have Sunk BP Oil Rig (http://www.publicintegrity.org/articles/entry/2286/)

Cheers!

[Snipe]

terrible news for CNN:

The BP Spill: Has the Damage Been Exaggerated?

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2007202,00.html


Holy sh*t cable news sucks (CNN is by far the worst). Tony Hayward is a great Englishman (doesn't have the same ring to it as American, but nevertheless true).

Good news for the people of S. Louisiana who thought their "souls will literally die".

I was writting my post when you posted this but I agree. I am willing to grant Hayward an honorary degree of American to make him a Great American. BP assembled the largest armada in the history of the United States and defended the gulf. They have been johnny on the spot with money and resources and things are going to be OK. For all the shit that they have gotten I think they deserve a round of applause.

It turns out deep water drilling is pretty safe after all.

As Sarah Palin likes to say:

DRILL BABY DRILL!!!!

http://obamaisabitch.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/sarah-palin-drill-baby-drill.jpg

[X-band '01]

I guess one question now is what's in worse shape - an improving Gulf of Mexico or Grand Lake St. Mary's up the road in Ohio? You've got a lake that's had enough toxins in the water up there to drive away tourists and also adversely affect wildlife but we barely hear a peep out of the media in regards to this story.

[Emp]

Emp,

Would this not qualify as a failure of government regulation? I thought this well had just passed an inspection by your government regulators just 10 days before it blew. Sometimes I wonder what we get with all the money we spend on this stuff.

Well, here is the catch: I get to vote for the guys who select the policy and the enforcement. I don't get to vote for the idjits that are beholden to making profits and not looking at the big picture or worried about tomorrow or the next decade or century. At least I get a second or third shot if the guys I elect dont deliver. I throw the bums out.

BP is not motivated to look for alternatives to energy sources that at present require us to take the risks of destroying the coastlines of several states and the livelihoods of tens of thousands of ordinary people. I at least have a shot at that when I vote for elected officials. No such chance with BP.


I guess one question now is what's in worse shape - an improving Gulf of Mexico or Grand Lake St. Mary's up the road in Ohio? You've got a lake that's had enough toxins in the water up there to drive away tourists and also adversely affect wildlife but we barely hear a peep out of the media in regards to this story.

Well, it gets lots of coverage in Columbus, Xband. Its on the AP wire, what your local media does with it is another thing. Its not some natural event, its irresponsible farming practices and irresponsible septic tanks that are doing in most of the man made lakes in Ohio.

[Emp]

[

BH Obama said that "the worst environmental disaster America has ever faced".

Seriously!

Who should pay the hotels and restaurants that have lost all of the business? Who is at fault in hyping "the worst environmental disaster America has ever faced"? Should BP pay those hotels in Florida where the beaches never got touched? Should they pay the restaurants that lost business? Is BP to blame for the eco-hype machine?

Scientist Ivor van Heerden claims that "There's just no data to suggest this is an environmental disaster". No data to suggest an environmental disaster, let alone "the worst environmental disaster America has ever faced". What happened to the "We will be cleaning up this mess for decades crowd?

Looks like the eco-nuts and the Obama hype machine just destroyed Gulf Coast tourism for no good reason other than political expedience. It is no wonder that citizens don’t trust the government. We even got the pleasure to hear our own Emp get on his soapbox and pontificate to the masses. I think that all the hot air these ladies keep belching out is going to give us global warming.

Congrats to BP on a job well done!


So where does this put Bobbi "barrier island" Jindal and the "eco nut" governors of the Gulf States?

Really, no oil washed up on beaches? Really, those thousands of guys cleaning the gunk off of beaches were manufactured in videos, dont really exist? Really, none of the shrimp beds, gulf oyster beds are toxic and the fish uneatable? Those skimmers were just circling around doing nothing? You read some pretty selective news feeds for a man of the world.

Assuming that this is over, that the millions of gallons of oil will never turn up anywhere or harm the environment in the future, mother nature cures all, is pollyanna territory.

All that coal burning generated acid rain that kills so many trees and pollutes up in New England is just a bunch of tree hugger propaganda as well?

[Emp]

I couldn't disagree more that the free market doesn't help prevent disasters like this. BP has lost billions as a result of this. They are in the business of drilling for oil, and they have every incentive to make sure the oil doesn't instead get pumped directly into the ocean.

BP may not care about clean fish. But the fish get dirty if BP has leaky oil wells. And BP loses lots of money if their wells leak. So BP doesn't want their wells to leak. So the fish benefit because BP cares about making money.


See post 51, supra, for the details.

If BP was properly motivated, by your logic the spill would not have happened. Nothing would ever get polluted if you were right.

We now know that the alarms that would have signaled dangerous levels of methane were turned off. We know that the backup shut off was damaged and non functional, yet the BP employees in charge on the spot kept on pumping oil. Why would anyone do that? Because the only motivator for the people on the spot was cost containment, not the danger of the well blowing and spewing for several months. The profit motive, not safety or the environmental cost of a blowout.

[XU 87]

See post 51, supra, for the details.

If BP was properly motivated, by your logic the spill would not have happened. Nothing would ever get polluted if you were right.



No, I didn't say that. What I said was that the profit motive helps prevent against such disasters. There were talks of BP possibly going bankrupt over this. That's pretty good incentive.

Sometimes people make bad and even stupid decisons. While we don't know at this point why this well exploded, clearly some dumb decisions were made.

But your original argument- that BP had no profit incentive to keep this well from blowing up- is demonstratably false.

[smileyy]

There were talks of BP possibly going bankrupt over this. That's pretty good incentive.


I honestly don't think it is. Hopeless optimism in the name of profits drives all sorts of "irrational" behavior.

[GuyFawkes38]

anyways, I think Snipe brought up a great point.

If this is the worst type of thing that could happen (really not that bad), the USA should definitely increase deep drilling permits.

[GuyFawkes38]

I honestly don't think it is. Hopeless optimism in the name of profits drives all sorts of "irrational" behavior.

I think this is the perfect response:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

[Snipe]

Emp,

Would this not qualify as a failure of government regulation? I thought this well had just passed an inspection by your government regulators just 10 days before it blew. Sometimes I wonder what we get with all the money we spend on this stuff.


Well, here is the catch: I get to vote for the guys who select the policy and the enforcement. I don't get to vote for the idjits that are beholden to making profits and not looking at the big picture or worried about tomorrow or the next decade or century. At least I get a second or third shot if the guys I elect dont deliver. I throw the bums out.

Are you endorsing throwing the Obama administration bums out? That rig passed inspection just days before it blew. Obama was touting the safety of deep water drilling right before it blew as well. I am with Emp on this! Throw Bum Obama Out!

Great point.

[Snipe]

anyways, I think Snipe brought up a great point.

If this is the worst type of thing that could happen (really not that bad), the USA should definitely increase deep drilling permits.

Drill Baby Drill!

If this is all that we have to face it is nothing compared to actual disasters.

I would especially approve deep water wells that have a natural ocean current around them that draws water away from the United States. You could actually argue that deep water wells are much safer. If you have an accident that is close to shore in shallow water it is going to maul the beaches, marshes and land for sure. Add to that the fact that most life in the ocean is concentrated in shallow water with reefs and the like. Deep Water Drilling may well be our best option. I am not joking. You can make a great case for it.

I predict that the biggest disaster here will be the man made government disaster with the drilling moratorium. As the administration says, "Never let a crisis go to waste". They are going to kill the gulf economy and do their best to blame BP.

[xu95]

Are you endorsing throwing the Obama administration bums out? That rig passed inspection just days before it blew. Obama was touting the safety of deep water drilling right before it blew as well. I am with Emp on this! Throw Bum Obama Out!

Great point.

No he's not. However, if George Bush was still in office he would be talking about how it is all the Government's fault. Politics at its best.

xu95

[Emp]

No he's not. However, if George Bush was still in office he would be talking about how it is all the Government's fault. Politics at its best.

xu95

someone woke up with a political hardon this morning?

95 thanks for creating a (non) issue and dictating the answer, but you really aren't reading what I post in this thread. Some with a right leaning boner WANT me to be some stereotypical something, regardless of what I post. ah well, We all need some one to cream on, etc., so if you need someone specific to be the boogieman, I guess that will continue ad nauseam.

There's a difference with a distinction between politics, policy and representative democracy.

I think Obama is going to continue clean out the industry insiders in the DOE, but he's never going to get legislation. Big Oil owns too many elected officials, and will continue to do so until there is full disclosure and a limit on campaign contribution, but that not going to happen either. With Obama, there is at least a chance of holding BP responsible, and setting a precedent that will give all drillers pause. That's not a bum I want to throw out.

Bush is meaningless in this discussion, he is gone. If the choice in policies is between cautious oversight and drill baby drill, I choose the former.

[xu95]

someone woke up with a political hardon this morning?

95 thanks for creating a (non) issue and dictating the answer, but you really aren't reading what I post in this thread. Some with a right leaning boner WANT me to be some stereotypical something, regardless of what I post. ah well, We all need some one to cream on, etc., so if you need someone specific to be the boogieman, I guess that will continue ad nauseam.

There's a difference with a distinction between politics, policy and representative democracy.

I think Obama is going to continue clean out the industry insiders in the DOE, but he's never going to get legislation. Big Oil owns too many elected officials, and will continue to do so until there is full disclosure and a limit on campaign contribution, but that not going to happen either. With Obama, there is at least a chance of holding BP responsible, and setting a precedent that will give all drillers pause. That's not a bum I want to throw out.

Bush is meaningless in this discussion, he is gone. If the choice in policies is between cautious oversight and drill baby drill, I choose the former.

My point exactly. In your eyes, Obama has been 100% perfect in all this.

xu95

[Emp]

Drill Baby Drill!

If this is all that we have to face it is nothing compared to actual disasters.

I would especially approve deep water wells that have a natural ocean current around them that draws water away from the United States. You could actually argue that deep water wells are much safer. If you have an accident that is close to shore in shallow water it is going to maul the beaches, marshes and land for sure. Add to that the fact that most life in the ocean is concentrated in shallow water with reefs and the like. Deep Water Drilling may well be our best option. I am not joking. You can make a great case for it.

I predict that the biggest disaster here will be the man made government disaster with the drilling moratorium. As the administration says, "Never let a crisis go to waste". They are going to kill the gulf economy and do their best to blame BP.

Howler, absolute howler.

[Kahns Krazy]

someone woke up with a political hardon this morning?

95 thanks for creating a (non) issue and dictating the answer, but you really aren't reading what I post in this thread. Some with a right leaning boner WANT me to be some stereotypical something, regardless of what I post. ah well, We all need some one to cream on, etc., .....

Oh gay.

[Strange Brew]

someone woke up with a political hardon this morning?

95 thanks for creating a (non) issue and dictating the answer, but you really aren't reading what I post in this thread. Some with a right leaning boner WANT me to be some stereotypical something, regardless of what I post. ah well, We all need some one to cream on, etc., so if you need someone specific to be the boogieman, I guess that will continue ad nauseam.

There's a difference with a distinction between politics, policy and representative democracy.

I think Obama is going to continue clean out the industry insiders in the DOE, but he's never going to get legislation. Big Oil owns too many elected officials, and will continue to do so until there is full disclosure and a limit on campaign contribution, but that not going to happen either. With Obama, there is at least a chance of holding BP responsible, and setting a precedent that will give all drillers pause. That's not a bum I want to throw out.

Bush is meaningless in this discussion, he is gone. If the choice in policies is between cautious oversight and drill baby drill, I choose the former.

Sputter, Clang, Bang............nothing of substance. By the Way, "Obama is going to continue to clean out the industry insiders in the DOE". HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH..... .....WAIT......................................... ...........HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHA........HOLD.... .........ON...........I'M PICKING MYSELF OFF THE FLOOR..............HAHAHAHHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHHHHAAHHA AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAH. The man is owned by BP. Step up your game Emp this isn't the Huff Po. Obama has received more BP money than any other public official over the last two years so...................hahahahahhahahahahaahahahhaah ah. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

[Emp]

Even Fox News local outlet in New Orleans puts paid to the laughable assertion that 5 million gallons of oil has just "dispersed."

http://http://www.fox8live.com/news/local/story/Striking-BPs-Oil/llbyAo2fl0iF7HmCpNgYpg.cspx

Yeah, Obama is makin all this up. Next: Holocaust grossly exaggerated.

[Emp]

Oh gay.

Aside from beer, one of the few times I totally agree with you KK. The preoccupation with contrived lib baiting and stalking here is pretty amazing, so if the analogy fits, well.....

[waggy]

You think gas and oil is bad for the enviroment, just wait until the (paid for) "scientists" tell you about the ecological disaster of batteries. Politicized for you in about 10 years would be my guess.

[XUglow]

Don't know how much oil escaped. Don't know how much is left out there. Yet, they are sure that 75% of the oil that escaped is gone.

[smileyy]

Yet, they are sure that 75% of the oil that escaped is gone.

Where the definition of "gone" is "people can't see it anymore". It includes oil that is in the water that has been chemically dispersed. That's basically saying there's no salt in the water either, because it's in solution.

[Snipe]

Reuters: US says most BP spill oil is gone or degrading (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0424782620100804)

Crush of mud finally plugs BP's well in the Gulf (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gulf_oil_spill)


NEW ORLEANS – In the end, it was a crush of mud that finally plugged the blown-out well in the Gulf of Mexico, three months after the offshore drilling rig explosion that unleashed a gusher of oil and a summer of misery along the Gulf Coast.

The government stopped just short of pronouncing the well dead, cautioning that cement and mud must still be pumped in from the bottom to seal it off for good.

President Barack Obama declared that the battle to contain one of the world's worst oil spills is "finally close to coming to an end."

Amen Brother Barack! The Well is Capped!

The New York Times: U.S. Finds Most Oil From Spill Poses Little Additional Risk (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/04/science/earth/04oil.html?partner=rss&emc=rss)


WASHINGTON — The government is expected to announce on Wednesday that three-quarters of the oil from the Deepwater Horizon leak has already evaporated, dispersed, been captured or otherwise eliminated — and that much of the rest is so diluted that it does not seem to pose much additional risk of harm.

A government report finds that about 26 percent of the oil released from BP’s runaway well is still in the water or onshore in a form that could, in principle, cause new problems. But most is light sheen at the ocean surface or in a dispersed form below the surface, and federal scientists believe that it is breaking down rapidly in both places.

Sounds good!


“There’s absolutely no evidence that there’s any significant concentration of oil that’s out there that we haven’t accounted for,” said Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the lead agency in producing the new report.

And again, this is reported by the New York Times.


The report calculates, for example, that about 25 percent of the chemicals in the oil evaporated at the surface or dissolved into seawater in the same way that sugar dissolves in tea. (The government appears to have settled on a conservative number for that estimate, with the scientific literature saying that as much as 40 percent of the oil from a spill can disappear in this way.)

The aggressive response mounted by BP and the government — the largest in history, ultimately involving more than 5,000 vessels — also played a role in getting rid of the oil, the report says. Fully 5 percent of the oil was burned at the surface, it estimates, while 3 percent was skimmed and 8 percent was broken up into tiny droplets using chemical dispersants. Another 16 percent dispersed naturally as the oil shot out of the well at high speed.

All told, the report calculates that about 74 percent of the oil has been effectively dealt with by capture, burning, skimming, evaporation, dissolution or dispersion. Much of the dissolved and dispersed oil can be expected to break down in the environment, though federal scientists are still working to establish the precise rate at which that is happening.

“I think we are fortunate in this situation that the rates of degradation in the gulf ecosystem are quite high,” Dr. Lubchenco said.

So the end take? The well is plugged, the worst is over and the gulf is no longer at any substantive risk.

What a great day to be an American.

I blame 'Big Eco' for all the scare mongering. Someone on this thread was afraid the press was going to go away from the story and we would ignore the worst ecological disaster in the United States history. Turns out it wasn't the worst ecological disaster in the United States history after all, and it probably got too much press coverage, at least from the sensationalist angle. Too bad for all the ladies who like to watch macho metrosexual pipe smoker Anderson Cooper reporting on the beaches under the big screen banner "Disaster In The Gulf". Nobody does diaster porn like Anderson Cooper. This spill was a bad day for Big Eco.

[Snipe]

Drill Baby Drill!

If this is all that we have to face it is nothing compared to actual disasters.

I would especially approve deep water wells that have a natural ocean current around them that draws water away from the United States. You could actually argue that deep water wells are much safer. If you have an accident that is close to shore in shallow water it is going to maul the beaches, marshes and land for sure. Add to that the fact that most life in the ocean is concentrated in shallow water with reefs and the like. Deep Water Drilling may well be our best option. I am not joking. You can make a great case for it.

I predict that the biggest disaster here will be the man made government disaster with the drilling moratorium. As the administration says, "Never let a crisis go to waste". They are going to kill the gulf economy and do their best to blame BP.


Howler, absolute howler.

I wasn't trying to be funny Emp. This hasn't been the ecological disaster that Big Eco told us it would be. The well is capped. The oil no longer poses a threat per the NYTimes. Big Eco is left holding the bag of all the hype, praying on our fears. It is the politics of fear.

Next time I bet we cap it quicker. This was a nice drill that shows just how safe deep water drilling is. Compared to shallow drilling I think I prefer the deep beds far off the coast. Most of ocean life lives on the reefs and in the shallows. That is the last place you would want to spill a bunch of oil. The fact that this spill was in deep, warm churning water really helped the ecosystem take care of itself.

Granted, if it was in shallow water it would have been much easier to cap. I hope this experience taught us a lot about how to cap wells and I expect next time it will be much quicker. If a well like this were capped inside a week or two it shouldn't even be a story.

Cheers!

Drill Baby Drill!!!

[smileyy]

The report calculates, for example, that about 25 percent of the chemicals in the oil evaporated at the surface or dissolved into seawater in the same way that sugar dissolves in tea.


There's lots of things that will dissolve in your tea, or your drinking water, or your sea water that you don't want there.

If Snipe wants to volunteer to drink a soap/motor oil/water cocktail, I'm more than happy to mix it up for him.

[Snipe]

There's lots of things that will dissolve in your tea, or your drinking water, or your sea water that you don't want there.

If Snipe wants to volunteer to drink a soap/motor oil/water cocktail, I'm more than happy to mix it up for him.


How about drinking "clean" gulf seawater? Ever swallow a gulp while at the beech body surfing? You can't drink that stuff and if you drank a substantial amount you would dehydrate and risk kidney failure. You want to volunteer for that?

If I piss in my yard it doesn't hurt the environment, but I don't want to drink my piss either. Several things I don't want to ingest don't harm our beloved planet.

Take it like a man smileyy. The Big Eco disaster porn failed. This man-hyped disaster only shows how safe deep water drilling actually is.

Drill Baby Drill!

[smileyy]

All I'm saying is that dissolving something in water doesn't make it go away.

Dissolving sugar in your tea makes it sweeter.
Dissolving acid in your tea makes it burn on the way down.

[Snipe]

All I'm saying is that dissolving something in water doesn't make it go away.

Dissolving sugar in your tea makes it sweeter.
Dissolving acid in your tea makes it burn on the way down.


We aren't talking about acid though. We are talking about oil. Oil is a natural product. It is made by mother earth for us to enjoy. It breaks down in the ocean and is eaten by microbes and the sun. As other oceans creatures feed on the microbes it becomes part of the food chain. Oil has been seeping into the oceans since before humans invented the wheel. I think the Gulf will be alright. Big Eco on the other hand is in some real trouble.

[madness31]

It does appear that this oil event is not a problem but I wouldn't rush to judgement on either side. Yes the microbes ate a large percent of the oil but what is the impact to other organisms when these microbes become a significant percentage of their diet? Maybe this is not an issue but maybe it contaminates the fish for a few years making fishing in the gulf undesireable. Many organisms feed on things that humans could not eat directly so maybe this is not an issue but maybe it is. The other question is how much of the sea creatures that should not directly ingest oil have done so in quantities that were not deadly but would be harmful for human consumption. Do fisheries need to hold off on fishing for a few months, years or can they fish immediately? Is there any negative impact from the dispersants used?

I'm good with the drilling but not until companies prove they have capping capabilities or other solutions to these problems. The industry could share the costs of building caps, etc so that each company doesn't need its own protection in the US since blowouts tend to be rare but they do need to be accessible.

[smileyy]

I have lots of natural products for you to ingest, all of which will kill you.

[Snipe]

What day are we at now? Is Anderson Cooper still doing that macho metrosexual disaster porn? These are the questions that everyone is begging to be answered.

News rater, anti-Palin group get govt Gulf work (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g7V3wYAmDmisGd5IOLM4xY31_QngD9I76F8G3)


WASHINGTON — The federal government hired a New Orleans man for $18,000 to appraise whether news stories about its actions in the Gulf oil spill were positive or negative for the Obama administration, which was keenly sensitive to comparisons between its response and former President George W. Bush's much-maligned reaction to Hurricane Katrina.

The government also spent $10,000 for just over three minutes of video showing a routine offshore rig inspection for news organizations but couldn't say whether any ran the footage. And it awarded a $216,625 no-bid contract for a survey of seabirds to an environmental group that has criticized what it calls the "extreme anti-conservation record" of Sarah Palin, a possible 2012 rival to President Barack Obama.

The contracts were among hundreds reviewed by The Associated Press as the government begins to provide an early glimpse at federal spending since the Gulf disaster in April. While most of the contracts don't raise alarms, some could provide ammunition for critics of government waste.

As of Monday, the administration has released details of about $142 million in contracts, a fraction of the hundreds of millions of dollars it has spent so far. BP has reimbursed the U.S. $390 million, company spokesman Tom Mueller said. The government sent BP a new invoice for $128.5 million last week.

The White House is still deciding whether it will bill BP for spill-related trips by Obama and his wife, Michelle, to the Gulf, including the president's flights aboard Air Force One, which can cost tens of thousands of dollars each.

B.H. Obama paid our tax dollars to someone to see if the media was positive or negative. I guess he could have just turned on the TV. You pay taxes, do you? Some of your taxes went to that.

[Masterofreality]

B.H. Obama paid our tax dollars to someone to see if the media was positive or negative. I guess he could have just turned on the TV. You pay taxes, do you? Some of your taxes went to that.

Wasn't one of Baracks's trips to the Gulf to tell the public that they should go there on vacation to support the local economy?

Then he went to Martha's Vineyard on his vacation. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

[drudy23]

Wasn't one of Baracks's trips to the Gulf to tell the public that they should go there on vacation to support the local economy?

Then he went to Martha's Vineyard on his vacation. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

He's the President. Did you expect to see him twirling his drillies on Panama City beach?

[X-band '01]

Wasn't one of Baracks's trips to the Gulf to tell the public that they should go there on vacation to support the local economy?

Then he went to Martha's Vineyard on his vacation. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Brett Favre thought that was a "look at me" kind of vacation down in Florida.

Then again, I doubt that Obama is the first person to ever use tax dollars to pay someone to let him know what's popular and what's not.

[Strange Brew]

He's the President. Did you expect to see him twirling his drillies on Panama City beach?

What's wrong with Panama City Beach? I spent 4 glorious spring breaks there during my time at X. :D

[Snipe]

Most Voters Still Support Offshore, Deepwater Drilling (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/offshore_drilling/most_voters_still_support_offshore_deepwater_drill ing)


With the massive oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico apparently under control, the majority of U.S. voters continue to support both offshore and deepwater oil drilling.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Voters shows that 63% believe offshore oil drilling should be allowed, up slightly from surveys conducted in the past four weeks. Roughly one-out-of-five voters (21%) continues to oppose offshore drilling, while another 16% are undecided.

Voters have consistently supported offshore drilling since the deepwater oil rig first exploded in the Gulf of Mexico in late April. Support has ranged from a low of 56% to a high of 64%, which was reached in early August. The number that supports offshore drilling has not fallen below 60% since that time. Seventy-two percent (72%) favored offshore drilling just after President Obama lifted the longtime moratorium on it in late March. But the president reinstated that ban, at least temporarily, following the Gulf incident.

Fifty-three percent (53%) favor deepwater drilling, showing no change from the previous two sureys. Twenty-six percent (26%) oppose deepwater oil drilling, while another 21% are not sure. In July and June, less than 50% of voters supported such drilling.

The wisdom of crowds. Drill Baby Drill!

[Emp]

I wasn't trying to be funny Emp. This hasn't been the ecological disaster that Big Eco told us it would be. The well is capped. The oil no longer poses a threat per the NYTimes. Big Eco is left holding the bag of all the hype, praying on our fears. It is the politics of fear.

Next time I bet we cap it quicker. This was a nice drill that shows just how safe deep water drilling is. Compared to shallow drilling I think I prefer the deep beds far off the coast. Most of ocean life lives on the reefs and in the shallows. That is the last place you would want to spill a bunch of oil. The fact that this spill was in deep, warm [sic] churning water really helped the ecosystem take care of itself.

So deep water is warmer, Dr. Science?

Granted, if it was in shallow water it would have been much easier to cap. I hope this experience taught us a lot about how to cap wells and I expect next time it will be much quicker. If a well like this were capped inside a week or two it shouldn't even be a story.

Cheers!

Drill Baby Drill!!!

More howlers.

So no oil washed up into the seafood beds and beaches, all those booms and skimmers around the coast, Bobbie Jindals multimile sand fence were all just studio shots? You're living in a virtual cocoon and need to get out and talk to the hardworking folks in the Gulf, my man.

Politics of fear?? This from the alarmist who rushes to cut and paste any "black mob" headline you can find? No shame.

[Snipe]

much ado about nothing....