Spill here, spill now

[boutons_deux]

Energy expert: Nuking oil leak ‘only thing we can do’

By Daniel Tencer
Saturday, May 29th, 2010 -- 7:18 pm

As the latest effort to plug the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico meets with failure, the idea of nuking the immediate area to seal the oil underground is gaining steam among some energy experts and researchers.

One prominent energy expert known for predicting the oil price spike of 2008 says sending a small nuclear bomb down the leaking well is "probably the only thing we can do" to stop the leak.

Matt Simmons, founder of energy investment bank Simmons & Company, also says that there is evidence of a second oil leak about five to seven miles from the initial leak that BP has focused on fixing. That second leak, he says, is so large that the initial one is "minor" in comparison.

Simmons spoke to Bloomberg News on Friday, before BP announced that its latest effort to plug the leak, known as the "top kill" method, had failed.
Story continues below...

"A week ago Sunday the first research vessel ... was commissioned by NOAA to scour the area," he said. They found "a gigantic plume" growing about five to seven miles from the site of the original leak, Simmons said.

Simmons said the US government should immediately take the effort to plug the leak out of the hands of BP and put the military in charge.

"Probably the only thing we can do is create a weapons system and send it down 18,000 feet and detonate it, hopefully encasing the oil," he said.

His idea echoes that of a Russian newspaper that earlier this month suggested the US detonate a small nuclear bomb to seal the oil beneath the sea. Komsomoloskaya Pravda argued in an editorial that Russia had successfully used nuclear weapons to seal oil spills on five occasions in the past.

Live Science reports:

Weapons labs in the former Soviet Union developed special nukes for use to help pinch off the gas wells. They believed that the force from a nuclear explosion could squeeze shut any hole within 82 to 164 feet (25 to 50 meters), depending on the explosion's power. That required drilling holes to place the nuclear device close to the target wells.

A first test in the fall of 1966 proved successful in sealing up an underground gas well in southern Uzbekistan, and so the Russians used nukes four more times for capping runaway wells.

Simmons also told Bloomberg that the idea to use radical measures like a nuclear bomb to seal the leak is probably not being contemplated by decision-makers "because BP is still totally in charge of the news and they have everyone focused on the top kill."

Asked by a Bloomberg reporter about the risks involved in setting off a nuclear bomb off the coast of Louisiana, Simmons argued that a nuclear explosion deep inside a well bore would have little effect on surrounding areas.

"If you're 18,000 feet under the sea bed, it basically wont do anything [on the surface]," he said.

Joe Wiesenthal at Business Insider says the idea of using nukes will be getting a lot of attention now that the "top kill" procedure has failed.

Next, the so-called "nuclear option" is about to get a lot of attention. In this case, of course, nuclear option is not a euphemism. It's the real idea that the best way to kill this thing is to stick a small nuke in there and bury the well under rubble. ... By the middle of the coming week, it will be all over cable news, as pundits press The White House hard on whether it's being considered and why not.

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0529/energy-expert-nuke-oil-leak/

==============

2nd leak? related to BP drilling or something completely co-incidental?

[ducks]

all the gov knows how to do is spend more then they bring in
anything the gov is in charge fails

wanting the gov in charge of the oil leak is stupid

people are really dumb thinking the gov since they fail at everything would be doing better then bp

[DMX7]

BP is doing whatever the fuck they want to do. Handcuffed is the last thing they are.

[MannyIsGod]

Wow, this shit again?

I mean fucking really?

[ChumpDumper]

Handcuffed, I say!

[baseline bum]

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/2010/nukethewhales.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

"Gotta nuke something."

[baseline bum]

touche

[boutons_deux]

News networks say access to oil spill ’slowly being strangled off’

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0529/media-coverage-oil-spill-strangled-off/

[boutons_deux]

http://i.imgur.com/3JFae.jpg

[jack sommerset]

http://i.imgur.com/3JFae.jpg

If there is a GOD, make that S.O.B Obama eat that.

[boutons_deux]

Jack, doncha know nigras like only fried chicken and catfish, not that race has anything to do with Magic Negro hatin.

[MiamiHeat]

what animal is that in the picture?

type of dolphin?

[jack sommerset]

Jack, doncha know nigras like only fried chicken and catfish,

You're racist.

[ElNono]

Considering the continual failures, detonating a mini-nuke, like the Ruskies have done forever now to deal with this stuff doesn't sound so out of place, does it?

[MannyIsGod]

Considering the continual failures, detonating a mini-nuke, like the Ruskies have done forever now to deal with this stuff doesn't sound so out of place, does it?


Yes, it does. Not to mention that these people suggesting this also fail to realize its illegal due to the limited test ban treaty.

[MiamiHeat]

Yes, it does. Not to mention that these people suggesting this also fail to realize its illegal due to the limited test ban treaty.

This would classify as an extenuating circumstance, technically not even a military test.

I'm sure the world would understand that we need to protect one of the world's oceans.

Although, this might set off a precedent, where creative rogue nations could intentionally start an oil leak, and then claim they need to plug it immediately the very next day using a nuclear weapon.

[boutons_deux]

They're drilling 1 or 2 new holes to relieve the pressure enough to plug the first hole, which assumes the new holes will be more reliable than the first hole. Another 90 days before the new holes finished.

Will BP pocket enough oil from the new holes to cover the blowout costs? I really don't believe they're not ever going to extract that oil now that they invested in finding it

Seems like another, but much heavier, top hat-style project is next up.

[boutons_deux]

WC isn't the right-wing Oregon inbred, backwoods, engeryco-talking-point-parroting nutjob:

"Running on the GOP ticket for Congress in Oregon’s 4th District, Art Robinson, who in 2004 wrote that the world’s ocean life was “starved” for crude oil, might want to consider adopting, as a campaign mascot, a dolphin."

“Wastes dumped into the deep ocean will soon reach the bottom, where they are less hazardous than nearly any other place on Earth. Most materials will remain there: marine organisms are rare in the deep ocean, food chains are long, and few materials will be carried back to mankind. And that is what waste disposal is all about…

…The oil companies’ reckless greed, we are told, has devastated the oceans with their oil spills.

Baloney.”

“As for oil spills in the open and deep ocean, they amount to far less than natural seeps and river runoff, and any unbiased oceanographer will confirm that they are a boon to marine life, inflicting damage mainly on the oil and shipping companies. For crude oil is a natural, organic, biodegradable product of the earth’s ancient plant and animal life, and it is this type of hydrocarbon that marine life in the open and deep ocean is starved for.”

“The environment, then, has no better protector than its owner, and no worse enemy than a system where everything belongs to “the people.” Species are endangered when they belong to everybody and nobody; and nothing short of the profit motive will protect them.”

In a 2008 World Net Daily column Art Robinson wrote,

“No less than 31,000 American physical scientists, including 9,000 Ph.D.s, have… declared the [Global Warming] hypothesis false and have pointed out that atmospheric carbon dioxide is required for all life on Earth and that the modest increases of recent years have fertilized plant growth and actually much enhanced our natural environment.”

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/05/30/ocean-life-thrives-on-crude-oil-meet-congressional-candidate-art-robinson/print/

[DarrinS]

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/oil-leak-dead-dolphins-necessarily-connected/story?id=10631495




They may be dramatic, but federal officials are warning that pictures of dead dolphins washing ashore in gulf states may not have anything to do with the oil leak coming from the Deepwater Horizon disaster site.


"Even before this oil spill occurred, we were experiencing unusually high stranding rates," said Blair Mase, NOAA's southeast region marine mammal strandings coordinator.

Dolphin strandings are common, said Mase, who noted that 57 bottlenose dolphins were found stranded on beaches in Florida , Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana in the month of March alone.

[boutons_deux]

"Even before this oil spill occurred, we were experiencing unusually high stranding rates,"

.... covered in oil?

I'd like to see an autopsy of oil-covered dolphins to see whether they are polluted with oil and Corexit.

[DarrinS]

"Even before this oil spill occurred, we were experiencing unusually high stranding rates,"

.... covered in oil?

I'd like to see an autopsy of oil-covered dolphins to see whether they are polluted with oil and Corexit.



A healthy dolphin is too smart to hang around in an oil plume.

[ElNono]

Yes, it does. Not to mention that these people suggesting this also fail to realize its illegal due to the limited test ban treaty.

The treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_Test_Ban_Treaty) allows for underground explosions. It was signed and established in 1963.
Russia used the nuke technique 5 times from '66 to '81 to close gas and oil leaks.

[DarrinS]

The treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_Test_Ban_Treaty) allows for underground explosions. It was signed and established in 1963.
Russia used the nuke technique 5 times from '66 to '81 to close gas and oil leaks.


And it won't harm any fish, sea turtles, or dolphins. :lmao

Hey man, I'm just messin with ya. I wonder how a nuke work work? Wouldn't it blow out a lot more oil as well as other debris into the water?

[ElNono]

And it won't harm any fish, sea turtles, or dolphins. :lmao

Hey man, I'm just messin with ya. I wonder how a nuke work work? Wouldn't it blow out a lot more oil as well as other debris into the water?

I think the idea is to crush and displace the rock underground, basically sealing the leak. They had 80% success with it, so it's not foolproof. But considering how long this has been going on for, it might be time for more drastic measures.

[MiamiHeat]

And it won't harm any fish, sea turtles, or dolphins. :lmao

Hey man, I'm just messin with ya. I wonder how a nuke work work? Wouldn't it blow out a lot more oil as well as other debris into the water?

There are no sea turtles or dolphins 1 mile beneath the ocean's surface.

[MannyIsGod]

The treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_Test_Ban_Treaty) allows for underground explosions. It was signed and established in 1963.
Russia used the nuke technique 5 times from '66 to '81 to close gas and oil leaks.

Underground tests WITHIN a nations territory where the radiation is contained within said nations borders.

Where is the well again?

Not to mention this isn't just "underground".

[MannyIsGod]

I think the idea is to crush and displace the rock underground, basically sealing the leak. They had 80% success with it, so it's not foolproof. But considering how long this has been going on for, it might be time for more drastic measures.

Whats the success rate for it being tried under 5,000 feet of water? Whats the water pressure like down there? How did they seal the holes in the other locations which weren't under that amount of water pressure to begin with?

[ElNono]

Underground tests WITHIN a nations territory where the radiation is contained within said nations borders.

Where is the well again?

Not to mention this isn't just "underground".

The well is 40 miles southeast of the Louisiana coast, within US territorial waters. And the nuke technique is entirely underground. It's explicit in the way it works: The nuke compresses the rock around the blast, sealing the leak. You don't apply the nuke in the hole, you apply it underground in the proximity of the location.


Whats the success rate for it being tried under 5,000 feet of water? Whats the water pressure like down there? How did they seal the holes in the other locations which weren't under that amount of water pressure to begin with?

The prognosis is pretty good considering that the 1966 gas leak that was closed this way used a nuke placed 6km underground (around 20K feet)...
Considering our tech has gone a long way in 44 years, and has possibly been better than the Ruskies to begin with, I don't think a controlled blast is a unreasonable proposition, especially with a 80% success rate.

[MannyIsGod]

US territorial waters only extend for 12 miles. (I'm not totally clear on this but I am 90% sure that the well is in international waters even though the United States has the oil rights)

80% Success rate on COMPLETELY different situations. Even the scientist who proposed this in Russian gave it a 20% chance of success and I believe thats wildly optimistic.

You're acting like this is a no brainier technology when in reality its a completely untested notion that no one is seriously considering because of the many legal, environmental and of course technological hurdles.

Samuel Jackson or some other movie start isn't going to dive down in some minisub with a modified drill and save us all with a rigged on the fly nuke because this is the real world and not some action movie.

[MannyIsGod]

You know, the plan is so good that its simply not being considered.

[ElNono]

US territorial waters only extend for 12 miles. (I'm not totally clear on this but I am 90% sure that the well is in international waters even though the United States has the oil rights)

The Exclusive Economic Zone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_Economic_Zone#United_States) is 200 nautical miles.


80% Success rate on COMPLETELY different situations. Even the scientist who proposed this in Russian gave it a 20% chance of success and I believe thats wildly optimistic.

You're acting like this is a no brainier technology when in reality its a completely untested notion that no one is seriously considering because of the many legal, environmental and of course technological hurdles.

Samuel Jackson or some other movie start isn't going to dive down in some minisub with a modified drill and save us all with a rigged on the fly nuke because this is the real world and not some action movie.

As much as you think this is a movie plot, that process has been used in the real world numerous times. I agree that is not the same scenario, but all I suggested is that now that other more standard procedures have failed radically, it's something to consider. That includes considering what the consequences would be. Some people hear the word 'nuclear' and start running for the hills, without realizing that there's very secure nuclear subs roaming around the globe and that the US is a leader in the technology.

I don't want Samuel Jackson going in there, but why not conduct a proper study to determine the feasibility and potential impact of using a technique like that? It's not like they have this thing under control and every day that goes by there's much more damage being done in the area.

[ElNono]

You know, the plan is so good that its simply not being considered.

You know, the situation is so under control that this is already the biggest spill in the history of the US, and we still don't have a workable solution to it.

[MiamiHeat]

and I believe thats wildly optimistic.

lol, yeah, because obviously you are more qualified than an experienced scientist.

cool story bro

[ElNono]

Not to mention that water is probably the most effective radiation shield available.

[boutons_deux]

"we still don't have a workable solution to it."

not immediately, but relief holes will reduce the first hole pressure so it can be plugged.

What if a nuclear blast worked like fracking, closing the target hole, but opening up other holes. There is already another hole about 5 miles away spewing lots of oil now.

[ElNono]

The last word is that the two reliefs wells are not going to be ready until August. That's oil spilling until then, and we still don't know for sure that it will allow them to plug it.
Not to mention that what they're going to try now (severing the riser pipe) will cause more oil to come out while they install the device.

I hope it works. I just don't think we should discard options just because they have scare words in them.

[MannyIsGod]

The Exclusive Economic Zone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_Economic_Zone#United_States) is 200 nautical miles.


So like I said, outside of United States territorial waters and in International Waters where the United States has economic rights but not sovereignty. Pretty sure detonating nuclear bombs has nothing to do with securing economic resources.



As much as you think this is a movie plot, that process has been used in the real world numerous times. I agree that is not the same scenario, but all I suggested is that now that other more standard procedures have failed radically, it's something to consider.


There are no standard procedures. This is a well a mile deep into the ocean and there is no standard way to deal with it. That doesn't mean you go and create another ecological disaster.



That includes considering what the consequences would be. Some people hear the word 'nuclear' and start running for the hills, without realizing that there's very secure nuclear subs roaming around the globe and that the US is a leader in the technology.


So the fact that we have nuclear reactors with controlled nuclear reactions underway somehow paves the way for the detonation of nuclear a nuclear bomb in a manner that we have never tried and at a depth never before tested at? (I'm not completely certain on this point - I think the deepest test was at 2500 feet but I'm not completely sure)



I don't want Samuel Jackson going in there, but why not conduct a proper study to determine the feasibility and potential impact of using a technique like that? It's not like they have this thing under control and every day that goes by there's much more damage being done in the area.

Study it all you want. Like I said, there are reasons its not being considered.

[MannyIsGod]

You know, the situation is so under control that this is already the biggest spill in the history of the US, and we still don't have a workable solution to it.

That doesn't make your solution a good one. I could say the same thing for any solution not being considered at this moment but it wouldn't make any of them good.

[MannyIsGod]

Not to mention that water is probably the most effective radiation shield available.

:lol

What? Water isn't even as effective as dirt.

How the hell can you say things like this and expect me to take you seriously on the subject?

[MannyIsGod]

The last word is that the two reliefs wells are not going to be ready until August. That's oil spilling until then, and we still don't know for sure that it will allow them to plug it.
Not to mention that what they're going to try now (severing the riser pipe) will cause more oil to come out while they install the device.

I hope it works. I just don't think we should discard options just because they have scare words in them.

How about we discard them due to success risk ratio? Lets say Mr. Russian is right and that there is a 20% chance of success. That means an 80% chance of failure where you have a transport system in place to move radioactive debris to the surface and across the ocean.

Hmmm, yeah.

[Cry Havoc]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/05/31/oil.spill.probe/index.html?hpt=T1

(CNN) -- BP reported problems controlling the undersea well at the heart of the largest oil spill in U.S. history and won a delay in testing a critical piece of equipment in March, according to documents released Sunday.

"We are in the midst of a well control situation on MC 252 #001 and have stuck pipe. We are bringing out equipment to begin operations to sever the drillpipe, plugback the well and bypass," Scherie Douglas, a BP regulatory advisor, told the district engineer for the U.S. Interior Department's Minerals Management Service in a March 10 e-mail.

In a follow-up e-mail to the district engineer, Frank Patton, Douglas reported the company wanted to get a plug set in the well before testing the blowout preventer, the massive device used to shut down the well in case of an emergency.

"With the give and take of the well and hole behavior we would feel much more comfortable getting at least one of the two plugs set in order to fully secure the well prior to testing BOPs," she wrote.

When Patton told BP he could not delay a test any longer than it took to bring the well under control, the company won a postponement from David Trocquet, the MMS district manager in New Orleans, Louisiana, the documents show. Trocquet ordered BP to make sure its cement plug was set up and to verify its placement, according to his reply. The messages do not indicate how long the test was postponed.

The exchange was among the documents released Sunday by leaders of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which is looking into the disaster that killed 11 workers aboard the drilling platform Deepwater Horizon and uncapped a gusher that is now fouling the northern Gulf of Mexico. BP has been unable to activate the well's blowout preventer since the explosion, resulting in up to 19,000 barrels (798,000 gallons) spewing into the Gulf every day.

Appearing on ABC's "This Week," BP Managing Director Bob Dudley said those questions are being addressed by an investigation led by the Coast Guard and the MMS, which oversees offshore oil drilling. BP, rig owner Transocean Ltd. and oilfield services company Halliburton have blamed each other for the disaster

"There were issues of well control, signs out there, and there are strict procedures that are written," Dudley said. Those procedures allow the rig owner "to walk through well control," he said.

"That's what the investigation will take minute by minute," he said. But he said the failure of the well's blowout preventer is a "very troubling" issue that will have repercussions throughout the oil industry.

"It is the piece of equipment that is not expected to fail, and that's going to have implications for everyone around the world," Dudley said.
Video: Obama admin. defends role in disaster
Video: Bill Nye explains 'LMRP cap'
Video: Thou shalt not mention BP in church?

BP's design of the well has also come under scrutiny in the New Orleans hearings held by MMS and the Coast Guard. BP drilling engineer Mark Hafle testified Friday that he made "several changes to the casing designs" to address problems with the well's cement walls and leaking drilling fluid. But he said the problems had been addressed.

"No one believed there was going to be a safety issue with pumping that cement job," he said.

Halliburton performed the cementing work on the well, and Halliburton worker Christopher Haire told the New Orleans hearings Friday that BP kept changing the dimensions of the well's casing. Meanwhile, BP's investigation "raised concerns about the maintenance history, modification, inspection, and testing" of the blowout preventer, committee chairman Henry Waxman, D-California, reported earlier this month.

The New York Times reported Sunday that BP documents indicated the company had "serious problems and safety concerns" with the rig's well casing and blowout preventer for months. Rep. Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat who leads an Energy and Commerce subcommittee, said he has seen documents that confirm the Times report.

Other witnesses at congressional hearings into the spill have raised concerns as well. Stephen Stone, a laborer on the doomed rig, told the House Judiciary Committee last week that the Transocean crew had to stop drilling four times in the space of 20 days because of the loss of drilling "mud" -- "either because the underground formation was unstable, or because drilling too quickly caused the formation to crack," he said.

And Doug Brown, the rig's chief mechanic, told the Judiciary Committee that cuts to Deepwater Horizon's engineering staff left the crew with a backlog of preventive maintenance to perform. When they complained, he said, "We were always told, 'We will see what we can do.' "

[boutons_deux]

http://i.imgur.com/ZSPKG.jpg

[ElNono]

So like I said, outside of United States territorial waters and in International Waters where the United States has economic rights but not sovereignty. Pretty sure detonating nuclear bombs has nothing to do with securing economic resources.

You're pretty sure about a lot of things, but actually know none of them.
What part of exploration and use of all marine resources you don't understand? If the US wants to blow up all the fish within 200 nautical miles off it's coast, it's entirely within their rights.

Let me guess, you're 'pretty sure' I'm wrong. :lmao


There are no standard procedures. This is a well a mile deep into the ocean and there is no standard way to deal with it. That doesn't mean you go and create another ecological disaster.

What? Do you think this is the first oil spill in history?
You have a lot of reading to do. A good start would be the IXTOC I (http://www.incidentnews.gov/incident/6250) spill in 1979. Probably the most similar case, even though the actual well was even deeper than this one.


So the fact that we have nuclear reactors with controlled nuclear reactions underway somehow paves the way for the detonation of nuclear a nuclear bomb in a manner that we have never tried and at a depth never before tested at? (I'm not completely certain on this point - I think the deepest test was at 2500 feet but I'm not completely sure)


You forgot to mention some of them carry ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads (SSBN class). Point being that the destruction of one of these fellas underwater would be much, much worse than whatever ecological impact a mini-nuke would cause in this case.

[ElNono]

That doesn't make your solution a good one. I could say the same thing for any solution not being considered at this moment but it wouldn't make any of them good.

I don't have a solution. However, unlike you, I don't think it's unwise to consider all possibilities. I've yet to read a study about feasibility or impact of the proposed nuclear option. Have you? You sure opine like you did.

[MannyIsGod]

You're pretty sure about a lot of things, but actually know none of them.
What part of exploration and use of all marine resources you don't understand? If the US wants to blow up all the fish within 200 nautical miles off it's coast, it's entirely within their rights.

Let me guess, you're 'pretty sure' I'm wrong. :lmao


Is it sovereign territory? No. What does the LTBT require? Sovereign territory AND the ability to contain any radiation - neither of those situations are here

Yeah, I'm not a maritime legal expert so I'm not 100% sure on this. I guess thats my flaw. I'm sure you've got an extensive background in this and I should just take your word for it. Whats your experience in the field?




What? Do you think this is the first oil spill in history?
You have a lot of reading to do. A good start would be the IXTOC I (http://www.incidentnews.gov/incident/6250) spill in 1979. Probably the most similar case, even though the actual well was even deeper than this one.


Deeper? Only if you consider 160 feet more than 500.



You forgot to mention some of them carry ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads (SSBN class). Point being that the destruction of one of these fellas underwater would be much, much worse than whatever ecological impact a mini-nuke would cause in this case.

How does this support using a mininuke? Because we have plutonium floating around in the ocean we should just say fuck it all? This is such a stupid argument that.

I see you've already done the environmental impact study though. So tell me, what kind of ecological impact could we expect out of a mini nuke in this case?

[MannyIsGod]

I don't have a solution. However, unlike you, I don't think it's unwise to consider all possibilities. I've yet to read a study about feasibility or impact of the proposed nuclear option. Have you? You sure opine like you did.

Well I also haven't read a study on whether or not its feasible to call ET and see if he can come use his oddly shaped head to cap the well. I do know that the use of nuclear weapons here is a) illegal, b) will have radioactive side effects which a transport system through the ocean, and c) according to the one guy who proposed it has a maybe a 20% success rate.

You let me know when they consider it an actual viable option.

[ElNono]

:lol

What? Water isn't even as effective as dirt.

How the hell can you say things like this and expect me to take you seriously on the subject?

You mean packed-dirt. If it's not packed, it's useless. It's a matter of atoms with heavy nuclei.

When I say effective, I mean overall. A product of cost/shielding.

That's why water is more effective overall. It's much easier to produce 7 inches of water than 3 inches of packed-dirt to halve radiation.

If cost and availability wouldn't be a problem, then you can obviously use depleted uranium, lead or concrete, which are much better at stopping gamma radiation, but much more expensive to obtain. Sometimes you don't have an option. For example nuclear reactors normally shield their fuel using a mixture of concrete and water-cooled lead.
That said, used nuclear reactor fuel is actually kept in water pools, not packed-dirt sheds.

Going back to our scenario, if we only account for half the depth of the well (2500 feet), the gamma reduction provided by the water shielding would make the resulting radiation 0.00046% of the original radiation.
(This doesn't take into consideration underwater currents which actually would make the radiation diffuse, and thus making the shielding more effective).

[ElNono]

Is it sovereign territory? No. What does the LTBT require? Sovereign territory AND the ability to contain any radiation - neither of those situations are here

Yeah, I'm not a maritime legal expert so I'm not 100% sure on this. I guess thats my flaw. I'm sure you've got an extensive background in this and I should just take your word for it. Whats your experience in the field?

I thought you were pretty sure. :rolleyes


Deeper? Only if you consider 160 feet more than 500.

On June 3, 1979, the 2 mile deep exploratory well, IXTOC I, blew out in the Bahia de Campeche.

Last I checked, 2 miles = 10,560 feet.


How does this support using a mininuke? Because we have plutonium floating around in the ocean we should just say fuck it all? This is such a stupid argument that.


It doesn't support using a mini-nuke. It merely dispells the fear-mongering that placing a nuke underwater would create a new risk. The risks exists and existed for a long time now.


I see you've already done the environmental impact study though. So tell me, what kind of ecological impact could we expect out of a mini nuke in this case?

Are you pretty sure? :lmao

[ElNono]

Well I also haven't read a study on whether or not its feasible to call ET and see if he can come use his oddly shaped head to cap the well. I do know that the use of nuclear weapons here is a) illegal, b) will have radioactive side effects which a transport system through the ocean, and c) according to the one guy who proposed it has a maybe a 20% success rate.

You know, or you're pretty sure? Because you haven't proven either.

[ElNono]

We're obviously not going anywhere with this.
I might be wrong. It might not be feasible. I sure would like to have all the information, instead of dismissing it outright because the general misconception that nuclear=bad.
Unfortunately that's how it works these days. Lack of information and fear mongering over actual informed decisions.
In the meantime, the spill keeps on going.

[MannyIsGod]

You mean packed-dirt. If it's not packed, it's useless. It's a matter of atoms with heavy nuclei.

When I say effective, I mean overall. A product of cost/shielding.

That's why water is more effective overall. It's much easier to produce 7 inches of water than 3 inches of packed-dirt to halve radiation.

If cost and availability wouldn't be a problem, then you can obviously use depleted uranium, lead or concrete, which are much better at stopping gamma radiation, but much more expensive to obtain. Sometimes you don't have an option. For example nuclear reactors normally shield their fuel using a mixture of concrete and water-cooled lead.
That said, used nuclear reactor fuel is actually kept in water pools, not packed-dirt sheds.


Dude they're kept in water because they're hot as fuck. Once they cool they are put into dry cask storage or reprocessed.


Going back to our scenario, if we only account for half the depth of the well (2500 feet), the gamma reduction provided by the water shielding would make the resulting radiation 0.00046% of the original radiation.
(This doesn't take into consideration underwater currents which actually would make the radiation diffuse, and thus making the shielding more effective).[/QUOTE]

Tell me, what is the likely-hood of radioactive debris staying in the spot currently occupied by a high pressure high speed jet of oil?

[boutons_deux]

"Lack of information and fear mongering over actual informed decisions."

aka, the primary Repug/conservative/Fox News mode, which is also corporate mode.

Not setting off a nuclear blast within 100 miles of the US coast, 5000 feet down, as a first-ever "experiment" in deep-water nuclear drill hole plugging is cowboy thinking, the kind of neo-c*nt/Repug cowboy imprudence that fooled most people that invading Iraq was justified and good. The blocking efficiency is overwhelmingly suspect, and the side-effects are totally unknown. So, "Let's Do This Thing". :)

[MannyIsGod]

I thought you were pretty sure. :rolleyes


Ok. When your facts obviously suck, harp on the overuse of a stupid phrase. Nice job. Next time just be pretty sure about what you're saying.



On June 3, 1979, the 2 mile deep exploratory well, IXTOC I, blew out in the Bahia de Campeche.

Last I checked, 2 miles = 10,560 feet.


Last time I checked, 50m of water = about 150 feet. Here's a hint, most of that depth was rock.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/32237183/Ixtoc-1-a-Case-Study-of-the-World-s-Largest-Oil-Spill

I can provide more links, too. Whats funny is that you told me that I had some reading to do on this. :lol




It doesn't support using a mini-nuke. It merely dispells the fear-mongering that placing a nuke underwater would create a new risk. The risks exists and existed for a long time now.



Placing? No. Exploding. Very different words with very different meanings.



Are you pretty sure? :lmao

I'm pretty sure I'm wiping the floor with you right about now.

[MannyIsGod]

We're obviously not going anywhere with this.
I might be wrong. It might not be feasible. I sure would like to have all the information, instead of dismissing it outright because the general misconception that nuclear=bad.
Unfortunately that's how it works these days. Lack of information and fear mongering over actual informed decisions.
In the meantime, the spill keeps on going.

I love how quickly you dismiss the feelings that nuclear explosions are bad. Where on earth would that general consensus come from? I'm a proponent of nuclear power so I know the side effects that nuclear weapons and nuclear accidents have on policy but this is not a controlled idea. This is the introduction of a nuclear explosion at a great depth with an marginal success rate prediction.

There are countless things that are not being considered because we don't have the time and resources to devote to shit that is almost right out of Armageddon 2: The Ghost of Bruce Wills saves the Gulf.

[ElNono]

Tell me, what is the likely-hood of radioactive debris staying in the spot currently occupied by a high pressure high speed jet of oil?

Very likely. That entire area will probably be radioactive for about 2 weeks (assuming a ~30 kiloton device). I don't see a problem with that though, do you?

[MannyIsGod]

Very likely. That entire area will probably be radioactive for about 2 weeks (assuming a ~30 kiloton device). I don't see a problem with that though, do you?

Very likely huh?

[ElNono]

Ok. When your facts obviously suck, harp on the overuse of a stupid phrase. Nice job. Next time just be pretty sure about what you're saying.

:lmao


Last time I checked, 50m of water = about 150 feet. Here's a hint, most of that depth was rock.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/32237183/Ixtoc-1-a-Case-Study-of-the-World-s-Largest-Oil-Spill

I can provide more links, too. Whats funny is that you told me that I had some reading to do on this. :lol

I don't know if you're silly or just flat out can't read. What I said:



You have a lot of reading to do. A good start would be the IXTOC I spill in 1979. Probably the most similar case, even though the actual well was even deeper than this one.

Was the well deeper than this one? Very simple question.


Placing? No. Exploding. Very different words with very different meanings.

So you don't think one of those subs can ever explode underwater? Why is that?


I'm pretty sure I'm wiping the floor with you right about now.

I'm pretty sure that every time you say you're pretty sure you're talking out of your ass.

[ElNono]

Very likely huh?

If the detonation succeeds, then you will have radioactive material. So yeah, very likely.

[ElNono]

I love how quickly you dismiss the feelings that nuclear explosions are bad. Where on earth would that general consensus come from? I'm a proponent of nuclear power so I know the side effects that nuclear weapons and nuclear accidents have on policy but this is not a controlled idea. This is the introduction of a nuclear explosion at a great depth with an marginal success rate prediction.

There are countless things that are not being considered because we don't have the time and resources to devote to shit that is almost right out of Armageddon 2: The Ghost of Bruce Wills saves the Gulf.

BP doesn't have nuclear weapons (last I checked), so it would have to come from the administration. Is this how we deal with problems now? Consensus?
As opposed to actual scientific research?

And if we're looking at solutions in mid August, then we sure as heck have enough time to make an actual impact study.

[MannyIsGod]

I don't know if you're silly or just flat out can't read. What I said:



Was the well deeper than this one? Very simple question.


Sure, but its irrelevant. The underground depth of the well is not what is hampering things, its the depth of the water. Its really funny because you didn't make this point when I brought up the water depth but only after you were obviously wrong.



So you don't think one of those subs can ever explode underwater? Why is that?


Who is advocating blowing one up? No one. No one is here debating on whether or not there is a risk with those subs so why do you keep brining this up? It is a total and complete non sequitur.



I'm pretty sure that every time you say you're pretty sure you're talking out of your ass.

Ok.

[MannyIsGod]

BP doesn't have nuclear weapons (last I checked), so it would have to come from the administration. Is this how we deal with problems now? Consensus?
As opposed to actual scientific research?

And if we're looking at solutions in mid August, then we sure as heck have enough time to make an actual impact study.

We've always dealt with problems this way because we don't have infinite resources. First, you use common sense to knock out the stupid ideas. Then you focus on the ones with promise and study them. Then you implement. This idea seems to have been phased out smartly in the first phase.

Where are all the engineers, physicists and other scientists who are championing this idea? We've had fringe reports of one guy in Russian who says it has an 80% failure rate and silence.

Where is the scientific and engineering community on this idea? The silence is rather telling.

[boutons_deux]

1997 Warning on Deep Blowouts: ‘Options Are Limited’

By ANDREW C. REVKIN

It should come as no surprise that experts in avoiding and stopping blowouts of oil and gas wells long ago saw the deep-ocean drilling frontier as particularly dangerous terrain.

Back in 1997, an offshore-drilling newsletter ran an article by Larry Flak, a veteran well blowout expert, at Boots & Coots at the time, listing a variety of paths leading to a seabed blowout and stated flatly that stopping one would be an enormous challenge.

His bottom line? “Options are limited, so prevention and fast action are critical.”

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/31/1997-warning-on-deep-blowouts-options-are-limited/?pagemode=print

[boutons_deux]

Magic Negro didn't have the balls to take over/Resolution-Trust the bankrupt Wall St Banksters, he won't have the balls to take Reich's solution and go Harry-Truman on criminal BP.

===========

The Huffington Post May 31, 2010


Robert Reich
Robert Reich

Former Secretary of Labor, Professor at Berkeley
Posted: May 31, 2010 01:46 PM
BIO Become a Fan
Get Email Alerts Bloggers' Index




Why Obama Should Put BP Under Temporary Receivership


It's time for the federal government to put BP under temporary receivership, which gives the government authority to take over BP's operations in the Gulf of Mexico until the gusher is stopped. This is the only way the public will know what's going on, be confident enough resources are being put to stopping the gusher, ensure BP's strategy is correct, know the government has enough clout to force BP to use a different one if necessary, and be sure the president is ultimately in charge.

If the government can take over giant global insurer AIG and the auto giant General Motors and replace their CEOs, in order to keep them financially solvent, it should be able to put BP's north American operations into temporary receivership in order to stop one of the worst environmental disasters in U.S. history.

The Obama administration keeps saying BP is in charge because BP has the equipment and expertise necessary to do what's necessary. But under temporary receivership, BP would continue to have the equipment and expertise. The only difference: the firm would unambiguously be working in the public's interest. As it is now, BP continues to be responsible primarily to its shareholders, not to the American public. As a result, the public continues to worry that a private for-profit corporation is responsible for stopping a public tragedy.

Five reasons for taking such action:

1. We are not getting the truth from BP. BP has continuously and dramatically understated size of gusher. In the last few days, BP chief Tony Hayward has tried to refute reports from scientists that vast amounts of oil from the spill are spreading underwater. Hayward says BP's sampling shows "no evidence" oil is massing and spreading underwater across the Gulf. Yet scientists from the University of South Florida, University of Georgia, University of Southern Mississippi and other institutions say they've detected vast amounts of underwater oil, including an area roughly 50 miles from the spill site and as deep as 400 feet. Government must be clearly in charge of getting all the facts, not waiting for what BP decides to disclose and when.

2. We have no way to be sure BP is devoting enough resources to stopping the gusher. BP is now saying it has no immediate way to stop up the well until August, when a new "relief" well will reach the gushing well bore, enabling its engineers to install cement plugs. August? If government were in direct control of BP's north American assets, it would be able to devote whatever of those assets are necessary to stopping up the well right away.

3. BP's new strategy for stopping the gusher is highly risky. It wants to sever the leaking pipe cleanly from atop the failed blowout preventer, and then install a new cap so the escaping oil can be pumped up to a ship on the surface. But scientists say that could result in an even bigger volume of oil -- as much as 20 percent more -- gushing from the well. At least under government receivership, public officials would be directly accountable for weighing the advantages and disadvantages of such a strategy. As of now, company officials are doing the weighing. Which brings us to the fourth argument for temporary receivership.

4. Right now, the U.S. government has no authority to force BP to adopt a different strategy. Saturday, Energy Secretary Steven Chu and his team of scientists essentially halted BP's attempt to cap the spewing well with a process known as "top kill," which injected drilling mud and other materials to try to counter the upward pressure of the oil. Apparently the Administration team was worried that the technique would worsen the leak. But under what authority did the Administration act? It has none. Asked Sunday whether U.S. officials told BP to stop the top-kill attempt, Carol Browner, the White House environmental advisor, said, "We told them of our very, very grave concerns" about the danger. Expressing grave concerns is not enough. The President needs legal authority to order BP to protect the United States.

5. The President is not legally in charge. As long as BP is not under the direct control of the government he has no direct line of authority, and responsibility is totally confused. For example, listen for the "we" and "they" pronouns that were used by Carol Browner in response to a question on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday (emphasis added): "We're now going to move into a situation where they're going to attempt to control the oil that's coming out, move it to a vessel, take it onshore ....We always knew that the relief well was the permanent way to close this .... Now we move to the third option, which is to contain it. If [the new cap on the relief well is] a snug fit, then there could be very, very little oil. If they're not able to get as snug a fit, then there could be more. We're going to hope for the best and prepare for the worst." When you get pronoun confusion like this, you can bet on confusion -- both inside the Administration and among the public. There is no good reason why "they" are in charge of an operation of which "we" are hoping for the best and preparing for the worst.


The president should temporarily take over BP's Gulf operations. We have a national emergency on our hands. No president would allow a nuclear reactor owned by a private for-profit company to melt down in the United States while remaining under the direct control of that company. The meltdown in the Gulf is the environmental equivalent.

This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org
=

[jack sommerset]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_6s6CdLQRCP0/S_12gfaF5DI/AAAAAAAAAnw/LSS9pAKRjA4/s400/PlugHole_Edit.gif

[ElNono]

Sure, but its irrelevant. The underground depth of the well is not what is hampering things, its the depth of the water. Its really funny because you didn't make this point when I brought up the water depth but only after you were obviously wrong.

I made the point that I intended to make: That your claim that there's no standard procedures to follow in these cases is a complete turd. At least two techniques used in that 1979 well were used or are going to be also used to try to plug this well. Why didn't you bring this up when you made your claim?


Who is advocating blowing one up? No one. No one is here debating on whether or not there is a risk with those subs so why do you keep brining this up? It is a total and complete non sequitur.

You can go back and read why I brought this topic up. You're the one that keeps arguing about it.

[ElNono]

We've always dealt with problems this way because we don't have infinite resources. First, you use common sense to knock out the stupid ideas. Then you focus on the ones with promise and study them. Then you implement. This idea seems to have been phased out smartly in the first phase.

As opposed to your hollywood dreams, this is not an idea. It's a technique that has been used numerous times in the real world.
The Ruskies didn't send Ivan Drago to plug their gas/oil wells.
I don't know how feasible it is in this case, and that's what I'm trying to find out. If your discussion of technical merits circle around checking the availability of Samuel Jackson or Bruce Willis, and what kind of 'compromise' we would need, then there's really not much more to add.


Where are all the engineers, physicists and other scientists who are championing this idea? We've had fringe reports of one guy in Russian who says it has an 80% failure rate and silence.

Link to the study from this Russian dude? I mean, I'm sure he didn't pull that number out of his ass. That's exactly what I'm looking for, an actual feasibility and impact study. Since you make your conclusions based on what this guy said, then I'm sure you have a read his study?
As far as failure/success rate of this technique, we simply can go look at the results whenever this technique has been used. It's well over 20% success rate.


Where is the scientific and engineering community on this idea? The silence is rather telling.

That's exactly what I want. The administration to seek help of the scientific and engineering community to create a study about the feasibility and impact of this technique. So far, BP has done all they normally do. It hasn't worked. They obviously don't have access to nukes, so they're not going to waste time seeking a solution there.

[boutons_deux]

"BP has done all they normally do. It hasn't worked."

bullshit. There is no "normal" of plugging very high-pressure oil+methane blowouts at 5000 under the surface. Experimenting with a nuke simply isn't the best, most likely to succeed approach.

I thought the approach of trying to capture the oil in tube leading the surface and into tankers was a good idea. I think if they cut off the well head to a regular shape and dropping a tube over it to scavenge the oil into tankers until the relief hole(s) permit plugging the original hole is the best way to go, from what I'm hearing from various experts.

BP is interested in minimizing its costs and maximizing its revenues. Do they really, seriously want to plug and abandon the $Bs in oil down there?

[ElNono]

"BP has done all they normally do. It hasn't worked."

bullshit. There is no "normal" of plugging very high-pressure oil+methane blowouts at 5000 under the surface. Experimenting with a nuke simply isn't the best, most likely to succeed approach.

I thought the approach of trying to capture the oil in tube leading the surface and into tankers was a good idea. I think if they cut off the well head to a regular shape and dropping a tube over it to scavenge the oil into tankers until the relief hole(s) permit plugging the original hole is the best way to go, from what I'm hearing from various experts.

BP is interested in minimizing its costs and maximizing its revenues. Do they really, seriously want to plug and abandon the $Bs in oil down there?

Hey, I don't discard that the nuke technique is not feasible or possible.
But in 10 pages so far into this discussion, I still haven't seen the technical merits for discarding it.

I'm 100% with you that BP has other interests in mind. I understand they much rather control the leak as opposed to just closing it and moving along.
Which is really a much more logical explanation of why they would be reluctant to approach a technique to seal the well if they could get access to a nuke.

[boutons_deux]

http://www.treehugger.com/bpbike.jpg

[DarrinS]

They should just give Michael Moore lipo and pump his fat into the hole.

[ducks]

"BP has done all they normally do. It hasn't worked."

bullshit. There is no "normal" of plugging very high-pressure oil+methane blowouts at 5000 under the surface. Experimenting with a nuke simply isn't the best, most likely to succeed approach.

I thought the approach of trying to capture the oil in tube leading the surface and into tankers was a good idea. I think if they cut off the well head to a regular shape and dropping a tube over it to scavenge the oil into tankers until the relief hole(s) permit plugging the original hole is the best way to go, from what I'm hearing from various experts.

BP is interested in minimizing its costs and maximizing its revenues. Do they really, seriously want to plug and abandon the $Bs in oil down there?
Experimenting with a nuke simply isn't the best, most likely to succeed approach.
deepshit
nobody has tested anything to pug a hole over 5000 feet in the whole

what would the great boutons_deux do?

just let natural take it course?


I suppose you would not drill for oil since it might leak.
do you ride a plane or train I would think you would not since it might crash :lmao

[ducks]

http://www.treehugger.com/bpbike.jpg

yeah boycotting them will fix the leak:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol

do you buy things made from china:downspin:

[ducks]

they should plug it with the presidents big mouth and his big promises he breaks

[EmptyMan]

Pretty sure underwater nuking is what created the cloverfield monster.

[ducks]

people need to know no one not even the great president has ever tested things to stop a leak like this and they need to take a freaking chill pill and let the engineer people brainstorm and come up with a solution

[boutons_deux]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/newsgraphics/2010/0528-oil-spill-efforts/DOME-for-blog.png

some pretty pictures:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/05/25/us/20100525-topkill-diagram.html?ref=us

[boutons_deux]

"I hate to say it, but what I'm seeing now in the Gulf ain't nothing new. The toxic releases, the lies, the cover-ups, the skimping on safety, the nonexistent documents, the "swinging door" with regulators, the deaths. Same ole same ole.

What is new is the massive nature of the oil gusher and the fact that it can't be covered up because it's ongoing and being videoed. This elephant can't be swept under the carpet, but I'm sure if BP could, BP would."

http://www.grist.org/article/2010-05-28-the-bp-oil-gusher-is-just-the-latest-in-a-long-line-of-assaults-/PALL/print

[boutons_deux]

... duped

[RandomGuy]

The Exclusive Economic Zone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_Economic_Zone#United_States) is 200 nautical miles.



As much as you think this is a movie plot, that process has been used in the real world numerous times. I agree that is not the same scenario, but all I suggested is that now that other more standard procedures have failed radically, it's something to consider. That includes considering what the consequences would be. Some people hear the word 'nuclear' and start running for the hills, without realizing that there's very secure nuclear subs roaming around the globe and that the US is a leader in the technology.

I don't want Samuel Jackson going in there, but why not conduct a proper study to determine the feasibility and potential impact of using a technique like that? It's not like they have this thing under control and every day that goes by there's much more damage being done in the area.

The problem with this particular radical solution is that if it fails you not only have oil leaking, but you have made that oil highly radioactive.

In the event of a failure of this plan, and you have highly radioactive oil floating around, what is your proposal for cleaning THAT up?

How then do you deal with radioactive oil washing up on beaches?

[RandomGuy]

I wonder if after a month, under Bush, would there still be oil spilling? I don't see how Pelosi can blame bush's appointees on this when obama has had plenty of time to get rid of the group who he blamed for all our previous problems (deregulation).

... says a member of the party that has been blocking the current administrations appointments at every opportunity just to score trival political points. :rolleyes

[Wild Cobra]

If the detonation succeeds, then you will have radioactive material. So yeah, very likely.
The pressure at that depth minimizes the size of the nuclear explosion. The heat probably fuses the area.

[RandomGuy]

Scientists warn of unseen deepwater oil disaster

NEW ORLEANS – Independent scientists and government officials say there's a disaster we can't see in the Gulf of Mexico's mysterious depths, the ruin of a world inhabited by enormous sperm whales and tiny, invisible plankton.

Researchers have said they have found at least two massive underwater plumes of what appears to be oil, each hundreds of feet deep and stretching for miles. Yet the chief executive of BP PLC — which has for weeks downplayed everything from the amount of oil spewing into the Gulf to the environmental impact — said there is "no evidence" that huge amounts of oil are suspended undersea.

BP CEO Tony Hayward said the oil naturally gravitates to the surface — and any oil below was just making its way up. However, researchers say the disaster in waters where light doesn't shine through could ripple across the food chain.

"Every fish and invertebrate contacting the oil is probably dying. I have no doubt about that," said Prosanta Chakrabarty, a Louisiana State University fish biologist.

On the surface, a 24-hour camera fixed on the spewing, blown-out well and the images of dead, oil-soaked birds have been evidence of the calamity. At least 20 million gallons of oil and possibly 43 million gallons have spilled since the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded and sank in April.

That has far eclipsed the 11 million gallons released during the Exxon Valdez spill off Alaska's coast in 1989. But there is no camera to capture what happens in the rest of the vast Gulf, which sprawls across 600,000 square miles and reaches more than 14,000 feet at its deepest point.

Every night, the denizens of the deep make forays to shallower depths to eat — and be eaten by — other fish, according to marine scientists who describe it as the largest migration on earth.

In turn, several species closest to the surface — including red snapper, shrimp and menhaden — help drive the Gulf Coast fishing industry. Others such as marlin, cobia and yellowfin tuna sit atop the food chain and are chased by the Gulf's charter fishing fleet.

Many of those species are now in their annual spawning seasons. Eggs exposed to oil would quickly perish. Those that survived to hatch could starve if the plankton at the base of the food chain suffer. Larger fish are more resilient, but not immune to the toxic effects of oil.

The Gulf's largest spill was in 1979, when the Ixtoc I platform off Mexico's Yucatan peninsula blew up and released 140 million gallons of oil. But that was in relatively shallow waters — about 160 feet deep — and much of the oil stayed on the surface where it broke down and became less toxic by the time it reached the Texas coast.

But last week, a team from the University of South Florida reported a plume was headed toward the continental shelf off the Alabama coastline, waters thick with fish and other marine life.

The researchers said oil in the plumes had dissolved into the water, possibly a result of chemical dispersants used to break up the spill. That makes it more dangerous to fish larvae and creatures that are filter feeders.

Responding to Hayward's assertion, one researcher noted that scientists from several different universities have come to similar conclusions about the plumes after doing separate testing.

No major fish kills have been reported, but federal officials said the impacts could take years to unfold.

"This is just a giant experiment going on and we're trying to understand scientifically what this means," said Roger Helm, a senior official with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

In 2009, LSU's Chakrabarty discovered two new species of bottom-dwelling pancake batfish about 30 miles off the Louisiana coastline — right in line with the pathway of the spill caused when the Deepwater Horizon burned and sank April 24.

By the time an article in the Journal of Fish Biology detailing the discovery appears in the August edition, Chakrabarty said, the two species — which pull themselves along the seafloor with feet-like fins — could be gone or in serious decline.

"There are species out there that haven't been described, and they're going to disappear," he said.

Recent discoveries of endangered sea turtles soaked in oil and 22 dolphins found dead in the spill zone only hint at the scope of a potential calamity that could last years and unravel the Gulf's food web.

Concerns about damage to the fishery already is turning away potential customers for charter boat captains such as Troy Wetzel of Venice. To get to waters unaffected by the spill, Wetzel said he would have to take his boat 100 miles or more into the Gulf — jacking up his fuel costs to where only the wealthiest clients could afford to go fishing.

Significant amounts of crude oil seep naturally from thousands of small rifts in the Gulf's floor — as much as two Exxon Valdez spills every year, according to a 2000 report from government and academic researchers. Microbes that live in the water break down the oil.

The number of microbes that grow in response to the more concentrated BP spill could tip that system out of balance, LSU oceanographer Mark Benfield said.

Too many microbes in the sea could suck oxygen from the water, creating an uninhabitable hypoxic area, or "dead zone."

Preliminary evidence of increased hypoxia in the Gulf was seen during an early May cruise aboard the R/V Pelican, carrying researchers from the University of Georgia, the University of Mississippi and the University of Southern Mississippi.

An estimated 910,000 gallons of dispersants — enough to fill more than 100 tanker trucks — are contributing a new toxin to the mix. Containing petroleum distillates and propylene glycol, the dispersants' effects on marine life are still unknown.

What is known is that by breaking down oil into smaller droplets, dispersants reduce the oil's buoyancy, slowing or stalling the crude's rise to the surface and making it harder to track the spill.

Dispersing the oil lower into the water column protects beaches, but also keeps it in cooler waters where oil does not break down as fast. That could prolong the oil's potential to poison fish, said Larry McKinney, director of the Harte Research Institute at Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi.

"There's a school of thought that says we've made it worse because of the dispersants," he said.
------------------------------------

If this stuff gets in the Atlantic.. yikes.

We have already had our first tropical storm of the season. Anybody want to imagine what a hurricaine running through the giant surface slick would do?

yikes.

By the by BP's stock took a drubbing again.

[boutons_deux]

the explosion could aslo "frack" around the fused part, allowing the reservoir to gush out many cracks.

[boutons_deux]

real scientists are leftist pussies, crybabies, Chicken Littles.

Repug "scientists" are badass mofo's who say nothing can hurt the earth. Drill, Baby, Drill

[boutons_deux]

BP Hires Former Cheney Aide to Head P.R./Lying Efforts

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/06/01/bp-hires-former-cheney-aide-to-head-p-r-lying-efforts/

========

the lying about BP's "PR problem" is well under way, and their 1000s of lawyers are certainly plotting how to keep BP from financial responsiblity, just like Exxon took 20 years to under-payoff Valdez victims.

[MannyIsGod]

If this stuff gets in the Atlantic.. yikes.

We have already had our first tropical storm of the season. Anybody want to imagine what a hurricaine running through the giant surface slick would do?

yikes.

By the by BP's stock took a drubbing again.

I think there is easily a more than 50% chance the oil will at some point be affected by a tropical cyclone of some strength considering the way this season is shaping up (probably the most active since the infamous 2005 Katrina season).

Dr. Jeff Masters has made several blog posts about the interactions we could see but I haven't read the latest one.

[MannyIsGod]

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/hurricanes_oil_factsheet.pdf

[MannyIsGod]

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1492

[DarrinS]

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/hurricanes_oil_factsheet.pdf



So, what we need is a really strong hurricane in the gulf to accelerate the biodegradation process?

[RandomGuy]

So, what we need is a really strong hurricane in the gulf to accelerate the biodegradation process?

That would seem to be one of the effects, yes. A fortunate happenstance, balanced on the other hand by the real possibility of the storm pushing oil towards the shore and/or up on land farther in.

Meh. It will either happen or it won't, and there is nothing to do about it.

[Wild Cobra]

So, what we need is a really strong hurricane in the gulf to accelerate the biodegradation process?That would seem to be one of the effects, yes. A fortunate happenstance, balanced on the other hand by the real possibility of the storm pushing oil towards the shore and/or up on land farther in.

Meh. It will either happen or it won't, and there is nothing to do about it.
Where's Global Warming when you need it?

[MiamiHeat]

i live in miami florida

are you guys fucking crazy

we do not want a hurricane down here. nobody wants one.

they wreak havoc on economies and destroy property. even kill people. they are not fun experiences.

having the sound of high speed wind "whistling" all around your house and pieces of metal and random shit flying past your window is not fun.

last time a hurricane was down here, a metal tool shed was FLYING down my street and hit a tree and then wrapped around it. no fucking joke.

thankfully, installed new impact resistance windows, but still.

[boutons_deux]

TX Gov Perry, who has direct line to God, said the BP blowout was an Act of God, so it's "Christian" logical that another Act of God, a hurricane, cancel out the first Act. :)

[Nbadan]

Drill baby Drill!

ShxhzwNNlBs

[word]

Drill Baby Drill !

More like...DRIVE BABY DRIVE.....

FAuoOjUKk_U

Me so hate oil....

[Nbadan]

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k85/KyleJ19/Cheney.jpg


May 30, 2010 — Deregulation is the real (underlying) reason / cause behind the US oil spill by British Petroleum (BP) in 2010 off the coast of Louisiana in the Gulf of Mexico. Deregulation coupled with lax government oversight (lackies appointed by Dick Cheney at the helm) lead to the omission of key safety features and protocols, a free pass for drilling licenses, emphasis on profit over safety, and absolutely NO PLAN for containment of blowouts.

For example, George W Bush and Dick Cheney helped block a 2002/03 Bill that would have required the use of acoustic switches to activate the blowout preventer (BOP). When the rig blew up, they had to MANUALLY activate the switch by sending robotic submersibles. This was all but impossible since the rig was in flames and the priority was putting it out and saving lives; this was easily foreseen.

In addition, BP did not want to lose an oil well (by activating the BOP); this would have cost them future profit in addition to the costs for exploration and preparation of the well. Eventually the rig collapsed and sank to the ocean floor. Because the rig was STILL ATTACHED to the well head / BOP, it bent or damaged the BOP making it unusable. Again, this is something that could have been foreseen; i.e. the need to activate the BOP immediately in the case of catastrophic rig failure, to avoid potential damage to the BOP. Profit wins over safety; BP must avoid activating the BOP at all costs.

An acoustic switch would have allowed them to IMMEDIATELY stop the well head (activate the BOP) as soon as the explosion happened. The BOP would not have been at risk for failure (due to rig collapsing); but, the lack of a remote switch and need to save the well (for profit and avoidance of loss) meant that they delayed trying to activate it. By that time the damage to the BOP had been done.

Lastly, all of the post-blowout efforts have been focused on SAVING the well; i.e. it was only after more than a month before BP attempted the TOPKILL method, which would have sealed the well. Attempts before that were about slowing the flow of oil or collecting it. Why did BP not try the TOPKILL method right away?

Drill Baby, Drill! Spill Baby, Spill. Now, clean it the fock up!

[Nbadan]

77pBcf0o444

[Nbadan]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/newsgraphics/2010/0528-oil-spill-efforts/DOME-for-blog.png

some pretty pictures:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/05/25/us/20100525-topkill-diagram.html?ref=us

Part 1 - Riser pipe shear successful

....you can watch the action live here...

http://www.deepwaterbp.com/

...Next step is the diamond wire saw at the BOP,

[word]

The same people who did the inside job on the WTC are responsible.

[word]

History of offshore drilling accidents...

http://www.upstreamonline.com/live/article214256.ece

I see Discoverer 534 caught fire in 1980, just a few months after I did my last tour on her.

Shit happens. Sometimes it's really bad. This is one of those times.

[xrayzebra]

Drill baby Drill!

ShxhzwNNlBs

That's what I say too. Drill baby Drill.:lol

[boutons_deux]

Fisherman Who Fell Ill During Oil Spill Clean-up Alleges BP Tried to Cover-up Evidence

Posted By Amanda Terkel On June 1, 2010 @ 2:57 pm In Uncategorized

Last week, the LA Times reported that local fishermen hired by BP to clean up the Gulf Coast spill had “become ill after working long hours near waters fouled with oil and dispersant.” Especially galling was the fact that one of the fishermen said that the company hadn’t provided them with any protective equipment, like gloves. Now, John Wunstell, Jr., one of the fishermen who became sick with “nosebleeds, an upset stomach, and aches,” is filing a restraining order against BP, citing the treatment he faced from the company after he went to the hospital:

“At West Jefferson, there were tents set up outside the hospital, where I was stripped of my clothing, washed with water and several showers, before I was allowed into the hospital,” Wunstell said. “When I asked for my clothing, I was told that BP had confiscated all of my clothing and it would not be returned.”

The restraining order requests that BP refrain from “altering, testing or destroying clothing or any other evidence or potential evidence” when workers become ill.


BP CEO Tony Hayward has tried to downplay the sicknesses, attributing them to food poisoning. However, Dr. Michael Osterholm, a professor at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health, has said that Hayward’s explanation sounds fishy, explaining that the fishermens’ symptoms are more in line with a respiratory illness. On Friday, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius called on BP to provide treatment for clean-up workers who become sick. (HT: scorpiorising at DailyKos)

URL to article: http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/06/01/fisherman-who-fell-ill-during-oil-spill-clean-up-alleges-bp-tried-to-cover-up-evidence/

[RandomGuy]

That's what I say too. Drill baby Drill.:lol

I would like to see you say that to the face of one of the thousands of soon-to-be unemployed fishermen.

Or to a home owner along the coast, or to the hotel operators who will lose their businesses.

I dare you.

[Technique]

http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/154/1275409202264.jpg
win

[Wild Cobra]

Me so hate oil....
Then I hope you aren't a hypocrite and never buy plastics or use fuel.

[Winehole23]

(*Sarcasm alert*)

[xrayzebra]

I would like to see you say that to the face of one of the thousands of soon-to-be unemployed fishermen.

Or to a home owner along the coast, or to the hotel operators who will lose their businesses.

I dare you.


Wouldn't bother me at all RG, Louisiana has made billions off of oil and gas,
and those coon asses see big dollars signs written all over the place from
BP.

If you are looking at me for sympathy for these people you need to go
elsewhere. What happened is a serious accident and the fault of people
who pushed oil companies father out into the Gulf. BP is losing serious
money and will lose more. No one will lose their business because of this
and you damn well know it. Obama will make sure there is more of the
phantom dollars show up to maintain their lifestyle of Bud lite, crawdads
and catfish to sustain them. And the mainstream media will be there to
film their anguish.:toast

[boutons_deux]

Oil companies have a rich history of U.S. subsidies

Some say the Gulf of Mexico catastrophe can be linked to Congress' policy of oil-friendly tax breaks and financial benefits.

May 25, 2010|By Kim Geiger and Tom Hamburger, Tribune Washington Bureau
(Page 2 of 3)

The royalty waiver program was established by Congress in 1995, when oil was selling for about $18 a barrel and drilling in deep water was seen as unprofitable without a subsidy. Today, oil sells for about $70 a barrel, but the subsidy continues.

The Government Accountability Office estimates that the deep-water waiver program could cost the Treasury $55 billion or more in lost revenue over the life of the leases, depending on the price of oil and gas and the performances of the wells.

[boutons_deux]

"President Barack Obama says it's time to roll back "billions of dollars in tax breaks" for oil companies and use the money for clean energy research and development."

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0602/obama-seeks-rollback-big-oil-tax-breaks/

[xrayzebra]

Oil companies have a rich history of U.S. subsidies

Some say the Gulf of Mexico catastrophe can be linked to Congress' policy of oil-friendly tax breaks and financial benefits.

May 25, 2010|By Kim Geiger and Tom Hamburger, Tribune Washington Bureau
(Page 2 of 3)

The royalty waiver program was established by Congress in 1995, when oil was selling for about $18 a barrel and drilling in deep water was seen as unprofitable without a subsidy. Today, oil sells for about $70 a barrel, but the subsidy continues.

The Government Accountability Office estimates that the deep-water waiver program could cost the Treasury $55 billion or more in lost revenue over the life of the leases, depending on the price of oil and gas and the performances of the wells.

Hey, dummy, go back and study some history. Do you even know what
subsidies are? I thought not. Just because they get tax breaks, doesn't
mean they are subsides.

Typical damn communist.


By the way, do you have a job?

[Cry Havoc]

By the way, do you have a job?

Says the guy posting at 2:01 PM on a Wednesday.

[xrayzebra]

Says the guy posting at 2:01 PM on a Wednesday.


Yeah and this guy worked for 50 years so he could post at 2:01 PM on a
Wednesday afternoon. But Obama is trying to screw that up as fast as
he can.

What's your damn excuse?

[boutons_deux]

XZ worked for a taxpayer-subsidized black hole called the US military, and now is living off socialized health care and socialized retirement benefits.

[xrayzebra]

XZ worked for a taxpayer-subsidized black hole called the US military, and now is living off socialized health care and socialized retirement benefits.

Actually, I am an ACORN ex-employee who is now a member of SEIU and
got the job through boutons. He taught me how to carry signs and trample
lawns of bankers. He also explained to me how to get all the food stamps
and medical care needed.

Okay, so I am being sarcastic. Yeah, boutons, our resident Communist on
this board, who lived in Europe and thinks it is the greatest place in the
world, well, well except to live. He especially likes their form of government
and bennies and wants to make all this country just like them.

He hates our way of life, which gave him all that he has. And more than
likely his Father was a military guy just like me. So I have only a small
little thing to say to him. Kiss me where the sun never shines and you
are are perfectly at home. And thank God you had a good Father and Mother who didn't abort you like which you more than likely favor for other children.

[Wild Cobra]

Typical damn communist.


By the way, do you have a job?
I'll bet he doesn't. He's probably subsidized.

[Nbadan]

Drill baby drill!

g6MOzmiY9iQ

[jack sommerset]

Shit, Obama may get what he wants!!!!! Stop the leak and get the oil! Way to go bro!!!!!!

[ElNono]

Eating my own crow over here...

Nuclear Option on Gulf Oil Spill? No Way, U.S. Says (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/us/03nuke.html?hp)
By WILLIAM J. BROAD
Published: June 2, 2010

The chatter began weeks ago as armchair engineers brainstormed for ways to stop the torrent of oil spilling into the Gulf of Mexico: What about nuking the well?

Decades ago, the Soviet Union reportedly used nuclear blasts to successfully seal off runaway gas wells, inserting a bomb deep underground and letting its fiery heat melt the surrounding rock to shut off the flow. Why not try it here?

The idea has gained fans with each failed attempt to stem the leak and each new setback — on Wednesday, the latest rescue effort stalled when a wire saw being used to slice through the riser pipe got stuck.

“Probably the only thing we can do is create a weapon system and send it down 18,000 feet and detonate it, hopefully encasing the oil,” Matt Simmons, a Houston energy expert and investment banker, told Bloomberg News on Friday, attributing the nuclear idea to “all the best scientists.”

Or as the CNN reporter John Roberts suggested last week, “Drill a hole, drop a nuke in and seal up the well.”

This week, with the failure of the “top kill” attempt, the buzz had grown loud enough that federal officials felt compelled to respond.

Stephanie Mueller, a spokeswoman for the Energy Department, said that neither Energy Secretary Steven Chu nor anyone else was thinking about a nuclear blast under the gulf. The nuclear option was not — and never had been — on the table, federal officials said.

“It’s crazy,” one senior official said.

Government and private nuclear experts agreed that using a nuclear bomb would be not only risky technically, with unknown and possibly disastrous consequences from radiation, but also unwise geopolitically — it would violate arms treaties that the United States has signed and championed over the decades and do so at a time when President Obama is pushing for global nuclear disarmament.

The atomic option is perhaps the wildest among a flood of ideas proposed by bloggers, scientists and other creative types who have deluged government agencies and BP, the company that drilled the well, with phone calls and e-mail messages. The Unified Command overseeing the Deepwater Horizon disaster features a “suggestions” button on its official Web site and more than 7,800 people have already responded, according to the site.

Among the suggestions: lowering giant plastic pillows to the seafloor and filling them with oil, dropping a huge block of concrete to squeeze off the flow and using magnetic clamps to attach pipes that would siphon off the leaking oil.

Some have also suggested conventional explosives, claiming that oil prospectors on land have used such blasts to put out fires and seal boreholes. But oil engineers say that dynamite or other conventional explosives risk destroying the wellhead so that the flow could never be plugged from the top.

Along with the kibbitzers, the government has also brought in experts from around the world — including scores of scientists from the Los Alamos National Laboratory and other government labs — to assist in the effort to cap the well.

In theory, the nuclear option seems attractive because the extreme heat might create a tough seal. An exploding atom bomb generates temperatures hotter than the surface of the sun and, detonated underground, can turn acres of porous rock into a glassy plug, much like a huge stopper in a leaky bottle.

Michael E. Webber, a mechanical engineer at the University of Texas, Austin, wrote to Dot Earth, a New York Times blog, in early May that he had surprised himself by considering what once seemed unthinkable. “Seafloor nuclear detonation,” he wrote, “is starting to sound surprisingly feasible and appropriate.”

Much of the enthusiasm for an atomic approach is based on reports that the Soviet Union succeeded in using nuclear blasts to seal off gas wells. Milo D. Nordyke, in a 2000 technical paper for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, Calif., described five Soviet blasts from 1966 to 1981.

All but the last blast were successful. The 1966 explosion put out a gas well fire that had raged uncontrolled for three years. But the last blast of the series, Mr. Nordyke wrote, “did not seal the well,” perhaps because the nuclear engineers had poor geological data on the exact location of the borehole.

Robert S. Norris, author of “Racing for the Bomb” and an atomic historian, noted that all the Soviet blasts were on land and never involved oil.

Whatever the technical merits of using nuclear explosions for constructive purposes, the end of the cold war brought wide agreement among nations to give up the conduct of all nuclear blasts, even for peaceful purposes. The United States, after conducting more than 1,000 nuclear test explosions, detonated the last one in 1992, shaking the ground at the Nevada test site.

In 1996, the United States championed the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty, a global accord meant to end the development of new kinds of nuclear arms. President Obama is pushing for new global rules, treaties and alliances that he insists can go much further to produce a nuclear-free world. For his administration to seize on a nuclear solution for the gulf crisis, officials say, would abandon its international agenda and responsibilities and give rogue states an excuse to seek nuclear strides.

Kevin Roark, a spokesman for Los Alamos in New Mexico, the birthplace of the atomic bomb, said that despite rumors to the contrary, none of the laboratory’s thousands of experts was devising nuclear options for the gulf.

“Nothing of the sort is going on here,” he said in an interview. “In fact, we’re not working on any intervention ideas at all. We’re providing diagnostics and other support but nothing on the intervention side.”

A senior Los Alamos scientist, speaking on the condition of anonymity because his comments were unauthorized, ridiculed the idea of using a nuclear blast to solve the crisis in the gulf.

“It’s not going to happen,” he said. “Technically, it would be exploring new ground in the midst of a disaster — and you might make it worse.”

Not everyone on the Internet is calling for nuking the well. Some are making jokes. “What’s worse than an oil spill?” asked a blogger on Full Comment, a blog of The National Post in Toronto. “A radioactive oil spill.”

Henry Fountain contributed reporting.

[jack sommerset]

Lol@ James Cameron

[jack sommerset]

Obama = epic fail

[jack sommerset]

LOL@ Holder starting a criminal inquiry.!!!!! Will Obama be the frist witness?

[ChumpDumper]

lol wrist flick

[jack sommerset]

lol wrist flick

buwhahaha!

[Blake]

Obama = epic fail

what should he have done other than wave his magic hand?

[jack sommerset]

what should he have done other than wave his magic hand?

Get there a month earlier and send everyone he knows that could have helped.

[Blake]

LOL@ Holder starting a criminal inquiry.!!!!! Will Obama be the frist witness?

Standard procedure for the Justice Dept in situations like these, especially when death occurs.

LOL@ ignorant LOLs

[jack sommerset]

Standard procedure for the Justice Dept in situations like these, especially when death occurs.

LOL@ ignorant LOLs

LOL@ YOU. The deaths took place 40 days ago!

[jack sommerset]

Dumbass, besides your take on me. What the fuck is your point?

[Blake]

Get there a month earlier and send everyone he knows that could have helped.

Today is June 2nd


April 29 - Obama pledges "every single available resource," including the U.S. military, to contain the spreading spill.

-- Obama also says BP is responsible for the cleanup. Louisiana declares state of emergency due to the threat to the state's natural resources.

April 30 - An Obama aide says no drilling will be allowed in new areas, as the president had recently proposed, until the cause of the Deepwater Horizon accident is known.

-- BP Chairman Tony Hayward says the company takes full responsibility for the spill and would pay all legitimate claims and the cost of the cleanup.

May 2 - Obama visits the Gulf Coast to see cleanup efforts first hand. U.S. officials close areas affected by the spill to fishing for an initial period of 10 days. BP starts to drill a relief well alongside the failed well, a process that could take two to three months to complete.

Jack = Epic Fail

[jack sommerset]

Obama pledges "every single available resource," including the U.S. military, to contain the spreading spill.

HAHAHHAHA Give me one example, DUMBASS, Obama talk does not count!

[Blake]

Dumbass, besides your take on me. What the fuck is your point?

that your LOL at Holder is ignorant, and frankly extremely lame.

I thought I made it clear when I noted I was LOLing at ignorant LOLs

[Blake]

Obama pledges "every single available resource," including the U.S. military, to contain the spreading spill.

HAHAHHAHA Give me one example, DUMBASS, Obama talk does not count!

the US Military is one example, dumbass.

HAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.

Unfortunately, the "US Military" has admitted it is not equipped to handle this situation.

Who do you think Obama should send?

[jack sommerset]

that your LOL at Holder is ignorant, and frankly extremely lame.

I thought I made it clear when I noted I was LOLing at ignorant LOLs

My bad bro.........Let me give you non sarcasm......STOP THE FUCKING LEAK. Save the politics for later.

[Blake]

My bad bro.........Let me give you non sarcasm......STOP THE FUCKING LEAK. Save the politics for later.

so you think Obama should send the Justice Dept to stop the leak.

my bad brommerset.

[jack sommerset]

the US Military is one example, dumbass.

HAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.

Unfortunately, the "US Military" has admitted it is not equipped to handle this situation.

Who do you think Obama should send?


His so called other resources.


What has the military done, dumbass? Nothing because Obama is directly in charge of them.

[Blake]

His so called other resources.

"every single available resource" =/= "so called other resources"

what resources does the govt have that they haven't already sent?


What has the military done, dumbass? Nothing because Obama is directly in charge of them.

What do you want the military to do, dumbfuck?

[jack sommerset]

"every single available resource" =/= "so called other resources"

what resources does the govt have that they haven't already sent?



What do you want the military to do, dumbfuck?

He has done nothing. You brought up the military. You tell me genius, what has Obama done to help stop the leak and/or clean up the leak?

[jack sommerset]

blake trolling = epic fail

[Blake]

He has done nothing. You brought up the military. You tell me genius, what has Obama done to help stop the leak and/or clean up the leak?

Obama personally cannot put on a scuba suit and stop the leak no matter how magical you think he is, genius.

Tell me, genius, what EXACTLY would you do if you were POTUS to stop the leak and/or clean up the leak?

[Blake]

blake trolling = epic fail

I seriously want to see how far you are going to ride your failed LOL.

If thats trolling so be it.

[Wild Cobra]

If they go the "nuclear option," there are engineering concerns that have never been used for a nuclear bomb. A new bomb would have to be built slightly different than others so the bomb and electronics actually work under the pressure of 18,000 feet of sea water.

[jack sommerset]

Obama personally cannot put on a scuba suit and stop the leak no matter how magical you think he is, genius.

Tell me, genius, what EXACTLY would you do if you were POTUS to stop the leak and/or clean up the leak?

Troll, you still have not said what Obongo has done to help. You mention military but you were wrong.

LOL @ you and POTUS........epic fail!

[Blake]

Troll, you still have not said what Obongo has done to help. You mention military but you were wrong.


Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said they had no more tactics left in their arsenal following BP’s latest failure to plug the leak.

Responding to calls for the armed forces to take control of the oil spill disaster, Mr Mullen said: “We’ve looked at that continuously since the leak started – whether or not we would have submersibles that could go do this.

And the fact is the best technology in the world, with respect to that, exists in the oil industry.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/7791013/US-military-rejects-calls-to-take-control-of-oil-spill.html

He sent the military to fix the leak and they failed, dumbfuck.

Attempt #2: what EXACTLY would you do, dumbfuck, if you were POTUS to stop the leak and/or clean up the leak, dumbfuck?

[jack sommerset]

He sent the military to fix the leak and they failed, dumbfuck.

Attempt #2: what EXACTLY would you do, dumbfuck, if you were POTUS to stop the leak and/or clean up the leak, dumbfuck?

You keep saying the military was sent in by Obama or anyone (control your anger) but Barry or anyone never sent the military into save..........anything. Some say BP hired 300 workers to clean the ocean as Obongo gave his speech. They left. Our president is clueless!

[jack sommerset]

It's silly.
Obama has done nothing.

[Blake]

You keep saying the military was sent in by Obama or anyone (control your anger) but Barry or anyone never sent the military into save..........anything. Some say BP hired 300 workers to clean the ocean as Obongo gave his speech. They left. Our president is clueless!


what EXACTLY would you do, dumbfuck, if you were POTUS to stop the leak and/or clean up the leak, dumbfuck?

[jack sommerset]

I saw that. What has Obama done? He is our president.

[boutons_deux]

Typical right-wing, bad-faith dumbfucks.

Whining about Magic Negro doing or not doing something, while offering NOTHING they would do themselves.

Unregulated BP and corps break shit, but Magic Negro owns it? GMAFB.

[PublicOption]

If they go the "nuclear option," there are engineering concerns that have never been used for a nuclear bomb. A new bomb would have to be built slightly different than others so the bomb and electronics actually work under the pressure of 18,000 feet of sea water.


the nuclear option is a moot point. they needed to have done it immediately for it to be worth it. the damage is already done and now you would have 2 environmental uncertainties, instead of one.

[DarrinS]

http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2010/05/28/whose_blowout_is_it,_anyway?page=1




WASHINGTON -- Heres my question: Why are we drilling in 5,000 feet of water in the first place?

Many reasons, but this one goes unmentioned: Environmental chic has driven us out there. As production from the shallower Gulf of Mexico wells declines, we go deep (1,000 feet and more) and ultra deep (5,000 feet and more), in part because environmentalists have succeeded in rendering the Pacific and nearly all the Atlantic coast off-limits to oil production. (President Obama's tentative, selective opening of some Atlantic and offshore Alaska sites is now dead.) And of course, in the safest of all places, on land, weve had a 30-year ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

So we go deep, ultra deep -- to such a technological frontier that no precedent exists for the April 20 blowout in the Gulf of Mexico.

There will always be catastrophic oil spills. You make them as rare as humanly possible, but where would you rather have one: in the Gulf of Mexico, upon which thousands depend for their livelihood, or in the Arctic, where there are practically no people? All spills seriously damage wildlife. Thats a given. But why have we pushed the drilling from the barren to the populated, from the remote wilderness to a center of fishing, shipping, tourism and recreation?

Not that the environmentalists are the only ones to blame. Not by far. But it is odd that theyve escaped any mention at all.

The other culprits are pretty obvious. It starts with BP, which seems not only to have had an amazing string of perfect-storm engineering lapses but no contingencies to deal with a catastrophic system failure.

However, the railing against BP for its performance since the accident is harder to understand. I attribute no virtue to BP, just self-interest. What possible interest can it have to do anything but cap the well as quickly as possible? Every day that oil is spilled means millions more in losses, cleanup and restitution.

Federal officials who rage against BP would like to deflect attention from their own role in this disaster. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, whose departments laxity in environmental permitting and safety oversight renders it among the many bearing responsibility, expresses outrage at BPs inability to stop the leak, and even threatens to "push them out of the way."

"To replace them with what? asked the estimable, admirably candid Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, the national incident commander. No one has the assets and expertise of BP. The federal government can fight wars, conduct a census and hand out billions in earmarks, but it has not a clue how to cap a one-mile-deep out-of-control oil well.

Obama didn't help much with his finger-pointing Rose Garden speech in which he denounced finger-pointing, then proceeded to blame everyone but himself. Even the grace note of admitting some federal responsibility turned sour when he reflexively added that these problems have been going on for a decade or more -- translation: Bush did it -- while, in contrast, his own interior secretary had worked diligently to solve the problem from the day he took office.

Really? Why hadn't we heard a thing about this? What about the September 2009 letter from Obama's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration accusing Interior's Minerals Management Service of understating the "risk and impacts" of a major oil spill? When you get a blowout 15 months into your administration, and your own Interior Department had given BP a "categorical" environmental exemption in April 2009, the buck stops.

In the end, speeches will make no difference. If BP can cap the well in time to prevent an absolute calamity in the Gulf, the president will escape politically. If it doesn't -- if the gusher isn't stopped before the relief wells are completed in August -- it will become Obama's Katrina.

That will be unfair, because Obama is no more responsible for the damage caused by this than Bush was for the damage caused by Katrina. But that's the nature of American politics and its presidential cult of personality: We expect our presidents to play Superman. Helplessness, however undeniable, is no defense.

Moreover, Obama has never been overly modest about his own powers. Two years ago next week, he declared that history will mark his ascent to the presidency as the moment when "our planet began to heal" and "the rise of the oceans began to slow."

Well, when you anoint yourself King Canute, you mustnt be surprised when your subjects expect you to command the tides.

[boutons_deux]

pitbull bitch has already taken this topic. I guess some billioniare-financed stink tank has put out the talking point that BP is not responsible for the leak.

It's the fault of people who are concerned about pollution that caused BP to be so incomptent, so cowboyish, so don't-give-a-fuck about the environment, regulations, and worker safety.

Conservatives and Repugs are NEVER responsible or accountable for anything.

[Cry Havoc]

http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2010/05/28/whose_blowout_is_it,_anyway?page=1

None of this would be a problem if BP had followed safety regulations and not gone against all manner of experienced, expert advice when proceeding to drill in a dangerous environment.

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

We're drilling there because of environmentalists?

What. The. Fuck?

Between that and Jack in this thread some of you are fucking delusional.

BP is drilling there for one reason.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[DarrinS]

:lmao

We're drilling there because of environmentalists?

What. The. Fuck?

Between that and Jack in this thread some of you are fucking delusional.

BP is drilling there for one reason.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$



Do you think its cheaper to drill a mile below the ocean surface?

[boutons_deux]

There are plenty of oil leases on US land, many given away for pennies to the oilcos, but there's not enough oil worth pursuing. Avg US well produces 5 barrels/day.

In fact, the US cannot "drill,baby,drill" its way out of dependence on foreign oil because it controls a tiny %age of the world's reserves, while consuming 20%+ of the world's production.

The US oilcos are going to make 100s of $Bs in windfall profits when Peak Oil can't meet demand, so they are buying off enough legislators and scientists to make sure the US remains helplessly addicted to oil.

The reason Gulf deep sea drilling is attractive (it's even more attractive if you don't spend the money to secure the drilling and the employees) is that all the shallower Gulf reserves are known and being sucked dry by 1000s of wells.

[ChumpDumper]

Do you think its cheaper to drill a mile below the ocean surface?Do you think BP was planning on losing money on this well?

[DarrinS]

Do you think BP was planning on losing money on this well?

I bet they'd prefer a cheaper and less risky location. Call me crazy.

[ChumpDumper]

I bet they'd prefer a cheaper and less risky location. Call me crazy.Are you saying that BP has no undrilled leases in such areas?

Please back up your claim.

[DarrinS]

Are you saying that BP has no undrilled leases in such areas?


No



Please back up your claim.

n/a

[ChumpDumper]

NoThen BP chose to drill in a more risky area over less risky ones.

For profit.

[Blake]

In the end, speeches will make no difference. If BP can cap the well in time to prevent an absolute calamity in the Gulf, the president will escape politically. If it doesn't -- if the gusher isn't stopped before the relief wells are completed in August -- it will become Obama's Katrina.

Other than it happening in the Gulf, this does not come close in comparison to Bush's handling of Katrina no matter how badly Republicans want it to.

[Blake]

I saw that. What has Obama done? He is our president.

Our president sent our military. Apparently you still fail to see it.


what EXACTLY would you do, dumbfuck, if you were POTUS to stop the leak and/or clean up the leak, dumbfuck?

[MannyIsGod]

I bet they'd prefer a cheaper and less risky location. Call me crazy.

You're crazy. They prefer the location that makes them more money.

You also act as if its either or. They could do both.

[MannyIsGod]

Just kidding though Darrin, you're not crazy.

[MannyIsGod]

You're just stupid.

[word]

That area of the Gulf, where there is clearly, lots of oil, is called 'The Mississippi Canyon'. It's an underwater canyon carved out by the Mississippi River. It's not off the continental shelf. That's now why it's in deep water. There are platforms 150 miles out in the gulf in less than 200 feet of water. They're drilling the canyon and there are huge oil fields down there. Shells Cognac platform is in 1200 foot of water. BP is producing from some wells not far from this blowout...over 1/4 million barrels per day. They're drilling it because there is lots of oil down there. Not because they won't let them drill off the coast of California in shallow water or in ANWR.

[clambake]

That area of the Gulf, where there is clearly, lots of oil, is called 'The Mississippi Canyon'. It's an underwater canyon carved out by the Mississippi River. It's not off the continental shelf. That's now why it's in deep water. There are platforms 150 miles out in the gulf in less than 200 feet of water. They're drilling the canyon and there are huge oil fields down there. Shells Cognac platform is in 1200 foot of water. BP is producing from some wells not far from this blowout...over 1/4 million barrels per day. They're drilling it because there is lots of oil down there. Not because they won't let them drill off the coast of California in shallow water or in ANWR.

no, sorry, but darrin already said it's because of environmentalist. lol

[boutons_deux]

- SpeakEasy - http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy -

BP And Halliburton Try To Buy Off Government Officials Investigating Spill


Posted By Alex Seitz-Wald On June 3, 2010 @ 11:59 am In Uncategorized | 4 Comments

This post originally appeared on Think Progress.

Facing possible jail time for their roles in the largest oil spill in American history, BP and Halliburton are building high-powered legal teams with “deep Department of Justice and White House ties.” But the companies are pursuing other means to defend themselves as well.

Halliburton’s campaign donations have spiked as it tries to curry favor with key members of Congress investigating the disaster. The company donated $17,000 in May, making it “the busiest donation month for Halliburton’s PAC since September 2008,” Politico reports. Thirteen of the 14 contributions from May went to Republicans, while seven went to members of Congress who are “on committees withoversight of the oil spill and its aftermath”:

About one week before executive Timothy Probert appeared before the House Energy and Commerce’s investigative subcommittee, Halliburton donated $1,500 to Ranking Republican Joe Barton’s reelection effort. It was Halliburton’s second-largest donation of the month — topped only by $2,500 to former Rep. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), who is running for the Senate.

In the Senate, Idaho Republican Mike Crapo, who serves on the Environment and Public Works Committee, Georgia Republican Johnny Isakson, who serves on the Commerce Committee and North Carolina Republican Richard Burr (N.C.), who serves on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, all got $1,000. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) also got $1,000.

Meanwhile, a Hill analysis found that primarily during the Bush administration, BP and other oil companies “paid for dozens of trips and meals for officials” from the Department of Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Department of Homeland Security — agencies deeply involved in the regulation of oil exploration and spill cleanup. BP had the “highest tab for gifts to government officials” of all oil and gas companies:

BP and its affiliates — BP America and BP Exploration — show up in the gift reports at least 16 different times, paying for meals as well as for oil and gas industry seminars and tours of oil facilities. The cost of the gifts totaled more than $7,200.

Only two industry-funded trips took place during the first nine months of President Obama’s administration. In 2004, BP paid for a group of Interior officials to visit an offshore rig in the Gulf of Mexico. The group included then-deputy secretary J. Steven Griles, wholater went to prison for his role in Jack Abramoff scandal. In 2005, BP paid for travel and meals for then-Interior Secretary Gale Norton and then-Minerals Management Service (MMS) Director Johnnie Burton to attended the dedication ceremony of another offshore rig in the Gulf. BP also paid for officials from the EPA and the Fish and Wildlife Service to visit Prudhoe Bay, Alaska over a period of several years. A recent Interior Inspector General report covering 2005 to 2007 found a “culture of lax oversight and cozy ties to industry.” Since January of 2008, BP lobbyists have spent $30 million to influence legislation, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Some coastal governors have benefited from BP as well. BP and other oil companies gave Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R) $1.8 million dollars for his campaign, and since the spill, he’s been aggressively downplaying the disaster and encouraging people to visit his state’s oily beaches. Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) traveled to a BP-funded conference in Houston last month “to lobby aggressively to drill for oil and natural gas without delay.” Meanwhile, Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) dismissed potential BP negligence by calling the spill an “act of God” at a trade association funded by BP in May.

Article printed from SpeakEasy: http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy

URL to article: http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/06/03/bp-and-halliburton-try-to-buy-off-government-officials-investigating-spill/

[word]

no, sorry, but darrin already said it's because of environmentalist. lol

Oh...so sorry. Never mind. :downspin:

[DarrinS]

That area of the Gulf, where there is clearly, lots of oil, is called 'The Mississippi Canyon'. It's an underwater canyon carved out by the Mississippi River. It's not off the continental shelf. That's now why it's in deep water. There are platforms 150 miles out in the gulf in less than 200 feet of water. They're drilling the canyon and there are huge oil fields down there. Shells Cognac platform is in 1200 foot of water. BP is producing from some wells not far from this blowout...over 1/4 million barrels per day. They're drilling it because there is lots of oil down there. Not because they won't let them drill off the coast of California in shallow water or in ANWR.


Yes, all of this is true. After all the costs for this cleanup are added up, I'm sure deep water drilling will seem less attractive to the oil companies.

[clambake]

Yes, all of this is true. After all the costs for this cleanup are added up, I'm sure deep water drilling will seem less attractive to the oil companies.

no, it won't.

[word]

Of course it won't. But we have to define 'deep water drilling'. It is defined as anything you can't put a jack-up on, which can drill in 300 feet or less, or build a platform on. We do it all the time. The deepest platform I know of, and it's probably been surpassed, was Shells Cognac...1200 or 1400 feet of water. I actually worked for the geologist that discovered that field. Phd in geophysics. He was later my boss in a field that has nothing to do with the oil industry. He left because he made billions for Shell and they gave him jack shit for it. We had both left the industry by then but had a lot of chats about that area of the Gulf. There's huge oil deposits in that water. It's in deep water, but it's a gold mine of reserves. I hope we don't stop drilling out there. Mistakes were made. You learn and move on.

[MannyIsGod]

Yes, all of this is true. After all the costs for this cleanup are added up, I'm sure deep water drilling will seem less attractive to the oil companies.


You're just stupid.

[DarrinS]

I think Krauthammer's logic (and it is not my own) is something along these lines:

Say you are given an apple tree, but you are only allowed to pick fruit from one side. Naturally, you would pick the fruit from the ground and the low hanging fruit first. Only after the easy fruit is depleted would you try to get the fruit in the higher branches. If given access to the other side of the tree, you'd pick the low hanging fruit from that side before going for the high stuff.

Admittedly, it's a bit of a flimsy argument, but I don't even think that was the main point of the article.

[MannyIsGod]

I think Krauthammer's logic (and it is not my own) is something along these lines:

Say you are given an apple tree, but you are only allowed to pick fruit from one side. Naturally, you would pick the fruit from the ground and the low hanging fruit first. Only after the easy fruit is depleted would you try to get the fruit in the higher branches. If given access to the other side of the tree, you'd pick the low hanging fruit from that side before going for the high stuff.

Admittedly, it's a bit of a flimsy argument, but I don't even think that was the main point of the article.

Its a fucking stupid simplistic analogy that ignores that the picker is picking the apples that sell for more at the market regardless of their location on the tree.

[DarrinS]

Its a fucking stupid simplistic analogy that ignores that the picker is picking the apples that sell for more at the market regardless of their location on the tree.



Admittedly, it's a bit of a flimsy argument, but I don't even think that was the main point of the article

[MannyIsGod]

No, the main point of the article was to push talking points even when its obvious they make no sense.

[clambake]

you would think a self-proclaimed engineer should know SOMETHING about why they drill there.

[Blake]

you would think a self-proclaimed engineer should know SOMETHING about why they drill there.

well, there are different types of engineers....

structural.....electrical.....mechanical......nucl ear....ocean......petroleum.....choo choo train.....

[word]

you would think a self-proclaimed engineer should know SOMETHING about why they drill there.

Because there's a shitload of oil there ?

[DarrinS]

well, there are different types of engineers....

structural.....electrical.....mechanical......nucl ear....ocean......petroleum.....choo choo train.....

me

[boutons_deux]

http://wildammo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/o08_23682039.jpg


http://wildammo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/o01_23681845-675x419.jpg


http://wildammo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/o05_23681817-675x453.jpg

[RandomGuy]

Its a fucking stupid simplistic analogy that ignores that the picker is picking the apples that sell for more at the market regardless of their location on the tree.

It isn't a stupid simplistic analogy, it is fairly apt.

One must remember that time/effort carry with it a cost to any business.

In terms of picking apples here, picking apples at ground level without having to climb up and down ladders gives you a faster rate of picking apples.

To put it a bit more concretely:
Let's say you hire someone to pick apples from your orchard.

Their labor costs you, just to keep the math simple, a total of $10/hr.

Just picking the stuff that can be easily had, they pick 100 apples an hour on average.

Your labor cost per apple is calculated at 10 cents each.

Now, assume that you have picked through the easy stuff and the same person has to climb up and down a ladder to get the higher up fruit.

Their productivity now drops to 50 apples per hour. The labor cost per apple is now 20 cents.

If your profit margin in the first case is 18 cents per apple your net is then 8 cents, but now is -2 cents on the higher up apples.

You will not pick those apples until the price per apple rises.

Oil is little different. Yes you have to take the market price as you noted, and that is completely (mostly) independent of your costs. What does change is the amount of apples you can profitably pick or oil you can profitably drill.

This spill is bringing the true costs of deep water drilling a bit more to the fore, and will be factored into to future drill/no drill decisions, just like the farmer has to decide how much that next higher apple will cost him relative to his prices.

[RandomGuy]

http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2010/05/28/whose_blowout_is_it,_anyway?page=1

It starts off as yet another anti-environmentalist diatribe that does little other than demonstrate the authors ignorance of how the global oil market works.

The sad thing is that it sounds reasonable to people like you, who get suckered into it. In that case it is little different than the pseudo-scientific herbal remedies, and the jackasses who claim that flouride in water is a government mind-control conspricy.

Please stop claiming that environmentalists are somehow to blame for oil depletion. Its fucktarded and has been debunked.

The rest of it is fairly reasonable, though.

[DarrinS]

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/images/OCS_Map.jpg

[clambake]

cute map.

you said they don't want to drill there anyway.

[ChumpDumper]

cute map.

you said they don't want to drill there anyway.A lot of that is very deep.

Do you have a YouTube or an interest group pic saying how much of a difference opening all of this to drilling will make in the price of gas?

[clambake]

A lot of that is very deep.

Do you have a YouTube or an interest group pic saying how much of a difference opening all of this to drilling will make in the price of gas?

there is so much oil that if it gets sucked out......the world will cave in.

and it would flood the market and drop prices to a nickel a gallon.

[MannyIsGod]

It isn't a stupid simplistic analogy, it is fairly apt.

One must remember that time/effort carry with it a cost to any business.

In terms of picking apples here, picking apples at ground level without having to climb up and down ladders gives you a faster rate of picking apples.

To put it a bit more concretely:
Let's say you hire someone to pick apples from your orchard.

Their labor costs you, just to keep the math simple, a total of $10/hr.

Just picking the stuff that can be easily had, they pick 100 apples an hour on average.

Your labor cost per apple is calculated at 10 cents each.

Now, assume that you have picked through the easy stuff and the same person has to climb up and down a ladder to get the higher up fruit.

Their productivity now drops to 50 apples per hour. The labor cost per apple is now 20 cents.

If your profit margin in the first case is 18 cents per apple your net is then 8 cents, but now is -2 cents on the higher up apples.

You will not pick those apples until the price per apple rises.

Oil is little different. Yes you have to take the market price as you noted, and that is completely (mostly) independent of your costs. What does change is the amount of apples you can profitably pick or oil you can profitably drill.

This spill is bringing the true costs of deep water drilling a bit more to the fore, and will be factored into to future drill/no drill decisions, just like the farmer has to decide how much that next higher apple will cost him relative to his prices.

The spill isn't bringing the true costs into anything because BP will STILL make a lot of money from this well. They are never going to have to foot the true bill of the cleanup. Never. You think BP (or any other oilco for that matter) is going to factor in how much this spill hurt other industries when they have the ridiculously low cap on their damages? The worst effect they receive from this is PR and you can see how much bad PR hurt Exxon after the Valdez oil spill.

I'm very surprised you think otherwise.

[RandomGuy]

The spill isn't bringing the true costs into anything because BP will STILL make a lot of money from this well. They are never going to have to foot the true bill of the cleanup. Never. You think BP (or any other oilco for that matter) is going to factor in how much this spill hurt other industries when they have the ridiculously low cap on their damages? The worst effect they receive from this is PR and you can see how much bad PR hurt Exxon after the Valdez oil spill.

I'm very surprised you think otherwise.

Let me be a bit more clear.

"This spill is bringing the true costs of oil drilling to the fore" means that the public gets to see what those costs really are, when before it was just an abstract "what if we get a massive spill" scenario.

I don't think that BP will really pay out the true cost. They could easily spend an extra billion dollars a year on legal fees and still make money. (200+bn in annual revenues, with 2009 being a bad profit year and only 16bn in profit)

That should fucking scare anyone that a private corporation with no public accountability should have that much bank.

I do think that oilcos will start factoring in the costs, because that is what their accountants will tell them, and that this will be far different than the Valdez spill though. The Valdez spill didn't last 6+ months and affect widely populated areas in multiple states.

That BP's stock is likely oversold at the moment due to hysteria is probably a good bet. Time will tell.

Lastly:

That cap goes by the wayside with a determination of negligence. I think that is looking more and more likely, don't you?

[RandomGuy]

I hope this stuff spurs us into doign what I know is in our long term best interest:

Solid investment in renewables, and scientific exploration of the seafloor.

I think it is high time for us to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on energy independence over the next 20 years. The sooner we get cracking, the sooner we can provide the Next Big Thing for our economy.

[boutons_deux]

"in our long term best interest"

won't happen. the hypocritical/bad-fath conservative/Repug deficit hawks will kill such research, and oil/gas/coal companies will do their best to keep the US economy totally dependent on unrenewable carbon.

America is fucked, thanks to Repugs, conservatives, and corrupt Exec and Congress.

[RandomGuy]

"in our long term best interest"

won't happen. the hypocritical/bad-fath conservative/Repug deficit hawks will kill such research, and oil/gas/coal companies will do their best to keep the US economy totally dependent on unrenewable carbon.

America is fucked, thanks to Repugs, conservatives, and corrupt Exec and Congress.

Painfully cynical, although it can certainly seem that way occasionally.

I *know* there is some solid investment seed capital betting on renewables, as Darrin has pointed out. Boosting that with a good shot of government grant money for incubator technologies and feasibility/cost/benefit studies seems to be an easy sell.

Even some conservatives have taken up the energy independence cause, although many seem to be deluded into thinking that can be acheived if only the big bad enviromentalists would just let us drill everywhere.

Have a little faith man.

[RandomGuy]

[happy-fun map showing 800 billion barrels of "shale" oil in the rockies omitted because it is too effing big]

If we swung the doors up to that shale production unreservedly, how economical would it be to extract?

[DarrinS]

If we swung the doors up to that shale production unreservedly, how economical would it be to extract?

I'm not sure.

[DarrinS]

Oil comes from the ground right?

that means its natural


Actually, it's very natural. The original biofuel.

[DarrinS]

exactly, its like crying about a bear crapping in the woods


Not exactly.

[Nbadan]

If we swung the doors up to that shale production unreservedly, how economical would it be to extract?

..shale oil requires a lot of water...thanks to global-climate change there is less and less snow on the mountains and less and less water for consumption...

[DarrinS]

..shale oil requires a lot of water...thanks to global-climate change there is less and less snow on the mountains and less and less water for consumption...

I thought global warming increased the intensity of both thunderstorms and snow storms. Can't you guys make up your minds?

[boutons_deux]

Weather instability due to global warming doesn't mean stability of precipitation.

Bring your weak shit, as always.

[boutons_deux]

Shale oil story, pollutes/destroys ground water and rivers:

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/147102

America is fucked.

[boutons_deux]

catalog of BP's wonderful history:

http://chemicallygreen.com/bp-amoco-accidents-not-waiting-to-happen/

[Wild Cobra]

If we swung the doors up to that shale production unreservedly, how economical would it be to extract?
Darrin, RG is right on that aspect.

However, RG...

When the oil prices are high enough, it sure would be nice if the oil companies already had access to development to streamline a procedure for when it does become economically viable.

You liberals have some of the stupidest arguments. I keep hearing about idiocy like not taping ANWR because of how many years it would take to bring it to market. Well, dammit, that means we should do it now, so we have in in the future years. That really is one of the dumbest arguments I continue to hear libtards regurgitate. Any new venture takes time. If we scrap the ideas for that reason, we have no new development.

[Wild Cobra]

there is so much oil that if it gets sucked out......the world will cave in.
No, Just Guatemala.

[ChumpDumper]

The dumbest argument I hear is that more domestic drilling will have any noticeable effect on the oil market and gas prices.

[Wild Cobra]

The dumbest argument I hear is that more domestic drilling will have any noticeable effect on the oil market and gas prices.
Who says that, and what is claimed by noticeable?

if there is small supply difference, it can make a dramatic difference in price. It all depends on where in the supply vs. demand curves all this comes into play. Now I won't attempt to say any particular place will make a dramatic change, however, isn't any decrease in price a good thing?

Funny thing is, I think the $4.00 a gallon was a correct price point. I also think state and federal gas taxes need to be increased and then stay indexed to inflation. Yes, I am generally for less taxes, but road taxes have not been keeping up with inflation, and I agree with a tax for a specific purpose.

[ChumpDumper]

if there is small supply difference, it can make a dramatic difference in price.How dramatic?

Surely someone has done the numbers.

And why would oil companies voluntarily lower the price of their product? In 2008, there were 68 million acres of leases held by oil companies that were not developed -- and not in deep water. Why are they not 100% in production?

[jack sommerset]

I would like to pay 1 dollar a gallon for gasoline.

[boutons_deux]

"small supply difference, it can make a dramatic difference in price"

With the world in recession and demand down, supply plentiful, oil prices are still high, because of Wall St and commodity traders, who were also guilty of the $35-to- $150/barrel spike in 2008, when the Saudis said they had oil that they couldn't sell.

Believing in naive bullshit like oil supply/demand curves proves, again, you are a (duped) shill for class-warfare conservatism and free market bullshit. They only aspect that is really free is predations and trading shennaigans of the world-wide financial sector.

[Wild Cobra]

I would like to pay 1 dollar a gallon for gasoline.

I would too. I remember when it was under 40 cents. However, I acknowledge reality.

[Wild Cobra]

How dramatic?

Why are you asking such a question to me? I have already indicated i don't have a proper answer. Just the way the pricing "can" work.


Surely someone has done the numbers.

Yes, I'm sure someone has.


And why would oil companies voluntarily lower the price of their product?
It's called competitive pricing.

In 2008, there were 68 million acres of leases held by oil companies that were not developed -- and not in deep water. Why are they not 100% in production?
Issues like environmentalists, cost of drilling vs. expected revenue, etc. They don't have the desirable land available to them. The land they want, they can't have.

[ChumpDumper]

Why are you asking such a question to me? I have already indicated i don't have a proper answer. Just the way the pricing "can" work.So you are admitting you are full of shit.


Yes, I'm sure someone has.So you'd think the drillbabydrill crowd would be using them all the time.


It's called competitive pricing.:lol you think oil producers compete for buyers like Wal-Mart? You're a fool.


Issues like environmentalists, cost of drilling vs. expected revenue, etc. They don't have the desirable land available to them. The land they want, they can't have.They already leased the land, idiot. If it was such a horrible deal, why did they lease it? Environmentalists have nothing to do with existing oil leases. Why do you insist on making shit up?

[boutons_deux]

Goldma Sacks and Hayward are just so damn lucky to unload millions of BP shares just before they collapsed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/7804922/BP-chief-Tony-Hayward-sold-shares-weeks-before-oil-spill.html

[admiralsnackbar]

Goldma Sacks and Hayward are just so damn lucky to unload millions of BP shares just before they collapsed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/7804922/BP-chief-Tony-Hayward-sold-shares-weeks-before-oil-spill.html

It doesn't have to be a conspiracy, or even luck. Spring-time deep-ocean drilling in a body of water that regularly experiences hurricanes is risky. Compound that with BP's lousy safety record in comparison to other oil companies (and knowledge that BP's CEO is a numb-skull) and GS selling off their stocks makes a lot of sense.

I'm not saying they aren't crooks in other ways, but at the end of the day their job is risk analysis.

[boutons_deux]

"their job is risk analysis"

which they are horrible at, having taken on $Ts in risk then dumped the liability on taxpayers.

[admiralsnackbar]

"their job is risk analysis"

which they are horrible at, having taken on $Ts in risk then dumped the liability on taxpayers.



I'm not saying they aren't crooks in other ways

[boutons_deux]

- SpeakEasy - http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy -

BP Buys Oil-Related Search Terms to Make Its Official Site Show Up First in Search Engines


As BP’s oil disaster continues to ravage the Gulf Coast, the company is ramping up its public relations and legal operations to try to salvage its reputation and protect itself from lawsuits. Now, ABC News is reporting that one such tactic BP is using is purchasing search items that have the word “oil” in them on various search engines to ensure that the first results that appear link directly to BP’s official website:

BP, the very company responsible for the oil spill that is already the worst in U.S. history, has purchased several phrases on search engines such as Google and Yahoo so that the first result that shows up directs information seekers to the company’s official website.

A simple Google search of “oil spill” turns up several thousand news results, but the first link, highlighted at the very top of the page, is from BP. “Learn more about how BP is helping,” the link’s tagline reads. [...]

“We have bought search terms on search engines like Google to make it easier for people to find out more about our efforts in the Gulf and make it easier for people to find key links to information on filing claims, reporting oil on the beach and signing up to volunteer,” BP spokesman Toby Odone told ABC News.

Reflecting on BP’s latest PR tactic, marketing company executive Scott Slatin tells the Fiscal Times, “While we have seen corporations use search engine marketing to sway opinions, most recently in the health care debate, it is always under the cover of a nonprofit or lobbying organization. This is the first time I have seen a company use this tactic on such a wide scale. And it is very effective, because BP gets its message, ‘Learn more about how BP is helping,’ atop almost every Google search permutation related to the spill, and effectively blocks nonprofits (with much smaller pockets) from getting their message across.”

UPDATE

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich on Friday tweeted PR advice to help BP “win” the battle of public perception: “Our friend @davidall writes about social gaming strategies that can help companies like BP win public relations battles http://bit.ly/aOXIn5.”

Article printed from SpeakEasy: http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy

URL to article: http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/06/06/bp-buys-oil-related-search-terms-to-make-its-official-site-show-up-first-in-search-engines/

[boutons_deux]

- SpeakEasy - http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy -

BP CEO Tony Hayward Lies, Claims Company Has Paid “Every Claim”




Embattled BP CEO Tony Hayward asserted that his company has paid “every claim” for damages caused by the offshore-drilling disaster that is flooding the Gulf of Mexico with millions of gallons of toxic oil. In an interview with BBC’s Andrew Marr on Sunday, Hayward lauded the BP claims processing procedure, claiming it only takes “48 hours” to get a check, instead of “what has taken 45 days traditionally in the United States.” He asserted unequivocally that “every claim” has been paid:

Well, you know, what we have done so far is to pay every claim that’s been presented to us, and we will continue to do that. You know, the most important thing in terms of claims today is to ensure that people who can’t fish today have the wherewithal to feed their families. And we’ve taken a claims process that has taken 45 days traditionally in the United States and shortened it to 48 hours. It takes 12 seconds when you phone the BP claims line to be put into the process, be given a number. If you turn up at the claims office, within 48 hours you’re given a cheque. You take it to a bank and you cash the cheque. We are going to continue to do that.

Watch it:

In fact, less than half of the claims have been paid. For the entire Gulf Coast, BP has paid 18,000 out of 37,000 claims, Darryl Willis, the BP vice president overseeing the claims process, said Sunday. BP has denied repeated requests from the state of Louisiana for access to its claims database, but did release a summary that showed the majority of claims in Louisiana, the hardest hit state, are still pending:

– As of May 29, only $22.5 million had been paid on 6,997 claims; 51 percent remain pending, at least one for as long as 33 days. The majority of paid claims are property damage.

– Only one of 118 bodily injury claims has been paid.

– Of $9.1 million in claims for loss of income in Louisiana, 54 percent were pending as of May 29. Of 7,469 claims filed by individuals and businesses for loss of income, BP has paid just 3,438 claims.

– Of 37 claims categories ranging from loss of income for shrimpers, crabbers, oyster processors and fishermen to loss of rental property income and damage to animals and property, 26 categories have 70 percent or more of unpaid claims. For commercial loss of income, 57 percent of claims are unpaid.

– Less than 25 percent of business interruption claims have been paid.

“Hardworking people should not be forced into poverty by the oil spill,” said Louisiana Workforce Commission Executive Director Curt Eysink. The more BP delays and dissembles, the harder it is for the foreign oil giant’s victims to get their lives back.

Article printed from SpeakEasy: http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy

URL to article: http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/06/07/bp-ceo-tony-hayward-lies-claims-company-has-paid-every-claim/

[boutons_deux]

" "Kill, don't clean," is the recommendation of a German animal biologist,"

"According to serious studies, the middle-term survival rate of oil-soaked birds is under 1 percent," Gaus says. "We, therefore, oppose cleaning birds."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,693359,00.html

How about serving the pelicans at the Petroleum Club in Houston? Make the oil execs eat their own shit.

[Winehole23]

Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL): Andrea we’re looking into something new right now, that there’s reports of oil that’s seeping up from the seabed… which would indicate, if that’s true, that the well casing itself is actually pierced… underneath the seabed. So, you know, the problems could be just enormous with what we’re facing.

http://www.floridaoilspilllaw.com/senator-confirms-reports-that-wellbore-is-pierced-oil-seeping-from-seabed-in-multiple-places

[RandomGuy]

- SpeakEasy - http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy -

BP Buys Oil-Related Search Terms to Make Its Official Site Show Up First in Search Engines


As BP’s oil disaster continues to ravage the Gulf Coast, the company is ramping up its public relations and legal operations to try to salvage its reputation and protect itself from lawsuits. Now, ABC News is reporting that one such tactic BP is using is purchasing search items that have the word “oil” in them on various search engines to ensure that the first results that appear link directly to BP’s official website:

BP, the very company responsible for the oil spill that is already the worst in U.S. history, has purchased several phrases on search engines such as Google and Yahoo so that the first result that shows up directs information seekers to the company’s official website.

A simple Google search of “oil spill” turns up several thousand news results, but the first link, highlighted at the very top of the page, is from BP. “Learn more about how BP is helping,” the link’s tagline reads. [...]

“We have bought search terms on search engines like Google to make it easier for people to find out more about our efforts in the Gulf and make it easier for people to find key links to information on filing claims, reporting oil on the beach and signing up to volunteer,” BP spokesman Toby Odone told ABC News.

Reflecting on BP’s latest PR tactic, marketing company executive Scott Slatin tells the Fiscal Times, “While we have seen corporations use search engine marketing to sway opinions, most recently in the health care debate, it is always under the cover of a nonprofit or lobbying organization. This is the first time I have seen a company use this tactic on such a wide scale. And it is very effective, because BP gets its message, ‘Learn more about how BP is helping,’ atop almost every Google search permutation related to the spill, and effectively blocks nonprofits (with much smaller pockets) from getting their message across.”

UPDATE

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich on Friday tweeted PR advice to help BP “win” the battle of public perception: “Our friend @davidall writes about social gaming strategies that can help companies like BP win public relations battles http://bit.ly/aOXIn5.”

Article printed from SpeakEasy: http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy

URL to article: http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/06/06/bp-buys-oil-related-search-terms-to-make-its-official-site-show-up-first-in-search-engines/

Maybe not the one "oil spill" though... heh.

http://www.google.com/search?q=oil+spill

Hmm. went back and looked, and sure enough BP's website is the "sponsored link", if not part of the normal results.

Guess when you have 220BN in revenues in an off year, you can afford to sponsor a lot of searches.

[RandomGuy]

- SpeakEasy - http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy -

BP CEO Tony Hayward Lies, Claims Company Has Paid “Every Claim”




Embattled BP CEO Tony Hayward asserted that his company has paid “every claim” for damages caused by the offshore-drilling disaster that is flooding the Gulf of Mexico with millions of gallons of toxic oil. In an interview with BBC’s Andrew Marr on Sunday, Hayward lauded the BP claims processing procedure, claiming it only takes “48 hours” to get a check, instead of “what has taken 45 days traditionally in the United States.” He asserted unequivocally that “every claim” has been paid:

Well, you know, what we have done so far is to pay every claim that’s been presented to us, and we will continue to do that. You know, the most important thing in terms of claims today is to ensure that people who can’t fish today have the wherewithal to feed their families. And we’ve taken a claims process that has taken 45 days traditionally in the United States and shortened it to 48 hours. It takes 12 seconds when you phone the BP claims line to be put into the process, be given a number. If you turn up at the claims office, within 48 hours you’re given a cheque. You take it to a bank and you cash the cheque. We are going to continue to do that.

Watch it:

In fact, less than half of the claims have been paid. For the entire Gulf Coast, BP has paid 18,000 out of 37,000 claims, Darryl Willis, the BP vice president overseeing the claims process, said Sunday. BP has denied repeated requests from the state of Louisiana for access to its claims database, but did release a summary that showed the majority of claims in Louisiana, the hardest hit state, are still pending:

– As of May 29, only $22.5 million had been paid on 6,997 claims; 51 percent remain pending, at least one for as long as 33 days. The majority of paid claims are property damage.

– Only one of 118 bodily injury claims has been paid.

– Of $9.1 million in claims for loss of income in Louisiana, 54 percent were pending as of May 29. Of 7,469 claims filed by individuals and businesses for loss of income, BP has paid just 3,438 claims.

– Of 37 claims categories ranging from loss of income for shrimpers, crabbers, oyster processors and fishermen to loss of rental property income and damage to animals and property, 26 categories have 70 percent or more of unpaid claims. For commercial loss of income, 57 percent of claims are unpaid.

– Less than 25 percent of business interruption claims have been paid.

“Hardworking people should not be forced into poverty by the oil spill,” said Louisiana Workforce Commission Executive Director Curt Eysink. The more BP delays and dissembles, the harder it is for the foreign oil giant’s victims to get their lives back.

Article printed from SpeakEasy: http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy

URL to article: http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/06/07/bp-ceo-tony-hayward-lies-claims-company-has-paid-every-claim/

To be fair to BP, paying out thousands of claims isn't their schtick.

One should reasonably expect that the beginning of the process would be slow as BP ramps up some kind of capacity in that regard.

Looks like BP is gonna be hiring, folks. Getcher red hot jobs...

[RandomGuy]

Big fat link to a job can be seen here. (https://careers.bpglobal.com/2057/ASP/TG/cim_jobdetail.asp?SID=^K/M3BfpdcE4kWgUHrI6l4doOb7Dfn2r0ZjH87HzyzCHfkEfTjYZJ YmHVlrBeduyceIX9bZ8cCny9_C_R__L_F_3Lr7zb2rz5CBLCUp bMpKmYLTjBZHiS8=&jobId=21519&type=search&JobReqLang=140&recordstart=1&JobSiteId=5012&JobSiteInfo=21519_5012&GQId=303)

Posted May 25th...

Attorney - Exploration and Production
Req ID 11851BR
Job category Legal
Sub-category Legal
Countries (State/Region) United States - Texas
Location Houston


E&P (Exploration & Production) Lawyer to serve BP Gulf of Mexico Strategic Performance Unit with primary focus on deepwater offshore project support, procurement, exploration, production, and midstream issues.

Methinks they will need more than one posting....

[Winehole23]

http://www.roffs.com/DeepwaterHorizon/02JUNE2010OilSM.jpg (http://www.roffs.com/deepwaterhorizon.html)

[Winehole23]

http://oilspill.fsu.edu/model_output/latest_spill.gif (http://oilspill.fsu.edu/model_output/hycom_gfs.html)

[Winehole23]

32% of federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico now closed to fishing.

http://www.crownweather.com/?page_id=2242

[RandomGuy]

That is one spiffy gif.

Looks like oil is going to hit every part of the Gulf Coastline. Erk.

[Wild Cobra]

http://oilspill.fsu.edu/model_output/latest_spill.gif (http://oilspill.fsu.edu/model_output/hycom_gfs.html)
I wonder how much of the oil is from the Ocean Saratoga well? It's leaking also.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/satellite%20view/SaratogaandHorizon.jpg

Floaters / Semisubmersible Rigs in the Gulf of Mexico (http://www.rodnreel.com/gps/semisub.asp)

[MannyIsGod]

They're forecasting more into the loop current eh? Thats just great.

[RandomGuy]

Darrin, RG is right on that aspect.

However, RG...

When the oil prices are high enough, it sure would be nice if the oil companies already had access to development to streamline a procedure for when it does become economically viable.

You liberals have some of the stupidest arguments. I keep hearing about idiocy like not taping ANWR because of how many years it would take to bring it to market. Well, dammit, that means we should do it now, so we have in in the future years. That really is one of the dumbest arguments I continue to hear libtards regurgitate. Any new venture takes time. If we scrap the ideas for that reason, we have no new development.

Bzzzt. Wrong answer.

Welcome to the concept of "retreating/vanishing horizons".

This is a concept that was used by an actual oil expert who to describe the wildly optimistic pie-in-the-sky predictions of profitability for tar sands, the same tar sands that big bad envirowhackos are allegedly keeping us from exploiting.

The problem with shale and tar sands is that no small part of the costs of getting energy out of the process is... the energy used in the process.

I will keep this very simple to demonstrate this.

Shale/Tar sands advocate argument goes like this:


Oil is $50/bbl now. When it gets to $100 or $150, we will be sitting on a gold mine, because it only costs us $48/bbl to make this stuff, so we will be getting $52/bbl or even $102/bbl profits then. Please give us money for shares and we will let you in on this investment. All we need is to overcome the envirowhacko's who keep fighting us on this, and that will take care of itself once oil gets in that range.

This is a failure of honesty/logic because those rosy projections always leave out the detail that their costs are heavily driven by the overall cost of energy. They keep their costs constant, but their revenues at market costs. This is either dishonest or ignorant, or a mix of both.

When the price of oil gets to $100 or $150 per barrel the costs of producing oil from shale or tar sands will be right there with it still leaving the thin profit margins.

The guys selling this investment are literally cashing in on people like you who seem to think that envirowhackos are behind keeping stuff like this from fruition, and not basic laws of physics, and general principles of economics.

You can't get energy for nuthin', and you should know that. You can reduce the amount of energy that a process takes using tech, but there is only so much you can do for this stuff.

ANWAR is stupid because it would have little overall effect on the price of oil and more ecological damage than it is worth.

That is my real argument and it is a cost-benefit trade off. Virtually no benefit and even that is temporary, versus long lasting damage to an ecosystem that will long outlive any benefits gained from a cent or two in the cost of oil years down the road.

[boutons_deux]

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2010-06-08-Nerve.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

Boutons, would you please remove your NAMBLA material. Sure it's edited, but we don't need to see your pedophilia photo's.

[RandomGuy]

Boutons, would you please remove your NAMBLA material. Sure it's edited, but we don't need to see your pedophilia photo's.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=57&pictureid=584

[Winehole23]

http://www.grist.org/phpThumb/phpThumb.php?src=http://www.grist.org/i/assets/2/GulfofMexicoOffshoreOilProductiongraph616.jpg&w=615

[Winehole23]

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/new-shallow-water-drilling-rules-expected-soon-2010-06-08

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/new-shallow-water-drilling-rules-expected-soon-2010-06-08

Good.

Their knee-jerk reaction to drilling moratoriums would have killed several thousand jobs.

[Winehole23]

NOAA confirms underwater plumes.

http://www.grist.org/article/2010-06-08-underwater-oil-plumes-lurk-in-gulf-of-mexico-noaa-confirms/

[Wild Cobra]

She added, however, that some oil found 142 miles southeast of the well site had been found in tests to be "not consistent" with the BP oil, explaining that some oil was naturally occurring in the Gulf.
It's from the Saratoga, or some other well that's leaking. It could be natural, but others are leaking.

[boutons_deux]

Nambla? WC, I was concentrating on Tony's head and the money bait.

Great catch for noticing the baby's penis. Typical conservative sexual preference. Are you also Catholic with a forsaken vocation for the priesthood?

[Winehole23]

Anonymous and uncorroborated, but alarming, if true.


Informed emergency planning sources in Florida have informed WMR that the state faces severe fresh water shortages and power blackouts if the thick crude oil from the Deepwater Horizon disaster clogs sea water intakes at the largest seawater desalinisation plant in the United States -- the Tampa Bay Seawater Desalinisation Plant at Apollo Beach in Tampa, Florida.

The plant, which uses seawater reverse osmosis to turn seawater into 16 to 19 million gallons of drinking water daily for residents of the Tampa Bay area, faces the threat of filtration membranes becoming clogged if oil from the Gulf of Mexico enters its intake pipes. Such an event would render the plant unable to process seawater, resulting in a major fresh water shortage for the Tampa Bay.

Similarly, oil clogging the water cooling intakes at the Crystal River Nuclear Power Plant on the Gulf of Mexico coast, some 80 miles north of Tampa, could force the shutdown of the Unit 3 pressurized water nuclear reactor. Such an event would result in power shutdowns in the Florida areas served by the power plant.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19575

[boutons_deux]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrxPNzTkl7M&feature=player_embedded

[RandomGuy]

Good.

Their knee-jerk reaction to drilling moratoriums would have killed several thousand jobs.

How many jobs will be lost due to the Deepwater spill?

[Wild Cobra]

How many jobs will be lost due to the Deepwater spill?
Plenty, but will suspending oil operations bring back those jobs?

Since when do two wrongs make a right?

[boutons_deux]

Blood From An Oil Covered Stone

by digby

I've been wondering when this would come up:


The idea that BP might one day file for bankruptcy, particularly as part of a merger that would enable it to cordon off its liabilities from the spill, is starting to percolate on Wall Street. Bankers and lawyers are already sizing up potential deals (and counting their potential fees).

Given the plunge in BP’s share price — the company has lost more than a third of its value since Deepwater Horizon blew — some bankers and analysts say BP is starting to look like takeover bait. The question is, who would buy BP, given its enormous potential liabilities?

Shell and Exxon Mobil are both said to be licking their chops. And already, flinty legal minds are dreaming up scenarios in which BP would file a prepackaged bankruptcy and separate the costs of the cleanup — and potentially billions of dollars in legal claims — into a separate corporate entity.



That entity will be inadequate, of course. And when the money's gone, the money will be gone.

Some people will lose their jobs in such a deal, but they'll be well compensated. The lawsuits will be tied up in court for years. The wells will belong to someone else and the beat will still go on. Good plan.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/

[RandomGuy]

Plenty, but will suspending oil operations bring back those jobs?

Since when do two wrongs make a right?



I tend to evaluate environmantal laws from a truly economic perspective, and have found that, more often than many on the right realize, those laws tend to have rather beneficial effects on the economy that are completely overlooked.

Take the restrictions on close-in oil production for example.

They were put in place partly as a reaction to the Exxon Valdez disaster, which is STILL being cleaned up over a decade after the spill.

Oil spills tend to damage a lot more than just a few birds on the beaches. They destroy coastal property values, destroy fishing industries, destroy tourism industries in coastal areas. True economic damage from a catastrophic large oil spill can easily run into the hundreds of millions to billions when all the real economic impacts are tallied up.


People like you, in advocating for this stuff, always minimized the dangers of catastrophic spills. Catastrophic spills are fairly unlikely events.

BUT

They are inevitable, no matter how good your safety precautions are. That is another truth. The number of them will also go up the more you drill out beyond the continental shelf, simply because you have more rigs accumulating more risk.

This spill represents an enourmous cost in drilling/using oil, and is costing jobs now.

Many arguments against increasing the costs of oil by raising taxes on it are that "they damage the economy and cost jobs".

If one turns around and uses that money to fund and subsidize renewable energy projects and research, and forms of energy that we don't have to import, then that ends up creating jobs does it not?

[RandomGuy]

Blood From An Oil Covered Stone

by digby

I've been wondering when this would come up:


The idea that BP might one day file for bankruptcy, particularly as part of a merger that would enable it to cordon off its liabilities from the spill, is starting to percolate on Wall Street. Bankers and lawyers are already sizing up potential deals (and counting their potential fees).

Given the plunge in BP’s share price — the company has lost more than a third of its value since Deepwater Horizon blew — some bankers and analysts say BP is starting to look like takeover bait. The question is, who would buy BP, given its enormous potential liabilities?

Shell and Exxon Mobil are both said to be licking their chops. And already, flinty legal minds are dreaming up scenarios in which BP would file a prepackaged bankruptcy and separate the costs of the cleanup — and potentially billions of dollars in legal claims — into a separate corporate entity.



That entity will be inadequate, of course. And when the money's gone, the money will be gone.

Some people will lose their jobs in such a deal, but they'll be well compensated. The lawsuits will be tied up in court for years. The wells will belong to someone else and the beat will still go on. Good plan.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/

Such a deal would have to pass anti-trust muster first.

It will not happen, no matter how much of a drubbing BP's stock takes. Any administration that approved such a deal would find it's party out of power faster than a greased polecat on a hot griddle can skeedaddle under the porch.

[boutons_deux]

Bullshit. Magic Negro let the Wall St TBTF bankrupt companies offload their debts to US govt and subsidiaries created to eat toxic shit, and hide their $Ts in debt, and still do. BP could do the same with their blowout liabilities.

A college graduate "person" cannot escape college loans through personal bankruptcy, but any corporate "person" can default into bankruptcy.

[Wild Cobra]

Bullshit. Magic Negro let the Wall St TBTF bankrupt companies offload their debtgs to US govt and subsidiaries created to eat toxic shit, and hide their $Ts in debt, and still do. BP could do the same with their blowout liabilities.

A college graduate "person" cannot escape college loans through personal bankruptcy, but any corporate "person" can default into bankruptcy.
Are there enough stupid liberals to allow that to happen after seeing the current bailout results?

[RandomGuy]

Just to be clear, when I said:


They are inevitable, no matter how good your safety precautions are. That is another truth. The number of them will also go up the more you drill out beyond the continental shelf, simply because you have more rigs accumulating more risk.

The accumulation of risk is based on probability theory and normal distributions in a statistical sense.

If the chances of any rig blowing out in any given year are 1 in 1000, but you have 1000 rigs in operation in a year, you have essentially "drawn" one thousand poker hands. The odds of none of those rigs blowing out at that level of probability would get remote really quick. i.e. .999 * (number of rigs/years)

72% chance of at least one blowout in any given year period,
86% chance for at least one blowout in any given two year period,
95% chance for at least one blowout in any given three year period
99% change for at least one blowout in any given four year period, pretty much a near certainty.

Given that there were, as of 2008, 200 deepwater drilling rigs, with about 10 or so being built per year (going up tho')
http://www.epmag.com/Magazine/2008/5/item3599.php
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/business/19drillship.html

and

that we have been deep water drilling for only, what... 15-30 years?

I would say the odds 1-1000 seem to be not outside the scope of reality.

The longer you go, the more certain there is to be a catastrophic spill. The more rigs you have drilling the shorter that time period is. Very simple probability and iron-clad math.