Slashdot Mirror

The biggest factor that will hinder containment and cleanup is that BP has no inherent motivation to either contain or clean up the oil, other than an economic one. All of the normal human responses, that it's a horrible disaster that will cause unimaginable human and environmental suffering for years if not decades, none of that matters to BP at all.

Nice rant, full of lots of big words too. Mods really like that one. Pity it bares no resemblance to reality what so ever. I may have believed this "BP doesn't care and will walk away as soon as it's capped" nonsense a few weeks ago except due to either collosally bad timing on your post, or maybe simply not opening a news paper you may have missed the new organisation that BP has set up for the explicit purpose of long term restoration of the Gulf.

Some corporations fuck up, everyone knows that. But not every corporation is sociopathic and will just walk away ala Exxon after their pissweak attempt to help cleanup the Valdez spill.

But hey let's all just keep generalising. Corporations are sociopaths at heart, governments are all fascist, and I'm sure even a card carrying PETA member would kick a dog if they were about to get bitten. Summary: The world's fucked, buy a helmet.

I was incorrect they do have 12 feeds available...

www.BP.com/OilSpillNews "Info about the Gulf of Mexico Spill Learn More about How BP is Helping." ...
Please slashdot both of them.

The BP link is a blank page to me. Also I don't get any sponsored links here in the UK, I guess the keywords are regional. I wonder if the BP page is regional.

I hate to even ask but have you gone to the site they linked to their ad? http://www.bp.com/bodycopyarticle.do?categoryId=1&contentId=7052055&nicam=USCSBaselineCrisis&nisrc=Google&nigrp=Non_Branded_Crisis_Management-_General&niadv=General&nipkw=oil_spill
It isn't a terrible site. It is clearly marked as a BP site as well.
No Astroturfing just a site about what they are doing.
Totally expected and frankly people would be screaming if they had not done it.
They also have live feeds from the ROVs which seems pretty cool
This is so not a story but hey what do you expect?

One is to:

www.BP.com/OilSpillNews "Info about the Gulf of Mexico Spill Learn More about How BP is Helping."

The other is:

Tar Ball Burner(tm) "Collect free tar balls from beaches and turn them into unleaded gas!"

Please slashdot both of them.

According to bp, (grain of salt, or shakers) two relief wells are currently being drilled. One is at 10,000 ft and the other is ~8,500 ft.

http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/incident_response/STAGING/local_assets/downloads_pdfs/relief-well.pdf

Why do you think it will take years? They have already drilled 5,000 feet of the first relief well (About 1/2 of what they need to do):

http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=9033657&contentId=7061734

I have another idea for an operation with a name 'Top Kill'.

Here are the details.

I have another idea for an operation with a name 'Top Kill'.

Here are the details.

Hey ! You cannot "hand" Big Pipe to anyone you want.

Unless you're a major shareholder, the CEO or something...

feed from the bottom:
http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/homepage/STAGING/local_assets/bp_homepage/html/rov_stream.html

I honestly wondered what they were doing with a big ass wrench down there. Now I know.

BP posted a link with a "Live" video feed of the belching oil. The running time-stamp on the image was accurate until today, when it seems to be about 2 minutes 24 seconds behind. Anybody else seeing this time delay? Is BP introducing a time delay to bleep out bad words? Since last week, the image typically showed the actual oil exiting a pipe, but ever since the top kill effort began, the image tends to show pretty green pipes and hoses...anything but oil. Has BP shows the previous view since the news reports of partial success? Live video link: http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/homepage/STAGING/local_assets/bp_homepage/html/rov_stream.html

The first relief well is well underway:

http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=9033657&contentId=7061734

Between public relations and the tone of the government (deep water projects are being put on hold), I would be surprised if they try to continue operating this hole (and I'm not sure it makes technical sense for them to do so, I imagine they have lots of concerns about various parts of the casing).

If you want to follow live feed from down below here is the link i have been watching over the past few days. http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/homepage/STAGING/local_assets/bp_homepage/html/rov_stream.html

5000 barrels a day? You mean the number derived by the Coast Guard? Or was it the number quoted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)?

I don't mean to troll but all of BP's press releases are available at BP's website. They may have quoted the NOAA but they never stated that 5000 barrels of oil per day was the leak rate was their estimate. Actually only last week were we not attacking them for not helping estimate the leak?

Agreed...

To me it is inconceivable that at this point BP is worried about the additional cost required to stop the flow more quickly. The political and PR cost of leaving it leaking for just one more day is enormous to both BP and to the industry (remember what happened to the nuclear power industry after TMI -- and the actual technical "non political" impact of TMI was nearly zero).

For example, they are paying to drill TWO relief wells. The second well is just a contingency in case the first well has a delay or problem. That doesn't sound like "cutting corners" to me.

It sure sounds like they cut corners to get into this mess, but I'm pretty sure that's not what they are doing now. However, they almost certainly want to be very careful with unproven techniques because making the spill worse until the relief wells can cap the spill will be even more costly. If they make the problem worse, all the politicians and /.ers who apparently have never had to make cost/benefit/risk tradeoffs will attack with 20/20 hindsight.

(If anyone can explain the technology that makes intersecting a seven inch bore with a relief well bore 18,000 feet down possible, that would be an interesting read.)

And, a bit offtopic, but the best description I've seen of the "sucker tube" (a.k.a. the Riser Insertion Tube), albeit what appears to be an early description so the actual implementation may have ended up different, is here.

Of course, BP would have to sink a new one for another couple million dollars, but at least the leak would be cut.

First, it costs way more than a "couple million" to sink a new well out there - that will pay for about five day's rent on a drilling rig like the Deepwater Horizon (now sitting at the bottom of the ocean after baking for a while) or the Development Driller II or III (I think the links point to the stats on the rigs being used, but I'm not absolutely sure) which are/will be drilling the relief wells.

Second, BP has publicly stated that they are not going to attempt to ever use the well drilled by the Deepwater Horizon.

Somewhat unrelated, but here's a nice graphic on the relief well plans (and, now somewhat outdated, progress).

How about instead of wasting resources giving the world a streaming feed of them polluting the ocean they spend that time and money on actually stopping it.

BTW, the feed for those that like to see loads of oil pumping into the ocean. http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/homepage/STAGING/local_assets/bp_homepage/html/rov_stream.html

General fail: proof by hyperbole. LOOK AT THIS HUGE OIL SLICK HOW CAN YOU SAY IT'S 5000 BARRELS A DAY THAT'S CRAZY! is not a persuasive argument.

Specific fail: Pipe is not 5 feet in diameter.
here's a photo of the pipe with a wrench for scale -- BP says the wrench is a foot long. So accounting for perspective, the pipe is a bit more than a foot in diameter. (BP says the outer diameter of the riser pipe was 21" diameter when installed, but it's gotten a bit squished since then.)

Video shows the pipe about half full of oil, so the cross-sectional area of the flow is 1/2 * pi * (7 inches)^2 = 0.05 meters^2.

By following the motion of the blobs and plumes of oil, the flow speed seems to be about 1 meter/second. Flow rate = velocity * area = 0.04 m^3/s, or 0.4 barrels/second.

This is 27,000 barrels per day -- about 5 times BP's estimates, but an order of magnitude less than the article claims.

BP made about $10 billion in the past 1/2 year: http://www.bp.com/extendedgenericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7061409 They will not be happy to spend 1/2 a year's profit on the cleanup. If they have 100 rigs operating, each with a 1% chance of a $10 Billion loss, they are losing 1/2 their profit.

... If BP were forced to shoulder the entire cost of this mistake, they would go bankrupt.

Actually, BP won't foot the bill for this. Ultimately, it will be cheaper for them to pay the fines imposed on them as restitution rather than actually pay for the whole clean up. What they will do is get the thing capped and then back to business as usual. A quick glance at their 2009 Q4 earnings will quickly make you realize this will in no way bankrupt them.

BP can handle it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/7640072/BP-Gulf-clean-up-could-cost-200m.html

Cost of clean up, $200 million

http://www.investmentu.com/IUEL/2010/May/the-gulf-of-mexico-oil-disaster.html

$2-7 billion

BP
Revenue - $246.1 billion (2009)
Operating income - $26.43 billion (2009)
Net income - $16.58 billion (2009)

http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/STAGING/global_assets/downloads/B/bp_fourth_quarter_and_full_year_2009_results.pdf

People use less gas, sure, but at higher prices.

Until they don't use gas. All three Detroit companies, Chrysler, Ford, and GM, have or are releasing EVs. Along with Tesla they are also working on fuel cells and plug-ins. Only Natural Gas benefits from either of these, not oil. LNG is used to produce hydrogen and LNG supplies 21.4% of the USA's electricity, second only to coal. Petroleum only supplies 1.1%. However alternative sources are growing as fast if not faster than other sources of energy. Actually more and more people are going off the grid and are producing their own energy. They are finding it a practical alternative. Combining EVs with solar and wind doesn't leave petroleum much moving space. However the ones using their profits to invest in alternative energy sources, Exxon-Mobile is researching the use of algae to produce hydrogen and BP Solar is part of British Petroleum, will come out ahead. In 2004 BP had 20% of the world market for solar panels.

And you still have people worried that China will buy up everything that Canada can supply.

And where did I say that? Or is that more FUD?

Why is it "astroturfing for oil companies" to point out that it is stupid to expect them to conduct climate studies or absorb the cost of a tax increase?

Why is it using the oil companies as boogey men to point out oil companies have more money to spend on research than others have? Others have pointed out just as I have that it is in the interest of those accused of polluting to prove that what they do has no effect. When you stop making things up I'll stop saying you're astroturfing.

Falcon

Nuclear power is the predominant form of power in many countries...

According to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2009 [PDF], that's false (see page 41 and 42).

BP sells 200 watt panels that are 14.85 sq ft each. 1000/15 = 66.67 x 200watt = 13.3kw

Of course, that is under ideal generating circumstances.

http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9019633&contentId=7036926

Better yet, the direct source... http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9017904&contentId=7033466 Quickest place to find it is last slide in the presentation slides. FYI, tomorrow is the release of the 2008 statistical review, should be interesting to see what developments come out from the last year. Most important information in this review is the R/P Ratio which is the time left to realize current known reserves (AT CURRENT PRODUCTION RATES!!!, i.e., not counting INCREASE in production) short story is 40 years in largest reserve source... the middle east....

Hypothetically speaking, events like these these shouldn't be unexpected. If the security policies were initially decided on by executives, managers, outside consultants, and sales reps from Microsoft and HP, what do you expect? If the executives just signed off on what he saw and didn't do any research beforehand personally on best security practices using outside resources. If the IT managers were inept, clueless, and had no background in IT and at their last posting in Customer Service and if these managers are only interested in getting promoted and transferred to the another department. If the consultants were airheads and despite claims to the contrary and an even with a expensive presentation had offered no useful information. If the sales reps from Microsoft and HP were just interested in selling an excessive number of expensive Intel-based servers with several $100K subscription-based licences for Windows 2008 Server. If these things were to happen, it would seem to me that this would indicate that there were serious problems with the managerial staff of such a company.

On the other hand, this situation may have been the result of a failure of imagination. If for instance, mailing these tapes became standard policy even though these tapes were never intended to have left the original facility and thus the records on the tape were never encrypted, this would have been a serious breach of the original security policy. The customer data should have been encrypted in every case, regardless of the storage medium used.

Strangely enough, I think that some of the problems that are faced in industrial worker safety are similar to those in computer security and that one might find a few useful concepts in a safety review of a BP refinery fire here:

http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/SP/STAGING/local_assets/assets/pdfs/Baker_panel_report.pdf

I think that the concepts of process safety, which involves the safety in the design of the system are important. Also the concept of open communication between employees and management with no retaliation for mentioning a legitimate potential safety issue is also important.

Interesting. I hadn't heard of this before.

It seems that BP is thinking along the same lines too.
BP's Bet on Butanol
BioButanol: a better biofuel (fact sheet)

It didn't last like that for long.

(BOPD = barrels oil per day)

One of the best sources for this information is the BP statistical review of world energy. You can find it on the BP website: http://www.bp.com/productlanding.do?categoryId=684 8&contentId=7033471

It doesn't much matter what you start with: raw crude or refined fuel... what is at issue is the percentage. 30% of either is about 7 million barrels per day equivalent and lordy I have no idea where they plan to get it. Alberta for instance is running flat out trying to boost tar sands production to about 3.3 million BOPD by 2015.

Note that world production is around 81 million BOPD. World production is close to being flat. On page 10 of the report we see that Saudi Arabia's production declined. This is very significant when you consider that the largest field in the world... the Ghawar field - is in Saudia Arabia and has been reported as being in decline. If so then the top four (4) fields are in decline and these fields produce say about 15% of the world's production. Normally when fields go into decline the production shortly thereafter drops by about 10% per year. If so then the world will shortly be seeing declines at least in the range of about 1.5% per year which will exceed a million BOPD and this will compound exponentialy.

We better hope someone figures out how to make up the shortfall. If not we all go on an oil diet. Personally I see nothing over the horizon other than perhaps high prices and gas rationing.

from BP and the environment

BP New Zealand, along with the BP Group world-wide, is committed to three simple but important goals - no accidents, no harm to people and no damage to the environment.

Our Commitment
Wherever BP has control or influence, it will: Consult, listen and respond openly to customers, neighbours and public interest groups. Work with others - partners, suppliers, competitors and regulators - to raise the standards of the industry.

Openly report the company's health, safety and environment (HSE) performance, good and bad. Recognise those who contribute to improved HSE performance.

BP has a strong commitment to minimise the environmental impact of its activities in areas such as emissions, wastes and energy use and to maintain an active dialogue with communities - locally and nationally - on environmental issues.

It has a well-established safety management and assessment system designed to improve safety performance. Likewise, health promotion programmes have been introduced to complement well-established occupational health practices.

As part of the commitment to high HSE standards, BP continually assesses whether products can be stored, handled, transported and used safely and with minimal environmental impact.

Environmental Initiatives
BP operates 15 service stations with solar canopies throughout New Zealand. This is part of BP's global initiative to 'Plug in the Sun'. BP now has almost 400 service stations with solar canopies around the world.

Triple Bottom Line
As part of our commitment to environmental and social responsibility, BP produces an annual Triple Bottom Line report.

I was amazed recently by a sight off of Interstate 70 in Frederick, Maryland. BP Solar has built a huge cell fabrication plant. It is covered in solar panels. It is supposed to be one of the largest solar cell factories in North America.

It is amazing that they located in Maryland. And it is more amazing that it isn't just some photo-op PR "factory" so typical of most oil companies. It's the real deal. Good for BP!.

FYI, a sign outside said "now hiring" . . .

Actually BP Solar is one of the large solar energy companies. And they have practical technology that is being used in the real world.
http://www.bp.com/modularhome.do?categoryId=4260

Moving your arm produces CO2 (ever heard about Life Cycle Analysis???)
So sure, fissioning an atom do not directly imply CO2 release, but building 5m wide concrete walls & bringing uranium from Australia do. Same thing for producing wind turbines, building dams or solar cells.

( http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categor yId=9008658&contentId=7016688
=>No CO2 is released from the production of electricity but processes of uranium mining, enrichment and transport do cause CO2 emissions.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/expert/realexpert/nu clearpower/03.htm
=>

Grams of CO2/kWh

Coal
970-1245 grams

Gas
450-660 grams

Solar
100-280 grams

Wind
6-29 grams

Nuclear
9-21 grams

Hydro
3-11 grams
)

With your argument, this kind of crap:
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/ 28/2228251
would be the global warming solution.

Once again, I love technology and I'd love to see it helps us going happily through this century, but IPCC is pretty sure that won't do if we don't change our way of life. And you'd better trust 2000 scientists telling you something, or you'll never trust anyone else!

"should be that the US has a 200-800 year supply of coal"

Check this out:

U.S coal reserves

Year | Supply of coal
---------------------
1868 | 10000 years
1904 | 1000 years
1988 | 300 years
2000 | 255 years

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/052504_c oal_peak.html

2005 | 240 years
(Coal reserves 246,643 million tonnes, production 1028.1 million tonnes)

http://www.bp.com/productlanding.do?categoryId=684 2&contentId=7021390

Didn't BP inherit that facility (and other troubles) from Amoco?

I hope some moderator do not flag this a troll, I am just pointing out that you can also have another point of view from the statistical review of BpAmoco

Bpamoco statistical review

Oh, it's high, even among industrial nations, but a few are slightly higher, such as Canada, mainly due to longer average transportation distances and colder climate. There are other factors too, such as access or lack of access to other energy sources (e.g., Iceland's oil consumption per capita is fairly high, but that's mainly because they are in a cold climate but they have no coal to offset oil consumption, and Saudi Arabia's per capita consumption is high because it is cheap and the population is low).

Here's a good summary map, and there is plenty of other information about energy supply and consumption at the same site. The BP Statistical Review of World Energy is a good source for energy-related information, especially because they release a new one each year, so you can compare trends. They also supply much of the raw data in digital form so that you can do further analysis (although it is in Excel spreadsheets).

Oh, it's high, even among industrial nations, but a few are slightly higher, such as Canada, mainly due to longer average transportation distances and colder climate. There are other factors too, such as access or lack of access to other energy sources (e.g., Iceland's oil consumption per capita is fairly high, but that's mainly because they are in a cold climate but they have no coal to offset oil consumption, and Saudi Arabia's per capita consumption is high because it is cheap and the population is low).

Here's a good summary map, and there is plenty of other information about energy supply and consumption at the same site. The BP Statistical Review of World Energy is a good source for energy-related information, especially because they release a new one each year, so you can compare trends. They also supply much of the raw data in digital form so that you can do further analysis (although it is in Excel spreadsheets).

They should be focusing on alternative energy sources themselves because oil isn't going to last forever and they can get a jump on the future with their own research.

First of all, what makes you think they aren't? Read here, here, here, and here, for example.

Secondly, what makes you think a bunch of ex-divorce lawyers in Sacramento who don't have a dime of their own at stake have better ideas about investing in new energy research than folks with PhD's in chemical engineering and economics, who work at a major oil company's research division, and who have their pensions on the line?

Third, the way government research typically works, and works best, is when you already have a gaggle of researchers doing the work because the science (and not a popular vote) says it's worth pursuing, and you have them compete for funding. That's how the NSF works, or DARPA, for example. The stiff competition means only the best (with some obnoxious exceptions) get funded and you need to produce sound results to keep your funding. What do you suppose happens when you turn the process around and begin with the huge pile of cash, then wait to see who it attracts? Do you think you will get the best research? Or will you get a whole lot of goofballs, incompetents, and perpetual-motion weirdos who are just sane enough to use plenty of politically-correct buzzwords in their application?

Fourth, maybe the folks on the other side should also think long-term, too. If you're in the alternative-energy biz, shouldn't you be focussing on alternative capital sources (such as the marketplace), since free money from the taxpayers can't last forever?

It amazes me how the Bush administration can spout rhetoric in total opposition to its actions, and people will still buy in.

In case you haven't noticed, there have been several "State's Rights" issues during the Bush Interregnum. In all these cases, the Bush administration has come down solidly in favor of increased federal authority.

In one of the more egregious cases, the Federal Government is in favor of redrawing the boundaries of the state of Delaware so that a large foreign-owned oil company can construct a LNG pier serving the state of New Jersey. In that case, the Bush administration is actually championing the "rights" of British Petroleum, with collusion from corrupt New Jersey authorities, to override the demonstrated will of the citizenry of the US state of Delaware.

When will US conservatives realize they've been betrayed by a pack of radical facists, who favor any corporation from any nation over the rights of any individual anywhere?

The United States uses 23.6% of the world's energy to to produce 28.4% of the world's gross domestic product---it seems that the U.S. is actually rather efficient. (My source for these is the CIA's World Fact Book and a rather large PDF from BP).

It ranks 17th in per capita oil consumption. And it uses less energy per capita than Luxembourg, Iceland, and Candada. Why don't you pick on them for a little while?

If one of the world's largest oil companies thinks global warming is real and vows to adjust its business to this reality, what are the odds that Global Warming isn't happening?

http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categor yId=9002327&contentId=3072035

The data you are citing is old.

The panels on my roof are warrranted for 80% power output after 25 years.

http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categor yId=3050548&contentId=3060160

What happens when we go to a hydrogen economy?

Lots of extra water vapor.

Moderation fails again.

This isn't insightful. It's pretty much wrong (or was maybe meant to be humorous). This is like saying that if it rained more we'd all get killed (by the intense global warming that would results from all that water vapor! Clouds!). Water is a cycle that's basically at equilibrium. We aren't gaining or losing any to/from space (except tiny, tiny, insignificant amounts). We aren't going out of our way to find, dig up, and then burn billions of gallons of water every year. :-p It's all in and around us. :-D

I don't see how the burning of hydrogen (created by and large from the electrolysis of ... WATER) is going to alter the equilibrium one whit.

Now, what would alter the current balance, is if a bunch of CO2 that had been buried (and hence locked out of the atmosphere) for like 100 million years was being routinely sought, found, dug up and then burned in huge volumes every year.

The problem with the 'hydrogen economy' is that as it's currently envisioned it's still just a petrochemical economy -- except the gas pump is hidden to the consumer. It's still just coal plants and natural gas plants and whatever else we can dig up and burn to generate electricity to split hydrogen out of water or whatever else. Of course then we'll package and transport it with plastics and other petrochem-derived goodies. Until we get over ourselves and stop burning the oil and coal and using nuclear and other alternatives hydrogen is just a facade.

If it wasn't the big oil companies wouldn't be promoting it ;-)
http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categor yId=4453&contentId=7004951

It's BP; see http://www.bp.com/home.do?categoryId=1 . I'm not sure how they came up with the new name :)

Does anyone know if there was any pressure from the oil/petrol interests, overt or otherwise, to prevent this project from going forward?

I doubt it at this point. The oil companies are basically stating that the world is running out (ex: Chevron's peak oil site, Beyond Petroleum ...)

You mean like BP? ;)

http://www.bp.com/productsservicesteaser.do?catego ryId=918&contentId=2008136

In the past, PV panel production did use ALOT of power, but that has changed. The current tech PV panel produces the amount of energy it took to create it in about 3 years. Most panels are warranted for 25+ years, and will last much longer. This link from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory has the numbers...

http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/solar/bp_ solar_north_america/STAGING/local_assets/downloads _pdfs/pq/pv_faq_energy_payback_2004_en.pdf