Oil Arrives In Louisiana; Defense Booms Inadequate

eldavojohn writes "People in mainland Louisiana are seeing the beginnings of the oil's full effects on wildlife in the area. Sticky, rust-colored oil covers the reeds like a latex paint, indicating that the efforts to lay miles of floating booms to keep it away from the fragile marshes are useless. They are experiencing what the Plaquemines (mouth of Mississippi River) saw last week, and it now appears that their defenses were inadequate. Only time will tell how much worse it can get as BP still scrambles for a solution. NPR also ran a story critical of Obama's 'scientific approach' that he promised to use in office and how well it's being applied and holding up during this crisis."

Comments

Not very critical, actually.

[Anonymous Coward]

NPR also ran a story critical of Obama's 'scientific approach' that he promised to use in office and how well it's being applied and holding up during this crisis."

The story isn't actually very critical. At least the editors/journalists involved in the creation of the article don't seem to be critical at all to me. If you feel the need to comment on this sentence, please please read the article first. It's mostly about how a couple of scientists are critical of the fact that stopping the flow has been prioritized over providing an accurate measurement of how much oil is leaking per time unit. Obama said he would release a directive detailing what his science policy (FTA: "he promised a science-based, data-driven approach to solving problems") means, but hasn't done so, even though the deadline he'd promised was already almost a year ago, and at least one scientist says it could have provided guidance that could have made a difference in this situation. It appears that the aforementioned prioritization might be in conflict with solving problems in a "data-driven" way.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[spun]

BP has lied about the flow rate and did not release data that would allow scientists to judge it. All they would have to do is release their data, which would not stop the effort to stop the flow. In fact, knowing the size of the flow is kind of crucial to stopping it.

From what I've read, the containment is inadequate. Double booms aren't being used in most places, they are aren't being anchored right, no catch basins are being used to collect the oil being trapped, with no pumps at the nonexistent catch basins to remove it. Meaning, the oil will build up and overtop or run under the booms instead of being collected and removed. In order to work, booms need to direct oil to catchbasins for removal. Meaning, they might as well not be booming at all. Best practices are not being followed. A science based, data driven approach would mean, at the very least, doing what has worked in the past, and not doing what hasn't worked.

The use of a more dangerous, less effective dispersant in an untried, untested underwater application is also far from science based. But that was the dispersant BPs sister company had on hand to sell them, and with multiple board members sitting on both companies, I think we can say profits trumped science once again. As a liberal, I am very, very upset with the man I voted for right now. At least Bush was just an idiot with Katrina. Obama seems to be deliberately pandering to Big Oil.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[Pharmboy]

Best reply so far. The biggest point you make should be the most obvious: We aren't doing what we have already have proven to work, boom and capture. This only reduces environmental damage, but it has to be captured one way or another, either before it hits land, or after. It is as if the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing, and there is NO meaningful leadership going on.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[slick7]

First thing that should be done is to nationalize BP in American jurisdiction. Bill BP for the whole messy affair (no pun intended). Put the rest of the oil companies on notice. Seize and/or freeze all accounts of the government official who abruptly retired when this mess started. Identify all persons associated with the oil cartel in America, starting with all pro oil politicians, lobbyists, oil CEO's and their direct underlings. Monitor all oil company financial accounts.
As Jimmy Durante would say, "You ain't seen nothin' yet"

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry. The apologists for BP are in full swing. Everyone that is working to try to fix this mess only keeps yapping how BP is doing "a good job" and "trying their best", etc, etc. Too bad it was them that fucked it up in the first place.

There is also very little information about subsurface buildup of this goo. The "dispersants" only prevent most of the oil from reaching the surface. But I guess subsurface fish spawning areas, coral reefs, etc. are all fucked up now, or will be soon.

It's all PR while the oil keeps flowing.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[Anonymous Coward]

You must have watched the same video I did but you spelled "fucking proper fucking booming" wrong.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[wronskyMan]

Not going to help. The rig, and many other deepwater ones, are in international waters - if we nationalize/kick out all the American oil companies, there will still be Chinese, Venezuelan, etc who will drill without ANY oversight from the U.S.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[Qzukk]

Mod parent up, the video might be too intense for liberal (Tipper Gore) ears, but it's something everyone needs to see in order to understand how BP fucked up and how this failure was inevitable.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[Anonymous Coward]

True, but not because there's no room for criticism. The focus of the article is an overdue policy document which, if actually completed in 120 days or even a year, would not have had much bearing on dealing with an environmental disaster like an oil spill (seriously, "solving problems" kinda covers a lot). That is, science policy and emergency management aren't as intertwined as the article implies.

Much stronger criticism should be applied to an initial lack of oversight and inspection by regulatory employees, and the gov't relying on BP for assessment and response.

This is how the conversation should have gone:

BP: Um, hi, we're uh, leaking some oil here...

gov't: OK. Is it a lot?

BP: Well, um, it's enough that we thought we'd let you know...

gov't: We'll be sending people in to look at it; if necessary, we will stopping it as quickly as possible. Oh, and don't worry, we'll bill you.

BP: But we'll lose money!

gov't: Too fucking bad. (dial tone)

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[Hognoxious]

First thing that should be done is to nationalize BP in American jurisdiction.

But not Halliburton, who made the part that actually broke. Because they're good ol' boys.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[spun]

If we nationalized just one company for screwing up, the rest would fall into line tout de suite. And then when the government agency screws up, we auction it all of to private industry again. This process would repeat itself until we found some entity, public or private, that could handle managing it right. But in the mean time, I think I just found a solution to our budget problems.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[Anonymous Coward]

What choice does Obama himself have in what dispersant BP uses?

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[Ethanol-fueled]

Don't any of you know what's going on? This so-called disaster is just a smoke screen for setting up a secret weapon able to control and manipulate the flow of all information with its powerful AI.

How can we hold the NSA accountable for something they're doing in international waters? Nothing to see here, move along.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[failedlogic]

Its not a solution to the problem, but they should stuff all the BP executives into the leaking pipe. Seriously. At least this is how I feel about the situation.

Someone posted on /. yesterday that engineers from other companies such as Shell and Exxon should be consulting or overseeing the operations. I'd at least like to think that having more engineers experienced in the area would help. If they don't work as a "team" perhaps they can separately draft solution plans.

And, what of the Army/Marine Corps of Engineers. In my mind, these are really smart people that have to think through and implement engineering solutions in battlefields. Surely this mindset would be helpful as well as the fact that this would involve the Government.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[zippthorne]

Additional sources of revenue are only short-term solutions to government budget problems. Governments will always expand to consume any additional revenue they acquire, and invariably will commit to long-term spending obligations when faced with temporary windfalls.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[spun]

The EPA is now forcing BP to use a different dispersant. Obama could have made that happen a month ago.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[slick7]

But not Halliburton, who made the part that actually broke. Because they're good ol' boys.

Identify all persons associated with the oil cartel in America...
Does this help?

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[spun]

Clinton managed to balance the budget by cutting the fat. It is possible to have a fiscally responsible government.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[couchslug]

"As a liberal, I am very, very upset with the man I voted for right now."

Bush II never did anything out of character.

Bush Light, OTOH, knew he could do whatever he wished because his base had no alternative but to vote for Change We Can Believe In.
No matter how pissed off they get this will not change in 2012, and it's hilarious. Who expected to be Pwn3d by a Chicago political shapeshifter?

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[phantomfive]

As a liberal, I am very, very upset with the man I voted for right now.

And yet you'll still vote for him next election, when he runs against Romney or Gengrich.

Or maybe you won't, maybe you'll be one of the few who decides to vote for an independent instead. But most people of your opinion will still vote for Obama.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[spun]

"As a liberal, I am very, very upset with the man I voted for right now."

Bush II never did anything out of character.

Bush Light, OTOH, knew he could do whatever he wished because his base had no alternative but to vote for Change We Can Believe In.
No matter how pissed off they get this will not change in 2012, and it's hilarious. Who expected to be Pwn3d by a Chicago political shapeshifter?

Me. I knew what he was even back then, but what was the fucking alternative? Senator grandad and caribou barbie? I would have had to leave the country out of sheer embarrassment if they had been elected.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[b4upoo]

Yes, keep in mind that Bush was in office when the plans for this oil rig were put into action. Useless anti spill measures and falsified information by BP such as hooking the wrong hydraulic rams up to shut off the flow seem to be criminal in nature. Due caution was not in play.
                        And now we will see which insurance companies BP had hired. Are these policies capable of paying off the damages? Dream on! Will the loss bankrupt those insurance companies and take down the banks that own the insurance companies? Are they American companies? And what if BP has to pay 300 or 400 billion out of pocket beyond their insurance policies?
                      My point being that many damaged parties will never get a cent. And I'm not even talking about the people who will die from cancers caused by exposure to oil in the environment.
                      As far as black humor goes on the one hand we have Alquiida with Ben Laden and loonies attacking us and trying to do harm for eight years. On the other hand we have BP that was only trying to make money. BP turns out to be a far more serious enemy than a pile of radical Arabs.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[spun]

I'll still vote for him as the lesser of two evils, yes. He's done some good things. IMHO, he's another Reagan, his stated favorite US president, did you know that? His law school adviser said that, on election night, on the Daily Show. It didn't sound like a joke. And Dubya made even Reagan look good, so yeah, I'll pick another Reagan/Clinton over another Dubya.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[Wonko the Sane]

Clinton never ran a budget surplus. He got close though, but only because he robbed from the Social Security trust fund (just like every president has for the last half-century).

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[spun]

BP doesn't have external insurance, they are self insured. Meaning, they have a fund. The damage cap is $75 million, how big do you think their fund is? They've said they will pay the whole amount, but how much do you think that will count for when this goes to court? They will blame it all on Transocean and tie this thing up in court for decades.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[timmarhy]

"Yes, keep in mind that Bush was in office when the plans for this oil rig were put into action."

HOLY FUCK. people like you amaze me the way you still find ways to blame bush atleast in part, for EVERYTHING. whats your logic here, do you think bush was part of the fucking design team for this rig in a secret republican plot to ruin Obama's day?????

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[IdolizingStewie]

It's funny how many people keep suggesting things that are already going on. All the majors have contributed engineers and other assistance. They're just not broadcasting it, preferring instead to get on with the work.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[greg_barton]

Remember that there are still many "burrowed in" officials left over from the Bush administration, particularly in the Minerals Management Service, which had "oversight" in this case. Thankfully that should be rectified soon.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[X0563511]

Regardless, no amount of dollars will undo the damage to the gulf and surrounding area.

Accidents happen, but responding quickly and appropriately does help mitigate the damage. Instead, it's as if we are witnessing a case study on runaway oil spills...

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[phantomfive]

Wow, that's totally interesting, I was comparing Obama to Reagan just the other day. My rational was that both of them were easy to like, both of them were inspiring, and both of them had good ideas that were flawed in the implementation. It's like Obama is the Reagan of the left.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[epine]

In fact, knowing the size of the flow is kind of crucial to stopping it.

The biggest point you make should be the most obvious: We aren't doing what we have already have proven to work, boom and capture.

I thought the premise is that first you have to know the size of the problem, before you can determine if the previously successful solutions are applicable or not.

If "what worked before" is irreproachably scale invariant, then BP is right in their conjecture that there's no scope for data to drive a more effective response. Wasn't part of the problem with Katrina more water than pumps?

What's completely stupid about the BP position on this is that there's no contention between assessing the scale of the problem and mounting the most effective response. People who aren't working on the clean up can work on assessing the data.

What's the downside to enlarging participation? The only aspect of the response that would be stretched thin by this approach is spin management by the BP PR flacks, who would view having a disaster *and* open data to contend with as too much like Germany fighting a war on two fronts.

For what purpose? The entire PR effort could be replaced with a simple pro-capitalist capitulation: "We screwed up, big time, and unlike the banks, we're solvent enough to pay restitution." As a sop to their shareholders they could also add "and we're going to litigate the hell out of our partners in crime after the tar settles". Capitalism is not such a bad system when the gears are allowed to mesh.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[Anonymous Coward]

"All they would have to do is release their data, which would not stop the effort to stop the flow. In fact, knowing the size of the flow is kind of crucial to stopping it."

And why is knowing if the flow from the well head is 1000 barrels/day, 5000 barrels/day, 10000 barrels/day, or >20000 barrels/day going to make a speck of difference when it comes to stopping the flow or cleaning it up? Seriously. You still deploy EVERYTHING you can to contain the spill on the surface, and you still try EVERYTHING you can to either collect or stop the oil flow at the source on the sea bottom. How exactly would knowing the rate better than an order of magnitude affect the strategy used? The rate at the source isn't going to have a simple relationship to what shows up at shore 50 or 100 miles away given that the oil will spread out and interact with the water in different ways depending on oil type, wind conditions, temperature, dispersants, and all sorts of other factors. If they aren't deploying booms correctly it isn't because the estimates at the source on the sea floor given out by BP are wrong, it's because they goofed with the boom deployment, period.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[RobVB]

The rig, and many other deepwater ones, are in international waters - if we nationalize/kick out all the American oil companies, there will still be Chinese, Venezuelan, etc who will drill without ANY oversight from the U.S.

Not true. The Deepwater Horizon:

The rig was last located 50 miles (80 km) off the southeast coast of Louisiana.

That means it was well within the limits of the USA's Exclusive Economic Zone, which goes up to 200 miles from a country's coast. No other countries have the right to exploit marine resources within this area. As you can see in these pictures, the EEZs of USA and Mexico cover most of the Mexican Gulf, which means there's no way China, Venezuela, Russia or even Switzerland will ever drill there.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[bhtooefr]

Third parties.

Throw your vote away to not throw your vote away.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm assuming the video is based on this article, which was linked to further down in the comments, but not, as far as I could see, in the video itself.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[couchslug]

Reagan was remarkably moderate, likely due to cosmopolitan life in Hollywood. He wasn't of the frothing "God Hate Fags" persuasion typical of recent Republicans, and his communication skill made him appealing.

The Republican Party has purged most of its moderates, so we'll not see his like for a very long time.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[DarkOx]

She admits in the video that there is not enough boom in the world to do "proper fucking booming" for the entire affected area of the Gulf coast. She goes on to say that having that is part of being ready; that BP said they were ready; and they are not. She might be correct about all of that.

Ah but here were are now there is not enough boom to do "proper fucking booming" so what exactly should they do? Nothing? Use the boom they do have to cover as much area as possible and hopefully do a little bit of good? Should they do "proper fucking booming" over a small area, and leave the rest to chance? which area?
She comes off like she is saying "look they screwed up again" when its more like the screwed up a long time ago and now don't have the means to fix it, not that it is any better but why can't we portray thing accurately?

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[Pharmboy]

But what they are doing, they are doing incorrectly, and they know this. Running a circle of booms doesn't make the oil go away, it just builds up and goes over and under the boom. You have to pump it. The booms are just corrals, yet they are just making circles out of the too few booms they have, which look great for the news, but they don't actually do anything except insure the coast gets coated with oil one week later.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[Anonymous Coward]

Governments will always expand to consume any additional revenue they acquire, and invariably will commit to long-term spending obligations when faced with temporary windfalls.

I really, really hate these libertarian "laws". No basis in reality -- just Ayn Rand-inspired nonsense.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[spun]

Wow, you fail. All climate change data is available for anyone to see. Anyone can look at the data and come to their own conclusions, of course, deniers have already made up their minds, so they don't need to look. If it doesn't fit their preconceived conclusions, it must be false anyhow.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[spun]

Only if it looks like my state is going to go for someone who isn't a lunatic, otherwise, I have to use my vote to keep the lunatic out.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[spun]

It matters quite a bit. For instance, if the drilling mud does not work, the plan is to try a variety of different sized materials such as shredded rubber and gold balls. The size and composition of the right mix depends on the flow rate. The success rate of other plans depends on the flow rate. We are trying plans based on false data and I don't see how you think just 'throwing everything at it' is any kind of a plan.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[fluffy99]

Best practices are not being followed. A science based, data driven approach would mean, at the very least, doing what has worked in the past, and not doing what hasn't worked.

The use of a more dangerous, less effective dispersant in an untried, untested underwater application is also far from science based. But that was the dispersant BPs sister company had on hand to sell them, and with multiple board members sitting on both companies, I think we can say profits trumped science once again. As a liberal, I am very, very upset with the man I voted for right now. At least Bush was just an idiot with Katrina. Obama seems to be deliberately pandering to Big Oil.

Actually that is the dispersant of choice, simply because its available in sufficient quantities and has been successfully used in the past (although not is such large quantities at a single spill). US Polychemical Corporation has reportedly received an order from BP for Dispersit SPC 1000. They can only produce 60,000 gallons a day. Close to 500,000 of Corexit have already been used. The problem was do you wait for industry to make the alternative or do you use what you have on hand?

Just what are you expecting Obama to do? Fly down there and act like a pompous ass and pretend its a situation that he really has any control over? Everyone claims he didn't act right away, but the truth is that the EPA and Coast Guard are charged with the emergency response, reacted the same day, and don't require explicit presidential direction to act in an emergency. Declaring a state of emergency doesn't affect the response that was already underway. The fact is that most of the oversight and regulatory issues that created a higher risk of these accidents was Bush's fault (speaking of big oil controlled).

All of the true experts in this field are on this problem already. Most of the arm-chair quarterbacks and media pundits don't know what they are talking about, with BS ideas like dropping a nuke on it or burying the well head under concrete.

Boom and capture is not as easy as it sounds. The oil is being released a mile below the surface and getting carried great distances before coming to the surface. The booms are better used to protect areas further away.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[fluffy99]

A very common misconception here. Simply plugging the leaking riser pipe will accomplish nothing as the riser pipe will burst shortly after you plug it. The main purpose of the BOP valve at the top of the well head is to regulate the pressure going up the relatively thin walled riser pipe. The riser has to be fairly thin otherwise its too heavy to hang from a surface ship. It can not sustain the full well pressure. This MUST be shut off at or below the well head valve.

You really want the Army.Marine Corp handling this? Guys with absolutely zero experience with oil drilling? The same guys that couldn't figure out how to kill the oil well fires in Iraq and had to contract it out to the industry experts?

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[Draconius42]

Are you seriously, SERIOUSLY, trying to pin this on the bush administration? I am absolutely in awe.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[nbauman]

As a liberal, I am very, very upset with the man I voted for right now. At least Bush was just an idiot with Katrina. Obama seems to be deliberately pandering to Big Oil.

I'm not disappointed with Obama, I never expected any different. Here's a classic article on Obama, from Bill Moyer's journal, with Matt Taibbi and disillusioned Obama fanboy Robert Kuttner http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/12182009/transcript1.html During the elections, http://www.commondreams.org/ had lots of stuff about Obama. His legal work in Chicago was to represent clients who were privatizing public housing.

The Democratic Party just takes hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign contributions, and follows the interests of their campaign contributors rather than the people who vote for them. (Just like the Republicans.) We saw that in health care. When the progressive Democratic activists ran TV ads to push blue-dog Democrats to support the public option, Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel called them "fucking retards" in a White House meeting. Then Emanuel apologized -- to the retarded organizations.

The Democrats lost one election because they kissed off the left, who voted for Nader. Maybe the way to get more respect from the Democratic party is to start voting for third-party candidates again. Do you vote for somebody who calls you a fucking retard? I don't.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[spun]

No, Bush was part of a well known Republican policy to destroy government. Republicans want smaller government. Putting people into Federal Departments who would refuse to enforce inconvenient laws was all part of the process. It's not a difficult concept to grasp, and anytime I see Republicans talking amongst themselves, they pat each other on the back for it.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[spun]

There was plenty of other dispersant available. Corexit is illegal in Great Britain, what do they have stockpiled over there? No, Corexit was used because it was purchased from a sister company, BP's fucking board paying themselves for this little fuck up. By your own admission, the numbers you present show that US Polychemical could have been producing enough all along, we've been using dispersant for more than ten days, which means we've been using it at a rate under 60,000 gallons a day if we've only used 500,000 gallons. D'oh!

Obama could have kept this and the response in the news, demanded we hire US companies to clean up and stick BP with the bill, immediately ask congress to overturn the $75 million cap on oil spill damages, put Navy Bathyscapes down at the site to survey what was down there, demanded BP use the best dispersant available, declared a state of emergency and put funds into ramping up production of booms, containment, and recovery, he could have done oh so fucking much more than he has.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[n dot l]

Ah but here were are now there is not enough boom to do "proper fucking booming" so what exactly should they do?

They are legally and ethically obligated to ensure that such a thing can never happen. If there's not enough fucking booming, they can fucking have more made ahead of time. It's not even prohibitively expensive given that the cost can realistically be split across all operations in the region (it's not like each platform, or even each company, needs its own full set of booming).

Use the boom they do have to cover as much area as possible and hopefully do a little bit of good? Should they do "proper fucking booming" over a small area, and leave the rest to chance?

As opposed to what? Improper booming does nothing. It is exactly as good as zero booming. Worse, even, since it wastes time and resources that could be put to better use than providing photo-ops for idiots with titles.

So yes. Yes they should have done as much proper fucking booming as possible and removed some oil from the water. That would be better than wasting time and boom and neither removing nor meaningfully slowing the progression of any oil whatsoever.

which area?

Some combination of which area most of the oil is heading for and which area would be the most catastrophic to lose.

She comes off like she is saying "look they screwed up again" when its more like the screwed up a long time ago and now don't have the means to fix it, not that it is any better but why can't we portray thing accurately?

They screwed up a long time ago, the screwed up a little while ago, they're screwing up right now, and they show no sign of changing that trend in the near future. Accurate enough for you?

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[Shakrai]

As a liberal, I am very, very upset with the man I voted for right now.

That makes you a bigger sucker than I am. Obama plainly telegraphed his intention to climb into bed with big business when he voted for telecom immunity, despite his promises to the contrary.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[shadowbearer]

  There's a lot of things I'm not happy with Obama about, either, but in all fairness to the man he did inherit a disaster and is fighting against an entrenched system that's been getting worse for decades.

  I have no partisan leanings, but so far he is in my opinion a helluva lot better than the last prez. Please keep in mind that he has to at least work with the oil companies, he can't just order them around. If he tried to they would tie his administration up in court for long enough to make even an executive order useless. This is our modern system at work.

  I agree with your points about BP, tho - and they should be slapped around as hard as is possible within the law. Oil companies should have measures in place to deal with spills like this; that they don't says volumes about both their irresponsibility and how much federal regulation regarding such has been stymied and essentially gutted of any meaningful power since Valdez.

SB

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[nbauman]

What's the downside to enlarging participation?

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

The entire PR effort could be replaced with a simple pro-capitalist capitulation: "We screwed up, big time, and unlike the banks, we're solvent enough to pay restitution."

Restitution? You mean paying fishermen, restaurants, hotels, etc. all the money they would have made if the oil spill hadn't hit? What are you going to do -- write off New Orleans and put everybody on the dole?

Unfortunately, if the oil hits the shore, all the money in the world can't clean it up. The best estimates I've seen are that they could clean up 10% of the oil. When the oil coats the plants and mixes with the mud in the wetlands, you can't unscramble the egg. You just destroy a lot of species.

I remember sitting by a lake in New Orleans, and having these big, beautiful fucking birds fly down right next to me. You can't clean up those birds when they're covered with oil. Expert Recommends Killing Oil-Soaked Birds

Capitalism is not such a bad system when the gears are allowed to mesh.

Even after decades of reading the Wall Street Journal editorial page, this blind faith in capitalism leaves me speechless.

As the WSJ reported, both Democrats and Republicans left the oil companies unregulated as they cut out well-established safety management procedures. (BP had higher accident and fatality rate than most.) If you have a well-managed government agency with competent, dedicated safety inspectors riding herd on offshore wells, then you can at least make drilling as safe as possible and maybe safe enough. Without competent government regulation, it's bye-bye birdie.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[Shakrai]

Clinton managed to balance the budget by cutting the fat

Clinton did that because he was too busy arguing with a GOP Congress to expand Government in a manner beneficial to his base. Do you really think he would have done the same if he had Pelosi and Reid running things? To flip it around, do you really think Bush would have driven our national checkbook into the red if he had to contend with an angry Democratic Congress instead of a sycophantic Republican one?

Divided Government is the only way to go as long as we are stuck with political parties that put duty to party ahead of duty to the country. You are a fool if you don't vote Republican for Congress in 2010.....

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[Shakrai]

The Republican Party has purged most of its moderates

That's not fair. The Republican Party lost most of it's moderates because they lost the middle of this country. Moderates are easier to vote out of office than hard-core ideologues because moderates usually hail from balanced districts that aren't gerrymandered for partisan advantage.

When the Democrats get clobbered in November it's going to be all the blue dog moderate Democrats that get swept out of office. Nancy Pelosi and her ilk will still be there. Will you then claim that the Democrats "purged" the moderates from their party?

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[zippthorne]

Bush light? Are you talking about Black-Hillary?

Bush II was a compromise candidate just like you seem to think Obama was. How else do you think we got that gigantic Medicare Prescription Drug.. Thing.. that no one really wanted? Very few people voted for Bush. The "right" was mostly just voting for "not-gore" and "not-kerry."

If the Democrats had fielded serious candidates instead of ridiculous caricatures, things would've turned out differently. As it was, there were enough people voting "not-bush" (I'm not convinced many people voted "for" kerry or gore any more than the right voted "for" bush.) that it was still pretty close, which really says something about how crappy the candidates are and how trapped people are by the two-party political machine.

Come to think of it, if the Republicans had fielded a serious candidate instead of Maverick-Hillary, maybe things would've turned out differently then as well. Why vote for the guy who will "compromise" and do everything the Democrats want when you can just vote for an actual Democrat instead?

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[demonlapin]

You could have gone for Hillary. I'm a Republican, but if you get me good and drunk I'll admit that she was the best major candidate in the last election.

Democratic caucus and primary voters: I BLAME YOU!

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[Shakrai]

If we nationalized just one company for screwing up

Good luck explaining to everybody with a 401(k) why you stole part of their hard earned money....

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[zippthorne]

You seem pretty knowledgeable about this climate thing. Can you give me a link to the data behind the famous Mann graph?

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[demonlapin]

Barack Obama has been president for nearly a year and a half. At some point, he's got to own it.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[DustyShadow]

Republican Congress in the 90s.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you actually suggesting that this isn't what the government does? Then why do we have more government AND more debt than ever?

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[The Snowman]

Governments will always expand to consume any additional revenue they acquire, and invariably will commit to long-term spending obligations when faced with temporary windfalls.

I really, really hate these libertarian "laws". No basis in reality -- just Ayn Rand-inspired nonsense.

Yeah, it is nonsense. Governments expand beyond their revenue, and make long-term spending obligations regards of income. There are no limits, so why pretend that there are?

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[SBFCOblivion]

At least Bush was just an idiot with Katrina.

I hate Bush as much as the next guy but I don't understand why so many harass him for Katrina. Why not place blame on the people who were supposed to be running the state? They live below sea level for fuck sake. Did they not anticipate that something bad may happen?

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[fluffy99]

What part of readily available and works did you miss? BP still chose to use what was already on-hand somewhere (not a piddly amount off in Britain) of a chemical that has historically been used effectively.

Which US companies do you propose we hire? How about the ones with lots of deep sea drilling an oil clean expertise. Oh that's right, they are already on the job being paid by BP. I still don't understand the misconception that there are experts out there who are not already on this.

The only thing the Navy has that can go to that depth is their deep submersible rescue vehicles. They would be far less useful than the specialty ROVs that are already on site. The use of ROVs as is, must be carefully coordinated so you don't entangle their lines and you don't want a third party running something down there. I can speak with some authority on this as I happen to work with large underwater structures via ROVs and top-side support barges.

At this point, oil booms at sensitive areas with proper collection will only limit the damage. There just isn't enough oil booms or even production capacity in the world to totally contain this.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[fluffy99]

I hate replying to myself, but thought I'd put the whole dispersant thing in perspective. Lets assume they are trying to treat a volume that's 20 miles x 20 miles x 1000 feet deep. That's around 87 trillion gallons or somewhere around 6 parts per billion. Thats a really small number to worry about having any long term environmental impact once its mixed in. Short term exposure to a higher concentration is still an issue for marine life, but its probably less problematic than the oil itself.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[Culture20]

Clinton managed to balance the budget by cutting the fat.

Huh? He's been lampooned for his chubby-chasing.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[greg_barton]

You awe pretty easily.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[AK Marc]

Ah but here were are now there is not enough boom to do "proper fucking booming" so what exactly should they do? Nothing?

Why not? What they are doing is no better than none at all, and it would have saved money and time to not waste resources. Best would have been to prioritize coastline and lay it right in the highest priority areas. But then, they'd cover less than 1/4 the currently covered area, and you'd have to tell all the people you didn't serve that they weren't worth saving. Would you want to run for reelection after telling Alabama that Texas was more important than them? Could you trust the politicians to save Louisiana when Florida has more electoral votes? No, you just lay what you have, claim "we are out, even though we lied when we said we could handle such a problem" and move on, with no one specifically prioritized over anyone else. It's no better than doing nothing, but it looks like you are doing something and doesn't piss off people as much as doing it right.

why can't we portray thing accurately?

My understanding is that they lied to congress in order to get some of the leases they have. They overstated their ability to respond, and as such, the company should have all leases in the Gulf canceled (without refund) and anyone that sat in front of Congress should be in jail. You want accuracy? Start with responsibility. Otherwise, there's no reason for accuracy. It doesn't matter whether you hit the middle of the dart board or miss and hit the wall if you are given the same score for trying.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[AK Marc]

I would have had to leave the country out of sheer embarrassment if they had been elected.

I saw the choices and got the hell out. A choice between evil and lesser evil? I'll move somewhere where I'll get a choice between annoying and lesser annoying. Oh, and lower taxes and socialized medicine...

And just electing Jr was enough to cause embarrassment. The fact he got reelected sealed my choice to leave. Not because of him, as that would be fixed in 4 years, but because the people that elected him proved they couldn't be trusted with my future.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[AK Marc]

They will blame it all on Transocean and tie this thing up in court for decades.

They can't. For one, the rig is owned by Transocean, but is was being run by BP (even though there were more Transocean employees on the rig than BP). BP accepted any and all responsibility by taking the lease and operating the rig. If they can blame Transocean, great. Then the $150,000,000,000 cleanup cost comes in, they can sue the crap out of Transocean (but then good luck getting another rig from them, and they are the largest drilling company on the plant with the best and most advanced deepwater rigs on the planet).

But if you hire a contractor to build you a house, and a subcontractor of yours screws up, then you don't go after the subcontractor (unless the contractor goes out of business). You go after the person you have the business relationship with. They can go after others, if they see fit, but that's not your worry. And their actions don't hold up your court processes.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[spun]

Clinton managed to balance the budget by cutting the fat.

Huh? He's been lampooned for his chubby-chasing.

Budump-cha! That was Culture2.0 folks, he'll be here all week. Be sure to tip your veal and try the waitress.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[catmistake]

I think the President could be more proactive here. This is important. A measure should be rushed through Congres: if drilling will ever be allowed in the Gulf of Mexico again, only the oil companines that help right now, right quick will ever be considered for permits. I don't care if it wasn't Exxon or Shell, they should help too if they want to drill there.

This spill is going to adversely and directly effect far more American citizens than all the employees of all the oil companies in the world combined. This should be a massive effort, one for the history books, one which documentaries are made about in years to come praising the impossible things that Man can do when they coordinate properly. The Federal Government should take over the coordination of the cleanup and all information, by way of appointing the most honest, most knowledgeable, and most experienced to lead the task, and give them the needed powers over the resources of BP and other oil companies to complete it.

Volunteers should be recruited from the coastal areas of all the states in the Gulf of Mexico, and along the eastern seaboard of the US, where the Gulf Stream is probably going to eventually deposit oil from this spill. Everyone that might be affected should be given the opportunity to try to help, and accomodations arrainged for them so that they may be able to (travel and lodging at the very least)..

The MMC should be cleansed of Big Oil stooges.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[spun]

It was Clinton's push to cut the fat and raise taxes that did it.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[spun]

Try wikipedia or google, I'm not your encyclopedia.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[spun]

I went for Hillary in the primary...

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the biggest fallacies in government budgeting. Clinton, or more specifically Gingrinch since Congress controls spending, NEVER balanced the budget. Congress uses two sets of books. One set, the one you quote, takes excess payments to SS and Medicare and puts them in the general fund giving Congress Billions extra to spend without deficit spending. The second book, the one they require any business to run by, puts the liabilities of future SS and Medicare payments on it. To balance the budget this second set of books would have to balance.

Its a bit like having Al Capone tell you the books are balanced and everything is fine.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[phantomfive]

He also got lucky to be president in the 90s, when revenue was increasing faster than they could spend it. Even California managed to have a balanced budget for part of the 90s.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[retchdog]

Assuming that "screwing up" means "causing damage beyond what their capitalization can repair", then the explanation is simply that they invested in a company which took on an unmanagably large uninsured risk and is now bankrupt. Not such a strange concept really. I guess they should have invested more wisely. Speaking of which, note, assuming they have a diverse enough portfolio, the surviving company/ies will pick up some of the slack and mitigate this somewhat. Ideally the government would sell of the assets to these companies (this is what typically happens in foreclosure, yes?) and basically ensure that this happens.

If there were never downfalls to investors, ever, it'd be a perpetual motion machine of profit without responsibility.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[rtb61]

The booms were designed to contain not protect. The closer to the source of the leak the more effectively you can 'contain' the out of control oil gushers. It is completely delusional to think that thousands of kilometres of coast can be protected by booms, wind, wave and tidal motions will make that fail every time.

Right now you are just looking at a big bullshit publicity stunt, one designed to attack the government to failing to achieve the impossible and the other the corporate one, they created the leak but the government failed to limit the damage they created so it is not their fault any more.

There is only one place to block the pollution being poured into the gulf and that is at it's source anything is a bullshit politicising and a lie. No matter what there was only ever enough equipment to contain it at it's source (surface spills only) beyond that, profits first last and everything and deregulation promotes profits whilst regulation increases costs.

The horse has bolted, the mirror has been broken, the oil rig blew up as a result of greed driven mismanagement, either contain the flow at it's source or suffer the consequences and forget that sand shifting crap of building a new coastline in front of the old coastline to protect the old coastline from the oil flow and then digging up that new contaminated coast line that my miracle has been washed away by wind and surf and dumping 'er' into outer space (the republican solution).

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[ravenshrike]

The biggest debt producing thing Bush passed was Medicare part D. And that was less debt producing than the program that Democrats wanted to pass.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[Shakrai]

then the explanation is simply that they invested in a company which took on an unmanagably large uninsured risk and is now bankrupt

If they go bankrupt as a result of the cleanup then you would have a point. Those are the breaks of investment. The post that I replied to was advocating nationalizing them as a punitive measure. That's not the same thing as a company that goes bankrupt because it ran out of money.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[Shakrai]

The biggest debt producing thing Bush passed was Medicare part D

His tax cuts had some deficit implications as well. Not that I disagree with the notion of lower taxes, but it's rather stupid to lower taxes without cutting spending. The Congress had no motivation to do that and Bush didn't press the issue because his party was running the place.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[ravenshrike]

Pretty sure he owned this as soon as he took the most money from BP of any candidate and waited over 9 days to get anyone at all in the government moving on this.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[timmarhy]

what laws were broken or not enforced in the building of this rig? by all accounts i can see this is just an unfortunate accident, sure the rig could have been designed better, but everyone is an expert in hindsight.

it's unbelievable that you are trying to pin this on republicans. you americans need to wake up to the fact there's more to the world then democrat vs republican.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[ravenshrike]

No, all 'corrected' climate change data is there for people to see. The NOAA and other agencies don't to my knowledge release the raw computer files and current within the last 3 years conditions of each of their temperature stations. Combined with the number of stations that have disappeared in the past 20 years and the current data is fucking useless.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice try. The media certainly has perpetuated the myth that Clinton was fiscally responsible.

No, Bill Clinton Didn't Balance The Budget

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[Mspangler]

Clinton cut nothing from the budget. Newt Gingrich did he cutting.

And yes, the current deficit's are technically Pelosi's.

Article 1:

Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[spun]

Read this thread, I'm not repeating it here for your convenience. Or look it up on wikipedia, you'll find the article well referenced. Laws were broken. But I'm not trying to pin this on Republicans, whatever Bush did or did not do, this happened on Obama's watch. If Bush put in anti-government Republicans, Obama could have replaced them with socialists, right? Except he isn't one, he's a corporate centrist, and lax regulation enforcement suited him just fine.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[spun]

But Clinton proposed the budget cuts. And the tax increases, which according to Republican propagnda should have lowered revenue. Whoopsie, looks like the facts have a liberal bias again.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[spun]

Old news, the raw data is available.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[sjames]

Restitution? You mean paying fishermen, restaurants, hotels, etc. all the money they would have made if the oil spill hadn't hit? What are you going to do -- write off New Orleans and put everybody on the dole?

So you DON'T believe BP should be required to make the parties they've damaged whole? Why not? I would go further still and say they should be on the hook for subsidizing fish at the market so that consumers don't feel a pinch from tighter supplies. Why should anyone but BP suffer for BP's negligence?

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[Hurricane78]

FUCKING NEITHER?? DUH! Is that so hard to grasp?

Are you cattle or what? Create a party! Vote a small party! Rise up! There are tons of ways.

But nooo. “My master did only offer me those two options, so I can only choose those two.” Bitch bitch bitch. What a good little indoctrinated drone you are!

I. Hate. People. With. A. Tiny. Confined. Mind.
You can replace them all with a very small shell script, and not notice the difference.

Yep, that was not nice of me. But sometimes enough is just enough.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[timmarhy]

that's funny because i find your blind faith in government departments leaves ME speechless.

look at what you are saying. private companys can't do it right but somehow big government will be perfect? have you ever even dealt with a government department before?!?! they are accountable to no one, you have no choice either.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[dangitman]

and gold balls

Holy crap, they are literally throwing money at the big corporations, aren't they?

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[Klinky]

Who does the Government usually contract out to? Private Enterprise. They're in bed together. Corruption is the problem, not capitalism vs socialism or big vs small government.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[nbauman]

look at what you are saying. private companys can't do it right but somehow big government will be perfect? have you ever even dealt with a government department before?!?! they are accountable to no one, you have no choice either.

I really hate straw men. I never said government will be perfect.

Sometimes private companies get it right, and sometimes they screw up royally. (Contrary to capitalist theory, the prospect of having their stockholders loose a lot of money doesn't seem to be much of a deterrent.)

Sometimes the government gets it right, and sometimes it screws up royally.

If you're dealing with really critical operations where you have a chance to do massive, irrepairable damage beyond the ability of anyone to repair, like nuclear power plants or the aircraft industry -- places where you really must not screw up -- then you need both private companies and oversight by government.

As the WSJ pointed out, both the Democrats and Republicans had cut back on regulating oil rig safety. They let the oil companies do what they wanted. As a result, BP skipped some safety procedures and devices.

BP filled the well with cement, let the cement set, and tested it to make sure it could hold pressure and they could remove the drilling mud.

The tests showed it was leaking and couldn't hold pressure. (According to one of the manufacturers' web sites, the cement works about 90% of the time, but sometimes you have to redo it.) In order to redo it, they would have had to go through an elaborate procedure that would cost a few more million dollars and take a few more weeks (time=lots of money).

So they ignored the tests, removed the mud, and the well blew, killing 11 workers, destroying a $600 million platform, and filling the Gulf with oil.

I'll be looking forward to the hearings and courtroom cross-examinations where the people responsible for that decision will be forced to explain why they did it.

Given the dangers involved to human life, the environment and the Gulf economy, and given the controversy and history of disasters in these platforms, they should have had a government inspector reviewing the critical procedures.

Assuming we had a competent government inspector, instead of a hack political employee, the inspector would have held up progress until they were sure the cement actually was sealing the well. BP probably would have bitched, and the WSJ would have written editorials about government bureaucrats starving America for oil, but they wouldn't have had this blowout.

To answer your question, yes I've dealt with government departments. I've dealt with state and federal government officials in charge of worker safety, nuclear power plant safety, and safety and efficacy of new drugs. In my experience, they were pretty fucking smart. And they were dedicated to public safety.

That was not always true of private industry. Read Ralph Nader's Unsafe at Any Speed. Why did American auto manufacturers build cars that they knew would needlessly kill people? I could never figure it out.

I will admit that when the Republicans took over the government, they destroyed the regulatory agencies. And the "new" Democrats like Bill Clinton and Obama aren't much better.

That's true. As long as you have politicians and voters who don't believe government can do anything right, that may be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

And it doesn't work when their major campaign contributors are the industry they're supposed to be regulating.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[laejoh]

Those birds were fucking and flying at the same time? Wow, that must have been a sight!

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, that's totally interesting, I was comparing Obama to Reagan just the other day. My rational was that both of them were easy to like, both of them were inspiring, and both of them had good ideas that were flawed in the implementation. It's like Obama is the Reagan of the left.

Excellent post--I'm going to remember "Obama is the Reagan of the left."

And it's "rationale."

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[nbauman]

You must be an economist if you think you can make the parties whole with enough money.

My point is that the damage of the oil spill can't be undone. BP doesn't have enough money to make the parties whole. You can't clean a wetland.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[laura20]

Given that the monologue they are using is from a poster at the very liberal DailyKos, you might be kind of dumb.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[Mr Bubble]

This is an excellent response. I see someone down thread has posted the fucking proper fucking booming video. Hysterical, but sad. BTW - you should skip to 1:54, I think, that's when the relevant part is. The other problem with the booms is that this is not a spill from above, this is a leak from below - waaaay below. Because the dispersant is being shot into the high pressure stream at depth and because of the fractionation as it rises through the water column, this oil acts differently than usual spills. It seems to be some sort of foam - or emulsification. I think there is probably a lot of oil that goes right under the booms.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[Mr Bubble]

"The biggest debt producing thing Bush passed was Medicare part D"

Ummm, what about the Tax cuts and the optional Iraq war? That's about 2.5 trillion right there.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[amRadioHed]

Your reference to the Mythical Man Month is irrelevant to the discussion. Measuring the flow of oil and cleaning up the oil are independent tasks that can be run in parallel without slowing each other down. This is not a situation where the mythical man month applies.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[amRadioHed]

Sorry, but given our current voting system third parties are usually a wasted vote. You have to consider the limitations of your voting system when deciding how best to vote, and our first past the post voting system is severely limited.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[sjames]

No, I'm not an economist and have no delusion that they can ACTUALLY repair the damage with money. I do, however, believe that forcing them to try is a valuable economic feedback mechanism in a political environment that will accept only a capitalist solution. This has the nice side effect that it will cost them orders of magnitude more than doing the job with appropriate precautions would.

At the very least it's better than allowing them to do nothing and just letting the affected parties go on welfare (and by doing that sending them the signal to cut all the corners they want and let the peasants clean up the mess).

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[amRadioHed]

Nice dream. In the real world creating a party of your own or voting third-party is more likely to allow the greater of two evils to win then to cause any real benefit. Our countries voting system sucks and makes it almost impossible to vote for who you really like without unintentionally helping a candidate who you really, really don't like. Realistic activists hold their nose and vote for the lesser of two evils while pushing for electoral reform that could actually enable them to make a difference.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[amRadioHed]

How is it that "not-gore" and "not-kerry" was able to win, while "not-bush" wasn't? Whatever the reason, Bush's re-election still makes the American electorate look dumbfoundingly ignorant. There's not way either Kerry or Gore would have been worse as President.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[Atomic Fro]

Obama could have made that happen a month ago.

That can mean only one thing: Barack Obama hates black people.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[amRadioHed]

Upset, not surprised. How does that make him a sucker?

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[amRadioHed]

Why the Hobson's Choice? Can't FEMA be criticized for their slow response while also criticizing the poor planning of the local governments? I think with a disaster on the scale of Katrina there's plenty of criticism to be shared with all involved.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[djdevon3]

What color is oil? You got it all wrong. :)

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[Pharmboy]

No, I was aware of them not using booms correctly before the big publicity stunt. It is common fucking sense that you can't just corral oil forever, you have to remove it or it overflows and defeats the booms. They are finally pumping at the well head to limit the outflow, but this isn't the first time we have deployed booms, it is just the least effective.

No one expects booms to be 100% effective. The current system is 0% effective, but no oil has been removed and will still hit the shores, if a week later.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[KDR_11k]

But you can at least bleed BP dry and hope that it makes other oil companies secure their facilities more. I get the feeling that BP is going to come out of this whole mess without significant damage so they'd have no reason to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[bhtooefr]

Except they're both lying politicians. So you're throwing your vote away if you're voting for the lesser of two evils.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[sonicmerlin]

I can't believe you linked to the Cato Institute. Do you realize how much they lie and distort the truth? I also can't believe spun was labelled flamebait for calling out Cato on their lies. Pathetic.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[bhtooefr]

Yes, but the more people that are willing to waste their vote, the less that it actually is wasting a vote.

And voting against, rather than for, someone, IMO, is worse than wasting a vote.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[Anonymous Coward]

BP has lied about the flow rate and did not release data that would allow scientists to judge it. All they would have to do is release their data, which would not stop the effort to stop the flow. In fact, knowing the size of the flow is kind of crucial to stopping it.

BP should be fined and sued out of existence after this fiasco. The executives should be tarred and feathered. Period. Full stop.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[nbauman]

Do you think it's possible to make Louisiana "whole" if the oil spill hits the wetlands?

I don't. Prince William Sound never recovered from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill#Cleanup_measures_and_environmental_consequences

The oil companies pay "restitution" at a deep discount.

We don't know what all the damage is. The oil companies only pay for the damage we know about. So they get off free for all the damage we don't know about.

And you can't quantify some damages. When I go to New Orleans, I used to see the birds. Now I might not. What's the value of that? How much should BP compensate me? Do I get a voucher for $20 that I can use to watch wildlife documentaries instead?

These environmental catastrophes don't destroy the inefficient, incompetent companies. The last company I heard of that was destroyed because of its incompetence was Johns-Manville, the asbestos company that knew according to confidential company memos that its asbestos was killing people but didn't tell its customers. (In France, the executives would have gone to jail.) They were hit with a lot of product liability suits and went bankrupt. Now they're back in business. Suppose you get mesothelioma, which means you're going to die at age 45 rather than age 75. You sue the asbestos company and get $3 million. Does that make you whole? No, you're still dead. Maybe you would be happy to die if you got $30 million instead. But you can only get so much money out of the asbestos companies, because they're bankrupt.

Conclusion: You can't make people whole after they're harmed. In fact, the threat of massive damages doesn't even deter companies from taking risks that will harm the population. You can only prevent harm beforehand, by having the government regulate dangerous industries. If you cut government regulations, like Bush (and now Obama) did, you're going to have disasters, and the companies responsible can't make the victims whole.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck voting. Tar and feather the lot of them; as they have been so gracious to have provided us an excess of tar at the moment.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[jbengt]

While you're right that mixing the Social Security//Medicare funds with the general budget gives a false sense of budget security (or at least it has for the past few decades while the large numbers of baby-boomer workers per retiree were contributing to what should have been a build-up of SS trust fund), Clinton/Gingrinch did not make up the budgeting rules, and they did indeed balance the budget under the rules in place.
The US government runs on a cash basis, which is a very straightforward, legitimate accounting method. Most businesses run on an accrual basis, which would require entering a present liability for obligations to be paid in the future and would require entering accounts receivable as income. In spite of your statement that all companies must take that budgeting path, none of the companies that have employed me for the past 30 years used accrual accounting, they all all ran on a cash basis. This gave them a more conservative income statement, since accounts receivable were not counted as income (They had fairly regular expenses but often had significant, months- to year-long, delays between sending a bill and receiving full payment, and occasionally didn't collect at all).
Even on an accrual basis, there were one or two years of slight surpluses (though not enough to keep SS solvent when the baby boomers retire)

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[Anonymous Coward]

Voting for evil is still evil. You would be better off voting for no one. At least then, you don't legitimize the process. If you don't want idiots claiming you're too lazy to vote, then show up, collect your ballot, and drop it in the box blank. If you're voting for a slime ball like Obama or Bush, you are part of the problem.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[jbengt]

If an individual did something like this, they would end up in jail.
Something analogous needs to be done to companies that negligently or fraudulently harm the public.
While I'm not fond of the idea of government ownership, I would have no problem with nationalizing them long enough to sell them off, or otherwise destroying the company.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[jbengt]

It's not who's losing general elections that cause me to say the Republicans has purged most of the moderates.
It's who's losing in the Republican primaries.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[Anonymous Coward]

Interestingly enough, the Swiss are already there! Swiss Oil has operations in Texas:

http://swiss-oil-gas.com/

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[Maestro4k]

I hate Bush as much as the next guy but I don't understand why so many harass him for Katrina. Why not place blame on the people who were supposed to be running the state? They live below sea level for fuck sake. Did they not anticipate that something bad may happen?

As I recall, it's the Army Corps of Engineers who were (and still are) responsible for the levee system that protects New Orleans. So that would make it pretty plainly a federal failure from that standpoint.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[sonicmerlin]

In fact Gore won the election. What are you going to do when Supreme Court judges overstep their boundaries and hand the presidency to Republicans? Gore also has extremely progressive views on technology and the economy that would have greatly helped our nation out.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[sonicmerlin]

Reagen had very, very few good ideas. His deregulatory policies ushered in an age of corporation-wedded government that has severely widened the gap between rich and poor in this country, shifted the entire political spectrum to the right- at complete odds with the rest of the world- and resulted in massive deficits that we are continuing to pile up.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[budgenator]

There are 4 countries that border the United States, Canada, Mexico, Russia and Cuba. Cuba leasing drilling and production rights to Venezuela or Russia is a very real possibility.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[phantomfive]

at complete odds with the rest of the world

People keep saying this sort of thing as if it's some kind of reasonable argument.....who cares what the rest of the world thinks? Is that how you make all your decisions in life? Worrying what other people think? You sir, are an idiot.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[Civil_Disobedient]

I remember sitting by a lake in New Orleans, and having these big, beautiful fucking birds fly down right next to me. You can't clean up those birds when they're covered with oil. Expert Recommends Killing Oil-Soaked Birds.

You think it's bad now, just wait until this hits Florida & the Keys. Which it will undoubtedly do.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[boxwood]

Republican congress *and* president 2001 to 2009

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[boxwood]

yes. do proper booming in areas that need it most. Catch as much as you can and protect as much as you can.

In medicine when there's a disaster or war, you have too many patients and not enough doctors so you do whats called triage. Yeah it looks bad when some patients die because they don't get treatment, but you save more lives. You don't run around putting band-aids on everyone just so you look like you're doing something.

What they're doing now is not protecting anything. They're just making it look like the booms don't work. But the booms do work if used properly. But they don't have enough, because they weren't prepared.

They right thing to do would be to admit they don't have enough booms to protect the entire gulf, and use what they have to protect as much as they can. But they'd rather shift the blame from themselves (for not being prepared) to the booms for not being effective. And then cover up that the booms are ineffective because they aren't using them right.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[budgenator]

Halliburton did the cementing that may or may not have failed and we'll never know for sure. The cement could have been good and there could easily have been enough Methane clathrate to blowout the well without the cement failing since the well was kicking all of the way down.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[sjames]

Yeah, we should just let them off the hook entirely, that'll teach them a lesson they'll never forget!

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[spun]

Hadn't thought about that, fractionation, plus, there's gas in the oil, it's straight out of the ground, so, an emulsified foam. I think it would go over and under the booms. And yeah, I learned everything I know about fucking booming from booming school 101.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[Patch86]

And why, pray, should the US government be able to force nationalisation of a global company HQd in the UK, when less than half of it's oil and gas fields are in US territory?

Not that I'm saying you couldn't, but simply nationalising every company that cocks up seems stupid. Bill them for whatever the colossal cost of this mess is, hit them with some big fines for any wrongdoing for good measure, and then either kick them out of the country or (and here's a thought) enforce proper regulations on them and everyone else so they can't do such stupid things in the future.

If they can't abide by sensible regulations while maintaining profitable then you'll find they'll kick themselves out pretty swiftly.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[budgenator]

Obama could have, not given BP a free-pass on the environmental impact statement before they started drilling . Obama could have established some rational regulations if they weren't so worried about passing the useless healthcare bill. Obama is up to his eyeballs in this mess.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[Anonymous Coward]

Please only complain about capitalism when bad things happen.
Without capitalism we never would have drilled in the first place.

I think the positive benefit we have received outweighs the negative effects that are happening.

On average capitalism is always more effective.
Why scrap a proven system because of a few "minor" errors?

Everywhere socialism has ever been tried it has always failed.
Everywhere capitalism has ever been tried it has always produced a better way of life.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[Anonymous Coward]

Reagan was remarkably moderate, likely due to cosmopolitan life in Hollywood. He wasn't of the frothing "God Hate Fags" persuasion typical of recent Republicans, and his communication skill made him appealing.

The Republican Party has purged most of its moderates, so we'll not see his like for a very long time.

ROTFL. Reagan was not a moderate. He was an extreme right winger and hated ordinary people. We are still suffering from his policies. His policies led to the decline in living standards for 99% of the population. He is the one responsible for massive deregulation that led to much damage to the economy and the environment and the food supply.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[Anonymous Coward]

The biggest debt producing thing Bush passed was Medicare part D. And that was less debt producing than the program that Democrats wanted to pass.

Wrong! It was the unnecessary wars that he Bush started that was the biggest debt producer plus his trade policies.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[bnenning]

In the real world creating a party of your own or voting third-party is more likely to allow the greater of two evils to win then to cause any real benefit.

In the real world, it's more likely that Earth will be swallowed by a giant space goat than that your individual vote will decide an election. A vote for a third party carries much more proportional weight than voting for the lesser of two evils. Nobody cares if the Republicrats win with 53 or 54 percent of the vote. The libertarians or greens jumping from 1 percent to 2 will have much more of an impact.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[Anonymous Coward]

"We are trying plans based on false data and I don't see how you think just 'throwing everything at it' is any kind of a plan."

It isn't a plan. It was a description of the effort people would put into it, particularly the cleanup/containment at the surface. A plan would be figuring out exactly where to expend the limited resources you have. Which direction the oil drifts and the shoreline and weather conditions are more likely to be a factor in that evaluation than amounts. I can't see how the plan for cleanup at the surface is going to be affected by anything less than orders of magnitude variations in flow at the source. What, if it is 1000 barrels/day they're going to deploy fewer booms or differently than if it is 10000 barrels/day? I highly doubt it. They're still going to deploy all the booms they can get and they'll deploy them in the same places where they will make the greatest difference.

You may be right that the flow rate matters more to plugging the flow in the BOP with the junk shot, but it isn't possible to precisely estimate the flow rate anyway when you've got a mix of oil and gas spewing out (the gas expands enormously as the pressure changes). They're going to make a guess, add safety factors to it, pump the stuff in there, and see what happens. If it doesn't work they'll change the pressure/amount/composition of the stuff they are pumping in and try again. Again, I doubt anything less than orders of magnitude variation in flow rate matters to the strategy used. It may matter to what eventually works, but since they can't accurately measure it anyway and there are other factors in the success, what's the point in expending a lot of effort trying to get a precise number? When well blowouts happen on land do they really sit down and try to precisely measure the flow rate, or do they make a rough estimate of what it is from the pipe diameter and pressure and get on with it?

My interpretation of the fascination with the flow rate is that people want to know exactly how angry to be at BP, as if 10000 barrels/day justifies twice the anger that 5000 barrels/day does. I've yet to see any detailed reason why it matters to the strategy used.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[Anonymous Coward]

But you are a fucking faggot.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[HereIAmJH]

But you can at least bleed BP dry and hope that it makes other oil companies secure their facilities more.

If you really want to strike fear in the hearts of oil executives, tell them you are going to shut down ALL of their off shore operations until they certify that their blowout preventers actually work.

While the effects of everything BP/Transocean had done at this site has been tragic, it wouldn't have been catastrophic if the BOP has performed it's sole task. And in my mind that raises doubts on the entire industry. If a component on an aircraft failed like this, every aircraft using it would have been grounded until they were re-certified.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[budgenator]

Wouldn't NPR being not very critical of Obama be like Rush Limbaugh not being very critical of George Bush?

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[roman_mir]

By politics Obama is on the left, by their policy, I'd say that Obama is exactly like Reagan on the right.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[HereIAmJH]

Clinton managed to balance the budget by cutting the fat.

I don't have the budget totals in front of me to verify, but I don't think it was as much cutting spending as it was limiting increases, and allowing the revenue to grow faster than the spending. Unfortunately, I don't think it's an option to do that today. Debt maintenance on $12 trillion is too high. We will soon be at a point where debt surpasses GDP. Clinton's balanced budget is a myth, even in his best year he still spent $17 billion more than was brought in.

If you want the bald facts of 'Tax and Spend';

Reagan, the conservative icon, nearly tripled the national debt through military spending and tax cuts for the wealthy. We broke the $1 trillion mark during his presidency. Overall, we increased the debt by $1.7 trillion during those 8 years.

Bush Sr, $1.5 trillion additional debt in only 4 years. And note that the debt rose faster than GDP. Carter, another 1 term president and often criticized for stagflation oversaw a term where GDP grew at more than twice the growth in debt.

Clinton, $1.6 trillion additional debt and GDP grew twice that. We were certainly on the right track then.

Bush Jr, $4.3 trillion additional debt and $4.5 trillion GDP growth. And we crossed the $10 trillion debt mark. Just to put this in perspective, the tax cuts and military spending increased the debt during his presidency by an amount more than the debt of ALL administrations prior to Clinton's, combined. When Bush Sr left office we had $4 trillion in debt.

As far as a net drop in debt, there hasn't been one since 1957-Eisenhower (year over year).

The numbers, btw, are actual debt numbers from the Treasury Departments web site. They are facts, not numbers manipulated by the CBO or partisan politics. And if the Republicans are looking for a real fiscal icon, maybe they should look at Coolidge, the last president to lower the debt during his term.

 

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[budgenator]

Risers: Vetco HMF-Class H 21in OD riser; 90 ft long joints with C&K and booster and hydraulic supply line

GE Oil and Gas states: 15 or 20 KSI @ 350F. Up to 7.00 MM ft lbs bending, 18-3/4” nominal bore, 2.00 MM lbs 1st position casing hanger capacity, 2.00 MM lbs 16” sub mudline casing hanger capacity FullBore

BOP:
2 x Cameron Type TL 18¾in 15K double preventers;
1 x Cameron Type TL 18¾in 15K single preventer;
Cameron DWHC 18¾in *15K wellhead connector
a 15,000 psi pipe that are engineered to be near neutral buoyancy and supports 2 million pound casing string just doesn't fit my definition of thin-walled

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[budgenator]

Most of the incumbents have been blown out of the water during the primaries, Obama will face a very different Congress after the mid-term elections and he's acting like a lame duck right now.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[ciggieposeur]

It's like Obama is the Reagan of the left.

Obama is actually center-right, not left. Just like Clinton in 1992, and the other Clinton in 2008.

The only person who ran from the left in 2008 was Kucinich.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[phantomfive]

Dude, he can be whatever you want when you can define 'left' and 'right' however you want. Stop splitting hairs, it's pointless.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[budgenator]

Wimps, take the same people move them to "new" agencies and automagicaly the "it's different when we do the same thing a Bush did because we're not Bush and Bush is EVIL(tm)" effect takes over! The only way to be sure is to nuc'em from orbit, everyone with less than 10 years on the job gets the bum's rush to the door; that way all of the EVIL(tm) moles from the bush administration are gone

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[budgenator]

Old news, the raw data is available.

I've never have found it, only stuff available is adjusted, any links would be greatly appreciated.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[Inthewire]

So what part of your sig agrees with your post?

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[Anonymous Coward]

My friend is in the coast guard on the gulf coast. He hasn't been told to do a thing.

According to the video everyone has been citing, the coast guard knows a thing or two about fucking proper fucking booming.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, knowing the size of the flow is kind of crucial to stopping it.

Hasn't it been clear right from the start based on the, allegedly understated, size of the spill, that this was not going to be "stopped." No way, no how.

The amount of double booms needed to stop this do not exist. That's why there is no question of containment, only minimization. Talk about stopping this is just so much wishful thinking.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[koreaman]

you americans need to wake up to the fact there's more to the world then democrat vs republican.

I friended you for this comment.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[goose-incarnated]

GP didn't present a Hobsons Choice - two options were clear, not one.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[Legion303]

Guys, guys. Can't we all just agree that both republicans AND democrats suck?

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[Legion303]

"(In France, the executives would have gone to jail.)"

In China they would have been shot.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[slick7]

Personally, I do not buy from BP, nor will I anytime in the near future. Hit them where it really hurts, the bottom line, since that is all that matters to them.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[Anonymous Coward]

actually it was a filibuster-locked republican congress from 2001 to 2006, and then a filibuster-locked democrat congress from 2006-2010.

Re:Not very critical, actually.

[spun]

All of it. The fact that you don't get that leads me to believe you are one of those people who love license, not freedom. License means 'I get to do whatever I want.' Freedom is a contract, it requires a trade off, you have to give something to get something, you have to protect and defend it for others as well as yourself. Freedom means consequences for breaking the contract. For instance, in order to keep the markets free, we need regulations, and consequences for breaking them, otherwise, people will use the power they can amass in the markets to manipulate the markets in an unfree, coercive manner.

But you can just go on believing freedom means the four year old's cry of "you're not the boss of me!"

So from the title...

[Sooner Boomer]

...the booms went bust.

Re:So from the title...

[fbjon]

The defense booms went bust. Military-industrial complex requires more war!

Re:So from the title...

[spun]

Rather than war, couldn't we just set the military-industrial complex to the task of breaking windows and then fixing them?

Re:So from the title...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmph, if the military were able to sieze the Middle East's oil then this disaster wouldn't have happened because BP wouldn't have had to drill here. That's why we have to support our troops and take that sweet, sweet crude to power our oversized Chevy trucks.

DUH.

Also, what is the Middle East going to do with all that oil? They're still living in huts and barking at the moon every Friday. If the Russians didn't sell them AK's they'd still be chucking spears and rocks at each other.

Re:So from the title...

[X0563511]

Hmmph, if we were able to get off our asses and reduce/eliminate our oil dependence, this wouldn't have happened and we wouldn't be in the shitstorm commonly called the Middle East.

Re:So from the title...

[Jeremi]

Rather than war, couldn't we just set the military-industrial complex to the task of breaking windows and then fixing them?

Breaking things and then fixing them sounds like a pretty reasonable description of war, actually. (in particular, the war breaks things, and then the defense companies get taxpayer money to fix them (or produce more of them))

BP CEO Hayward Predicts 'very, very modest' Impact

[bird]

See http://youtube.com/watch?v=dseMhu5IjHo

One suspects that this will go down with "Heckuva job, Brownie" as one of the stoopidest and quickly-regreted public comments of all time.

Definition of Criticism?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's mostly about how a couple of scientists are critical of the fact ...

Sounds like it's critical to me. And they knock him for being a year late on a promised report when he campaigned on opening the government to the people. And this report could have helped in this situation?

How is that "not very critical, actually"?!

Re:Definition of Criticism?

[Anonymous Coward]

I could think of plenty of things to say to someone that should come off as much more critical than "Hey, you shouldn't be a late with your report". That doesn't sound "very critical" to me either. Depends on the definition of "very", of course.

Example of what would be very critical: "You, sir, are worse than Hitler!"

Re:Definition of Criticism?

[V!NCENT]

A) You are a retard for thinking a country needs one man and that man is supposed to be a super hero who can, just like KIm Jong Ill magically solve problems on his own.
B) Haven't kept up with the news as Obama took a shitload of stuff out the atchives and published it. I suggest you google "site:slashdot.org obama documents transparant".
C) Things take time. You think one man can solve government wide policies in a blink of an eye?

Get real...

Re:Definition of Criticism?

[Anonymous Coward]

You think one man can solve government wide policies in a blink of an eye?

Well if Obama can't organize to stop a bit of oil reaching the coast with hundreds of miles to do it in, what can he do? This wouldn't have happened if we had still had Cheney and the guys who understand oil in charge!

More worse?

[ari_j]

It could easily turn into the most worst environmental disaster in US history. It is already affecting basic grammar skills.

Re:More worse?

[macraig]

All that oil is greasing the vocal wheels and making them slip.

Re:More worse?

[game kid]

Don't inflate its impact so much. They just accidentally thousands of barrels of oil.

Re:More worse?

[couchslug]

"It is already affecting basic grammar skills."

This is teh US. Thoze r lowng ded frum uther kawzes.

Re:BP CEO Hayward Predicts 'very, very modest' Imp

[Arancaytar]

BP should pay a very, very modest fine.

Oil Arrives In Louisiana; Defense Booms Inadequate

[Anonymous Coward]

They tried this approach with the Italians in New York in the early 20th century, but it didn't work then either.

Re:BP CEO Hayward Predicts 'very, very modest' Imp

[Anonymous Coward]

considering Congress just voted to NOT remove the liability limits for oil companies I'd say he was probably thinking this whole thing will have a very, very modest impact on their bottom line. BP will be liable for 75 million and the American taxpayers will foot the rest. Just remember to vote GOP this fall; they're the only ones that can save small businesses like big oil.

Re:BP CEO Hayward Predicts 'very, very modest' Imp

[maxume]

It depends on what the actual flow rate is. If it is in the range of 20,000 barrels per day and they manage to close the thing off in the next few weeks, the gulf will probably shake the oil off fairly quickly (especially with various mitigation strategies eliminating thousands of those barrels).

If it is at 70 or 100 thousand barrels per day, then probably not.

Re:BP CEO Hayward Predicts 'very, very modest' Imp

[bersl2]

Modest fine my ass. If the stories about Schlumberger's test team being prevented by BP from running the tests and needing to call in a helocopter to GTFO before the shit hit the fan is true, BP's in deep shit.

Booming school 101

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they just failed booming school 101 and didn't know how to fucking do the fucking booming properly.

And if you are offended by the f-word, well, watch the video to the end, OK? I promise it makes sense.

Re:Oil Arrives In Louisiana; Defense Booms Inadequ

[gyrogeerloose]

They tried this approach with the Italians in New York in the early 20th century, but it didn't work then either.

They tried a hell of a lot harder than that right there in Louisiana back in 1891 and that didn't work either.

Re:BP CEO Hayward Predicts 'very, very modest' Imp

[slick7]

How can such an asshole say in the same breath "very, very modest" and "it's impossible to say"?
Only when the Earth itself rears its head in indignation will people begin to understand. I'm sure it will be very, very modest but impossible to say.

Booms work

[swillden]

Booms work when done properly.

Re:Booms work

[ByteSlicer]

You didn't pay enough attention to the fucking diary: fucking booms work when done fucking properly.

This is a joke.

[Antisyzygy]

This wouldnt even be a problem if we would stop relying on oil. Government and industry should invest more money into sustainable eco-friendly energy rather than defense or the next best entertainment unit. There is NO reason we shouldnt be relying on high speed rail between cities, solar energy plants, geothermal energy plants, nuclear energy plants, and wind farms. Additionally, we could easily use ultra-capacitors to power electric cars that would take us in a range of 500 + miles and have fast recharging. If you ask me, the entire system is designed to make the most profit for people that are already extremely well off. Its a joke.

Re:This is a joke.

[Antisyzygy]

If you really think about it, we are using an almost prehistoric way of getting from place to place.

Re:This is a joke.

[RazorSharp]

If you ask me, the entire system is designed to make the most profit for people that are already extremely well off. Its a joke.

Sounds like capitalism to me.

Re:This is a joke.

[Antisyzygy]

Unfortunately its not true capitalism. Frankly, our government is more like an oligarchy where instead of it being rich individuals its rich corporations. I wish someone would successfully implement Communism. Its an appealing concept that never worked because any communist revolution was always used as a vehicle to institute a tyrannical regime.

Re:This is a joke.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it is prehistoric. Oil supplies that we are using now had their source back when dinosaurs were roaming the plains. Heck, some of the deposits *predate* the dinosaurs!

Re:This is a joke.

[couchslug]

"Additionally, we could easily use ultra-capacitors to power electric cars that would take us in a range of 500 + miles and have fast recharging."

Wake me when I can order a suitable cap from Mouser or Digikey.

Re:This is a joke.

[Antisyzygy]

http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2009-07/eestor-almost-ready-lead-technological-revolution

Re:This is a joke.

[lotho brandybuck]

Yeah, I've been thinking lately that we're still using animal or plant based power.. just very old animals or plants. It's this paralytic american technosissyism. We need to go back to the moon, so we can claim we're capable of things becuase "they can put a man on the moon." Then we need to start doing shit. Quickly.

Well, I guess that came out a little disjointed. I'm very upset about a lot of stuff, and this blowout sorta put me over the edge.

Re:This is a joke.

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately its not true capitalism. Frankly, our government is an oligarchy

FTFY

Re:This is a joke.

[Jeremi]

I wish someone would successfully implement Communism. Its an appealing concept that never worked because any communist revolution was always used as a vehicle to institute a tyrannical regime.

Heh, kind of like saying that levitation is an appealing concept that never worked because gravity always causes unsupported objects to fall to the ground.

Re:This is a joke.

[Antisyzygy]

Yes but levitation is possible, an example is a helicopter, so thats a bad example. Why should an actor like Nicolas Cage be able to make 3.9 billion dollars in a 25 year career making mostly shitty movies (Leaving Las Vegas an exception amongst others) while a cop or a soldier who risks their life protecting people make less than 1.25 million over the same period? I understand its a side effect of capitalism, but I would rather engineers, scientists, and doctors make more money than some asshat who blows it all on shit he doesnt need.

Re:This is a joke.

[Shakrai]

Its an appealing concept

Not if you value freedom and self-determination.....

because any communist revolution was always used as a vehicle to institute a tyrannical regime

Many revolutions wind up being used as a vehicle to institute tyranny. Not every revolutionary is a George Washington, unfortunately....

Re:This is a joke.

[Black Gold Alchemist]

Bullshit. That company has not produced a product or even a successful demonstration of the technology. They are claiming they have something 50-60 times better than current technology. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary. And who wants an ultracap when you can have a SMES?

Want an electric car that you can afford? Get a huge van, fill it with 2 tons of lead acid battery. It will be ugly but it will work. Don't hope to recharge it at any decent rate, you'll only find an outlet big enough in a factory. When ever you here nano, think BS. It's going to be too expensive.

The best solution is to make gasoline in nuclear power plants. But we can't build any because we got too much greenpeace. Maybe China can?

Re:This is a joke.

[Anonymous Coward]

lol??

Seriously. You can get specialized transistors and diodes that operate @ 100kV+, yet you WILL NOT be able to buy them from Mouse or Digikey. They are specialty items. Just like anything else that is not mass produced or expensive enough.

Supercaps of that size are expensive as hell as there is very little demand for them. But then 20 years ago, lithium-ion batteries were also specialty items, inaccessible to regular buyer.

Re:This is a joke.

[Antisyzygy]

I agree that we need more nuclear plants. I wasnt aware that you can make gasoline in a nuclear plant. Whatever works works. All I am saying is that our current system is a joke. We need to have better sources of energy that dont pollute the same places we get our food from. Don't shit where you eat. If we lower our consumption of energy (i.e. high speed trains vs. airlines, electric cars vs. combustion engine) and shift to renewable, cheap energy its better for everyone except for the Oil co's. I only used Electric cars as an example because they get energy from a plant which is a much more efficient energy capturing abilities. If we get a better energy grid that is also a step in the right direction.

Re:This is a joke.

[Black Gold Alchemist]

Efficiency doesn't matter. What matters is the sustainability of the energy you are using. What if you ecodrive a gas prius to work and I drive a cold fusion powered hummer around the world the long way to work. Guess what. The prius used probably 100 times less energy. Who cares though, because the hummer did not emit any CO2. Nuclear to liquids is going to be a lot less energy efficient than straight electric vehicles. But it's gonna be cheaper and have less infrastructure requirements.

Re:This is a joke.

[Antisyzygy]

It sounds like a step in the right direction. Thanks for the info, I didn't realize such a thing existed. Interesting concept.

Re:This is a joke.

[ravenshrike]

Helicopters don't levitate, they fly. They merely fly in a manner that allows them to hover. Still not levitation.

Re:This is a joke.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you ask me, the entire system is designed to make the most profit for people that are already extremely well off. Its a joke.

Sounds like capitalism to me.

You are using a distorted implementation of a purely-economic system to assert the economic system is inherently flawed and unfair.

Legal lobbying from big businesses, or any organization, has nothing directly to do with capitalism. Lobbyists are a legal problem and should be dealt with by creating laws, not meddling with the economic system.

Similar corruption could occur under ``socialism''. Look at the Communist Party of the USSR influencing policies for their own interests over the workers.

Re:This is a joke.

[budgenator]

well this frog doesn't seem to be falling!

since BP fails Fucking Booming School

[Anonymous Coward]

its no surprise that the Fucking boom didn't Fucking work.

Re:since BP fails Fucking Booming School

[hedwards]

Fucking boom? Is that sort of like dental dam?

Re:since BP fails Fucking Booming School

[Wonko the Sane]

Fucking boom? Is that sort of like dental dam?

This will explain everything.

Re:since BP fails Fucking Booming School

[Pharmboy]

Go watch this and it will make more sense. They are not, have not, and seemingly, WILL NOT use the booms properly. Booming without capture is useless, you are only slowing down the disaster, not reducing it.

Re:since BP fails Fucking Booming School

[ravenshrike]

With the amount of fucking boom they have fucking booming is fucking useless in terms of fucking protecting the fucking wildlife. You could fucking use it for some fucking nice PR shots of a fucking couple of fucking clean beaches though.

Re:since BP fails Fucking Booming School

[V!NCENT]

Now that fucking sums that piece-of-shit-c*nty goddamn fucking article right fucking up, goddamnit!

Re:BP CEO Hayward Predicts 'very, very modest' Imp

[Anonymous Coward]

The top recipient of BP-related donations during the 2008 presidential election was Barack Obama, who collected $71,000, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

Maybe Obama will take some of the cash BP gave him and help out with the clean up.

 

Re:BP CEO Hayward Predicts 'very, very modest' Imp

[Opportunist]

No duh.

What did you expect? That he goes and says something along the lines of "we expect this to be the worst oilspill in the history of mankind, poisoning the beach of southwest US and Mexico for decades, if not centuries"?

The crap any corporate PR goon spills isn't worth the airtime given to it. They will of course downplay anything and everything, every time. Either they're lucky and it is actually less dramatic than everyone thought, then everyone will be happy they were honest. Or everyone will have forgotten about it by the time it impacts (not bloody likely, this is the coast of the US, not the coast of some godforsaken African country). Or IF the shit really hits the fan, everyone will be too busy worrying what to do to remember that the corp shill spilled more garbage than there is oil.

Frankly, is anyone still listening to these greasebags?

Re:BP CEO Hayward Predicts 'very, very modest' Imp

[Opportunist]

I'd consider twice or three time the company net worth quite "modest".

Maybe then oil compnaies will start taking security serious and not "the nuisance necessary to keep the insurance premium low".

Re:BP CEO Hayward Predicts 'very, very modest' Imp

[maxume]

For the curious:

http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/05/costly_time-consuming_test_of.html

Re:BP CEO Hayward Predicts 'very, very modest' Imp

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoosh.

Crisis Situation

[starseeker]

If that's the NPR story I heard, the simple refutation was given by an administration official, something along the lines of "there isn't a different response to a 1,000 barrels per day vs. a 5,000 barrels per day leak - either way its a disaster that must be contained, and the priority is to contain it."

Decisions driven by good scientific data are extremely important, but if there is only one possible decision (big oil disaster and major huge oil disaster both require an all-out response) then the details can wait until AFTER the bugger has been capped.

Sounded like a non-issue to me.

Re:Crisis Situation

[Anonymous Coward]

But, but, but, Obammy is a kenyan and this must be his fault!! Rabble rabble rabble. Fox News agrees!

Re:Crisis Situation

[Klinky]

That's a BS excuse. How many barrels is a catastrophic oil disaster? How many days does it have to leak? What if it's a single day with 5,000 barrels released? That's a hell of a lot less than 25,000 barrels over 30 days. Getting proper measurements would definitely aid in calculating how far the oil is going to travel, what areas might be affected & how much improvement BP has made in plugging the leak. Getting that data is pretty damn important.

The fact that the Coast Guard and Obama are impotent to BP is just plan retarded. Obama should be filleting some BP ass right about now and getting shit done. Instead we have all this pussy-footing going on under the table which is really infuriating...

Re:Crisis Situation

[AK Marc]

But the level of response to contain 30 days at 1000 barrels a day is different from 90 days at 75,000 barrels a day. So knowing the levels now is explicitly necessary in actions being made today. The containment and recovery efforts are simultaneous and unrelated. If the people doing containment have been given numbers that are wrong by a factor of 75, then it's possible that they will not respond appropriately.

Re:Crisis Situation

[Mr Bubble]

"the details can wait until AFTER the bugger has been capped"

If you are going to have drilling in the gulf, and, as the oil apologists tell us, "there will be accidents", then we need all the data we can gather on this event so that we can use it to assess the correlation between the amount of oil at that depth and all kinds of other things - like movement of the oil column underwater, fractionation of the oil, effects on sea life, the proper amount of dispersant to use, danger of migration to the loop current, etc. etc. Also, since most of the oil doesn't seem to be floating, we need to know how much of it is down there because we have no idea of the effects on the ocean and the wildlife. There are a million reason to collect accurate data and you can bet your ass that BP has the tech to judge the amount of oil being released. Obama should have convened this panel to accurately measure the flow two weeks ago. BP is obviously happy to repeat the 5,000 gallons per day bullshit figure, but it really shows their stripes, doesn't it?

Re:BP CEO Hayward Predicts 'very, very modest' Imp

[slick7]

I'd consider twice or three time the company net worth quite "modest".

Maybe then oil compnaies will start taking security serious and not "the nuisance necessary to keep the insurance premium low".

It's too bad that O'bama doesn't read /.; He'd get better ideas than he gets from his oil paid lackeys.

It's not too intense...

[IANAAC]

...the video might be too intense for liberal (Tipper Gore) ears...

It's sort of tiring listening to it after a while though. It becomes profanity theater. Not really needed to get her point across.

Re:It's not too intense...

[rfuilrez]

Fucking Agreed. She makes some fucking good fucking points, but no fucking need to swear so fucking much.

Re:It's not too intense...

[roman_mir]

Fuck yeah

Re:It's not too intense...

[n dot l]

If BP were making my industry look as bad as it is hers, I'd be pretty fucking hard-pressed to remain civil while giving that monologue. And BP isn't just making her industry look bad. They've managed to endanger the future of a lot of off-shore drilling for the next decade, at least. If I were her I'd be swearing just to keep my mind off of all the other even-less-civilized things I'd want to say.

Re:It's not too intense...

[oldhack]

Would you stop saying "fucking" all the fucking time? Profanity don't make you sound cool. Stupid motherfucker.

Re:It's not too intense...

[Anonymous Coward]

fucking WHOOOSH

Re:It's not too intense...

[budgenator]

Yes but the dumb fucking cunt is right these pussy ass motherfucker don't know if their asses were punched or bored when it comes to laying down a silly assed God damned boom to catching a little bit of oil. A bunch of snot-nosed third graders could have done as well as they did.

Wrong Channel

[Iron Condor]

They report a variety of folks statements, all of them critical of Obama. That makes it an article critical of Obama. That's all there is to it. Welcome to adult conversation.

There is no reason at all why the writer or the editor of the piece should insert their own voice in this. They're supposed to report the facts, not distort them. If, in your eyes, an article is only critical of the president if it is filled with cuss words, then by all means go back to Fox News.

could this be good news in the long run?

[Anonymous Coward]

the "delicate environment" often interferes with development, could this open the path to factories, refineries, and jobs along the coast?

Just so you all know.

[OwP_Fabricated]

No one will ever be held responsible for this. Ever. Not now, not ever. Ever ever ever.

BP will pay whatever it ends up costing them to "fix" the spill, or whatever it costs up to the point the government has to take over if that ends up being the case. The government (or at least the people in the senate and house who make any public statements regarding this) won't want to seem like idiots so they'll defend BP's stonewalling and ridiculously low damage estimates. Obama is a completely worthless shill to the right of Richard Nixon and will do nothing.

Then BP will appeal any and all personal liability related lawsuits to the supreme court where in a 5-4 decision (get used to hearing this for the rest of your life) the punitive damages will be thrown out, or dropped and sent back to the lower courts (like what happened with the Exxon Valdez spill) where it will be appealed until the affected people settle for pennies or drop the case since they won't live long enough or have enough money to see it out to the end.

Nothing ever changes, rich people never suffer, and again no one will ever be punished for it. There is literally no hope, and that's not even a joke. There seriously isn't.

Re:Just so you all know.

[Jeremi]

No one will ever be held responsible for this. Ever. Not now, not ever. Ever ever ever.

What exactly do you mean when you say "be held responsible"? Are you hoping for public executions? BP CEO's heak on a pike, maybe?

BP will pay whatever it ends up costing them to "fix" the spill,

In other words, BP will be held responsible, in that they will pay for the cleanup.

Obama is a completely worthless shill to the right of Richard Nixon and will do nothing.

Obama's an amazing guy -- simultaneously to the left of Chairman Mao and to the right of Richard Nixon! He's everywhere and nowhere, all at the same time! Maybe he's mastered that quantum teleportation technique from the other article.

Nothing ever changes, rich people never suffer, and again no one will ever be punished for it. There is literally no hope, and that's not even a joke. There seriously isn't.

You sound like someone trying to defend their own apathy. After all, if there's no hope, then you are cleared of all responsibility for ever doing anything. Nice gig if you can avoid suicide.

Re:Just so you all know.

[Anonymous Coward]

"What exactly do you mean when you say "be held responsible"? Are you hoping for public executions? BP CEO's heak on a pike, maybe?"

A bullet to the brain in private would be just fine.

Re:Just so you all know.

[Luckyo]

There is literally no hope, and that's not even a joke. There seriously isn't.

That's what aristocrats kept telling the people right until the French Revolution. Apparently when everything fails, the good old "kill, rape and pillage the fuckers" still works wonderfully. Back then, being rich made you a target, the more riches, the bigger target, the more the mob tortured you before you lost your head.

Moments like these, one has to wonder if pro-gun folks, regardless of their political inclination and their "government must fear us" agenda is dead on.

Re:Just so you all know.

[Al Dimond]

The key here is the quotes around "fix". This disaster can't be completely fixed, so paying the costs of cleanup is far from being held responsible. Meanwhile plenty of people and groups have incurred costs because of the oil spill: people will see their property depreciate, companies will lose business, and institutions like the government will have spent plenty of money studying the spill and helping with cleanup. And, as GP says, these groups won't be able to recover their costs from BP because the courts will protect them.

If businesses are not held fully responsible for their damages then these damages aren't correctly valued in the economy, and thus there are incentives to take the sort of risks that cause oil spills.

Re:Just so you all know.

[BlackBloq]

Wow your such a fucking defeated wimp. Quit being a little baby and grow some! Or there literally is no hope of you not being a pussy, and that's not even a joke.

Re:Just so you all know.

[OwP_Fabricated]

What exactly do you mean when you say "be held responsible"? Are you hoping for public executions? BP CEO's heak on a pike, maybe?

If there was justice or a god, then actually yes. Yes 1000 times. They may have just participated in killing an entire ecosystem there spud, and are trying their damnedest to get away with JUST having to try and clean up the oil.

  In other words, BP will be held responsible, in that they will pay for the cleanup.

No, they won't. They'll throw money at the leak until it's stopped or the government steps in and stops it. They'll pay some people $10 an hour (going on right now actually) to rake up oil and pick up oil blobs off the beaches. They'll pay people to run booms and pay to pump a shitload of dispersant into the oil so it doesn't look as bad. However, they won't ever really clean it up; it'll reach a point where it looks "okay", then give the affected areas a thumbs up for luck and then at most set up a small dedicated account to trickle funds into continued "clean up".
 
After they leave, the oil will still be there under rocks and quietly poisoning the ecosystem for decades. After Exxon spent about a $1 billion "cleaning" up the Valdez spill you can still go to the coast, kick over a rock, and see oil sheens. The whale population there is devastated and literally doomed to extinction, and pretty much all the top-tier predators are wiped out. Yeah, that's "clean" alright.

  Obama's an amazing guy -- simultaneously to the left of Chairman Mao and to the right of Richard Nixon! He's everywhere and nowhere, all at the same time! Maybe he's mastered that quantum teleportation technique from the other article.
 
Don't be dumb. The narrative supplied by the right-wing media and the reality can actually exist at once you know. Obama is right of Nixon; so was Clinton. That's not terrible per-se but don't think for an instant that Obama isn't a squishy centrist and beholden to the same corporate lobbyists Clinton/Bush Sr/Bush Jr/etc were even if he isn't in DIRECT business with them.

  You sound like someone trying to defend their own apathy. After all, if there's no hope, then you are cleared of all responsibility for ever doing anything. Nice gig if you can avoid suicide.
 
No, I just actually have good pattern recognition skills. You can rake oil, wash birds, run boom, and excise (read: burn) affected marshes to attempt to limit the damage but a good portion of the end damage is utterly unavoidable.
 
If you honestly think BP will pay for anything but their own efforts to deal with the spill (i.e. punitive damages to the hundreds of thousands/millions of people this will harm, actual regulations that will be enforced to prevent this bullshit from happening again, etc), you're delusional.
 
Trust me, I don't want to be right. I'm just going to be.

Re:Just so you all know.

[OwP_Fabricated]

That's what aristocrats kept telling the people right until the French Revolution. Apparently when everything fails, the good old "kill, rape and pillage the fuckers" still works wonderfully. Back then, being rich made you a target, the more riches, the bigger target, the more the mob tortured you before you lost your head.

Moments like these, one has to wonder if pro-gun folks, regardless of their political inclination and their "government must fear us" agenda is dead on.

The idea is "sexy" (wooo, grab the pitchforks and storm the bastille!) and generally correct but the practice of it is most definitely not. In a nation of 300+ million people that spans an entire gigantic continent, you'd need pretty much the entire populous motivated to do something. Nothing on that scale has ever happened in human history.
 
Americans will never "eat the rich" because they've bought completely into the myth that they have a reasonable chance of being one of them. They vote against tax hikes for multi-billionaires for god's sake.

Re:Just so you all know.

[AK Marc]

What exactly do you mean when you say "be held responsible"? Are you hoping for public executions? BP CEO's heak on a pike, maybe?

They lied to Congress. How about at least a little perjury charge?

In other words, BP will be held responsible, in that they will pay for the cleanup.

Nope. Risk costs money. If you can get away with never paying more than the actual damages and never assume any risk, then that's a win in business. That's what punitive damages are for, but Exxon and the Supreme Court determined that 3x damages for punitive was excessive, when you look at what file sharers are being charged vs the "cost" of the song shared, and you see that punitive caps only apply to massive corporations.

You sound like someone trying to defend their own apathy. After all, if there's no hope, then you are cleared of all responsibility for ever doing anything.

And what if it's true? What if the system is broken and there's nothing a single person can do about it? What then? Rather than belittling people that point it out, why not face the question? It sounds more like you are conceding his point. Is that because you have no hope?

Re:Just so you all know.

[pclminion]

The way you hold them responsible is by passing a law that as of July 1, 2010, it is illegal to be an employee of BP in the United States. Anyone who is employed by BP and on US soil will be subject to 30 years of prison time. Either quit or leave the country. I am not interested in money at this point.

Re:Just so you all know.

[Anonymous Coward]

that's just what they want you to think. they've trained you well!

don't self-inflict impotence on yourself. it's no way to live.

or, it's a good time to start law school!

Re:Just so you all know.

[Mindcontrolled]

Americans will never "eat the rich" because they've bought completely into the myth that they have a reasonable chance of being one of them.

And that is exactly the core of the problem. The "American Dream". Slaves begging for the whip in the faint hope they might wield it themselves one day. George Carlin said it best: "It's called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it." One can only hope for people to wake up one of these days. Lots of people.

Re:Just so you all know.

[Al Dimond]

That sort of holds them responsible. It doesn't do anything to raise money to pay for the disaster. It leaves the owners of BP holding a lot of equipment and buildings they can't use, so they'll sell the company to a liquidation type company that will sell all that stuff to other oil companies.

As far as I can tell BP didn't do anything illegal or unusual in setting up their offshore well, and offshore drilling was and is legal. So legislating a corporate death penalty would be a pretty arbitrary form of punishment. Now that the disaster has occurred the only thing left to do to BP is make sure that litigation against them has a fair chance of success. That includes litigation from affected large businesses, from classes of affected people and small businesses, from the Federal EPA, state EPAs, and probably from Mexican and Cuban concerns as well. If BP can survive fair payouts to all these parties it lives -- if not, it goes the way of SCO.

If BP can't survive fair payouts to all affected parties then it was not sufficiently capitalized and/or insured to undertake offshore drilling. So we'd do well to increase the requirements for capitalization and insurance for offshore drilling to a level ensuring they could probably make fair payouts.

This sounds like common sense. Parties harmed by another party's actions should be compensated, and capitalization/insurance requirements should be sufficient to ensure that this is possible. That's the basic theory behind corporations and limited liability (shareholders are protected personally against litigation and in exchange the corporation must be sufficiently capitalized or insured to handle litigation it might reasonably expect to face). But actually following that would be a radical change from what our government does. How can we know this? Because lately we've seen so many businesses having to be bailed out by the government because they weren't sufficiently capitalized to handle the risk. Even the US automakers, under their bankruptcy settlements, got to essentially write off billions in liability, and they didn't even cause a catastrophic disaster (other than the rise of the American car culture, that is). *Unwilling* creditors were left behind so the *willing* creditors on Wall Street could be paid. To be sure, doing the basic and obvious right thing would send shockwaves through the market. How did we get here?

Re:Just so you all know.

[russotto]

The way you hold them responsible is by passing a law that as of July 1, 2010, it is illegal to be an employee of BP in the United States.

Good luck getting that relief well drilled.

Re:Just so you all know.

[Anonymous Coward]

well, there is one option. all the poor people get together, commit mass suicide, and while doing so trigger an event that makes life unbearable for the remaining rich people. say, release a virus that creates unbearable pain for life. See, there's always hope!!!!

Re:Just so you all know.

[pclminion]

Good luck getting that relief well drilled.

Wow, I can't believe I didn't think of that. Of course BP is the only company on the planet who knows how to drill a relief well.

Re:Just so you all know.

[Jeremi]

And what if it's true? What if the system is broken and there's nothing a single person can do about it? What then?

Well, then you're fucked. However, if there is something that can be done, but the people who could have done it are all too depressed and despondent to actually find that thing and do it, then they've fucked themselves, and turned a non-hopeless situation into a hopeless one through their own inaction. So defeatism is not a useful approach to take, because you're not omniscient and therefore there might always be an as-yet-undiscovered solution to be found if you keep looking. If you keep trying to improve things, failure is a possibility; if you give up, it's a certainty.

Re:Just so you all know.

[Legion303]

"What exactly do you mean when you say "be held responsible"? Are you hoping for public executions? BP CEO's heak on a pike, maybe?"

I can't speak for the grandparent, but from where I'm sitting that would be a great start.

The NPR article is HORRIBLE. Here's why.

[Alaska Jack]

I'm on the scene monitoring things in Louisiana, working for a government agency. Other than that I have no dog in this fight. I am neither a fan of nor do I hate Obama.

Now read the article carefully. Like this part:

"Francesca Grifo of the Union of Concerned Scientists says it could have been useful in the Gulf of Mexico.

"I'm just very frustrated with how long it has taken for us to have this order," she says, "particularly in light of these events, where this kind of guidance clearly could have made a difference in this situation.""

So what does the reader naturally expect? Obviously, an explanation of how the guidance would have made a difference -- oops, make that a CLEAR difference -- in this situation. Well, you can expect all you want, but you're not getting it from this article.

Then there's this:

"In a teleconference, Jane Lubchenco of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said a group of government scientists came together just this week to seek a scientifically defensible measurement.

"We've always said that it is extremely important to get a reliable flow rate," she said. "But we've known all along that doing so would be extraordinarily difficult.""

I hope you, as a reader, aren't expecting to find out why it would be important -- let alone EXTREMELY important -- to get a reliable flow rate figure. 'Cause you aren't getting it from this article.

I don't know why Lubchenco said this. Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen addressed this issue early on. He said it's NOT important whether it's 5K barrels or 200K barrels -- we'd be doing the same thing in either case, and so it would be a waste of time and resources trying to figure out a number that, in the end, would be at least 50 percent speculation anyway.

    - AJ

Re:The NPR article is HORRIBLE. Here's why.

[MartinSchou]

He said it's NOT important whether it's 5K barrels or 200K barrels -- we'd be doing the same thing in either case, and so it would be a waste of time and resources trying to figure out a number that, in the end, would be at least 50 percent speculation anyway.

It's not a waste of time nor resources, if the time spent is that of a PR person who simply has to forward a (bunch of) video to scientists, and the resources spent are those of people who aren't otherwise occupied with this. Like, for instance, scientists who aren't useful for fieldwork.

As for what you'd get out of it? Well, what's the point in telling people if they're going to be hit by a category 4 or a category 5 hurricane? Their house is going to be blown away either way, and they'll die if they stay. Why bother? Because accurate and reliable information is a good thing. Having hostile claims that vary by a factor of 20 (5k vs 100k) does no one any good. Especially when the ones with the raw data are the ones with the financial stake in it.

Re:The NPR article is HORRIBLE. Here's why.

[Cheech Wizard]

As an aside: If they do not try to take / get data, we lose in that future events will have no information to help. Any time someone says that getting data is useless, they're too stupid to be involved in any way. Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen was/is wrong to say something as stupid as "...it would be a waste of time and resources trying to figure out a number...". It may not help now, but it may in the future. To think that this will never happen again is silly. Data will also prove useful in modeling in the future.

Re:The NPR article is HORRIBLE. Here's why.

[shadowbearer]

  In addition, if they don't share that data, then nobody else can use it to try and find better solutions.

SB

Re:The NPR article is HORRIBLE. Here's why.

[jwhitener]

Don't you think it would be important to know the exact flow rate in order to put the proper amount of dispersant into the water?

I'm assuming that 5K barrels per day of oil would require less dispersant than 200K barrels of oil......

Re:The NPR article is HORRIBLE. Here's why.

[jayveekay]

The purpose of measuring this new and exciting disaster is to be able to use it as a reference point for the magnitude of future disasters.

Suppose you determine that the BP2010 disaster had a flow rate of 10K barrels per day for 60 days before capping, and takes 3 years to cleanup for a cost of 2 billion dollars. When the next blowout occurs and you determine its flow rate is 20K barrels per day, you'll be able to roughly assess the expected cost of the disaster per day in which you are unable to stop the flow.

On Slashdot, we'll be able to discuss the Texaco2015 blowout in units of 3xBP2010, or 1/10th of a BP2010, etc.

Re:The NPR article is HORRIBLE. Here's why.

[bussdriver]

If we knew sooner how bad it really was, decision makers, experts and the public would consider bigger measures much sooner, such as the Russian nuke option:

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http://www.kp.ru/daily/24482/640124/

Oil is $70/bll

[Anonymous Coward]

Have the gov force BP to pay about $1 per gallon to any boat that pulls up along a designated barge and pumps out what they have captured.

All those fishermen/boats docked at port suddenly have a new source of revenue. Let free enterprise figure out how to capture that oil.

PR Booms

[speedlaw]

If what we know and don't know (or are being told) is anything to go by, the booms are really just a PR effort. BP knows how much oil is there. The US Govt. probably knows from sonar and our sub fleet. The only people out of the loop are us. BP is hoping that some miracle will occur and they can stop the well OR nature will co operate somehow. It is clear that BP did not learn the lessons of the Tylenol scare, which is own up to the problem, and fix it. BP is still working PR and cosmetics.

BP, you're horseshit.

[blind biker]

Are we to believe that a company with profits equal to a middle sized nation's GDP cannot afford to plug this hole? Sure, it may take hauling 500.000 tons of rocks from the coast, and would cost a few billions of $, but BP can very easily afford that.

Believe you me, the only reason why this crisis is lasting this long, is because BP is doing it piece-meal, so as to not affect the profits almost at all. The upper management at BP are nothing but goons of the worst kind, the most die-hard corporate psychopaths you can imagine. So what if the ecosystem is completely compromised, if it will never recover, if livelihoods of millions will be affected? They don't give a shit. They didn't give a shit when they lobbied (and continue to do so) the govt. to decrease safety regulations, when they cut costs and increased workloads for cost cutting and profit, and when they decided to overlook the reports of pieces of the blowout preventer valve breaking off - and in fact, forcing the oil rig workers to continue as if nothing happened.

Oh yeah, and these executives don't give a shit about the people who died on the platform, either.

Please someone tell me, why shouldn't these soulless suits be lined up and shot, and the event televised for the education of other similar corporate psychopaths?

Re:BP, you're horseshit.

[Wonko the Sane]

Please someone tell me, why shouldn't these soulless suits be lined up and shot, and the event televised for the education of other similar corporate psychopaths?

Because those same psychopaths fund the election campaigns of every important member of Congress as well as the President, and they are important providers of high-paying jobs for former bureaucrats and regulators.

Re:BP, you're horseshit.

[blind biker]

Because those same psychopaths fund the election campaigns of every important member of Congress as well as the President, and they are important providers of high-paying jobs for former bureaucrats and regulators.

Well, what you provided here, was a (or one of the) reason why they won't be lined up and shot, but not why they shouldn't.

Re:BP, you're horseshit.

[Alaska Jack]

To everyone who modded this post up...

So. The top scientists and engineers in America and around the world are huddling their heads together in Houston, having pulled a month's worth of 20-hour days desperately trying to brainstorm every possible way to make the well stop.

And... you're modding up a guy who doesn't think they thought of DUMPING ROCKS ON IT????

Or wait ... they did think of dumping rocks on it but don't want to? Even though they're looking at BILLIONS in cleanup/restoration/litigation costs? Not to mention potential penalties like, you know, no more deepwater drilling?

If blocking it with rocks would work, why would it take 500,000 TONS of rocks? The pressure coming from the wellhead is less than 5,000 POUNDS. And why would simply hauling loads of rocks and dumping them on the wellhead cost "few billions"?

I understand you are upset. The question is, why do you let your emotions turn you into a complete blathering idiot?

    - AJ

Re:BP, you're horseshit.

[blind biker]

To everyone who modded this post up...

Just FYI, nobody modded my post up at this time. The parent post is astroturfing.

Re:BP, you're horseshit.

[blind biker]

So. The top scientists and engineers in America and around the world are huddling their heads together in Houston, having pulled a month's worth of 20-hour days desperately trying to brainstorm every possible way to make the well stop.

And... you're modding up a guy who doesn't think they thought of DUMPING ROCKS ON IT????

Or wait ... they did think of dumping rocks on it but don't want to? Even though they're looking at BILLIONS in cleanup/restoration/litigation costs? Not to mention potential penalties like, you know, no more deepwater drilling?

If blocking it with rocks would work, why would it take 500,000 TONS of rocks? The pressure coming from the wellhead is less than 5,000 POUNDS. And why would simply hauling loads of rocks and dumping them on the wellhead cost "few billions"?

I understand you are upset. The question is, why do you let your emotions turn you into a complete blathering idiot?

I see that you're nicely in the pocket of big oil (I read your other posts in this thread). A thin veil of masquerading doesn't fully disguise your affiliations.

So I do understand what turns youinto a complete blathering idiot.

Re:BP, you're horseshit.

[pandrijeczko]

I'm British, BP is British and I think those short-cutting, profiteering fucks should be nailed to the wall over this.

I'm actually disgusted that the US government has passed legislation making BP only liable for the first $500,000,000 of the cleanup operation - as far as I'm concerned, BP should pay for all of the cleanup AND compensate those who have had their livelihoods affected by this.

And if the money runs out, hell, sell the BP execs houses, cars, Learjets and everything else they own - the oil companies have been price-fixing for years, its time for the tide to turn (if you'll excuse the pun).

Re:BP, you're horseshit.

[RazorSharp]

While if what you're saying is true I wouldn't be the least bit surprised, I wonder how you came across this information. Blind speculation isn't logical. It's one thing to be skeptical of the competence of those involved, it's another to accuse them of malice. . .

This is why logic should be taught in elementary schools.

Re:BP, you're horseshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

I see that you're nicely in the pocket of big oil (I read your other posts in this thread). A thin veil of masquerading doesn't fully disguise your affiliations.

So I do understand what turns youinto a complete blathering idiot.

Yeah, no, I'm going to side with him on this one. That's some pretty stock appeal-to-emotions crackpot rhetoric you're spouting.

Re:BP, you're horseshit.

[couchslug]

"Please someone tell me, why shouldn't these soulless suits be lined up and shot, and the event televised for the education of other similar corporate psychopaths?"

The Chinese do shoot people who commit corporate crimes such as selling poison milk. It makes great sense compared to executing those who commit crimes of passion. People behave themselves out of fear. Corporations know no fear, but public execution would get their attention. It should be used on those who commit economic as well as ecological sabotage. Bernie Madoff comes to mind.

Re:BP, you're horseshit.

[blind biker]

For example

Williams' survival may be critical to the investigation. We took his story to Dr. Bob Bea, a professor of engineering at the University of California, Berkeley.

Last week, the White House asked Bea to help analyze the Deepwater Horizon accident. Bea investigated the Columbia Space Shuttle disaster for NASA and the Hurricane Katrina disaster for the National Science Foundation. Bea's voice never completely recovered from the weeks he spent in the flood in New Orleans. But as the White House found, he's among the nation's best, having investigated more than 20 offshore rig disasters.

"Mr. Williams comes forward with these very detailed elements from his viewpoint on a rig. That's a brave and intelligent man," Bea told Pelley.

"What he's saying is very important to this investigation, you believe?" Pelley asked.

"It is," the professor replied.

What strikes Bea is Williams' description of the blowout preventer. Williams says in a drilling accident four weeks before the explosion, the critical rubber gasket, called an "annular," was damaged and pieces of it started coming out of the well.

"According to Williams, when parts of the annular start coming up on the deck someone from Transocean says, 'Look, don't worry about it.' What does that tell you?" Pelley asked.

"Houston we have a problem," Bea replied.

Here's why that's so important: the annular is used to seal the well for pressure tests. And those tests determine whether dangerous gas is seeping in.

"So if the annular is damaged, if I understand you correctly, you can't do the pressure tests in a reliable way?" Pelley asked.

"That's correct. You may get pressure test recordings, but because you're leaking pressure, they are not reliable," Bea explained.

Williams also told us that a backup control system to the blowout preventer called a pod had lost some of its functions.

"What is the standard operating procedure if you lose one of the control pods?" Pelley asked.

"Reestablish it, fix it. It's like losing one of your legs," Bea said.

"The morning of the disaster, according to Williams, there was an argument in front of all the men on the ship between the Transocean manager and the BP manager. Do you know what that argument is about?" Pelley asked.

Bea replied, "Yes," telling Pelley the argument was about who was the boss.

In finishing the well, the plan was to have a subcontractor, Halliburton, place three concrete plugs, like corks, in the column. The Transocean manager wanted to do this with the column full of heavy drilling fluid - what drillers call "mud" - to keep the pressure down below contained. But the BP manager wanted to begin to remove the "mud" before the last plug was set. That would reduce the pressure controlling the well before the plugs were finished.

Asked why BP would do that, Bea told Pelley, "It expedites the subsequent steps."

"It's a matter of going faster," Pelley remarked.

"Faster, sure," Bea replied.

Bea said BP had won that argument.

"If the 'mud' had been left in the column, would there have been a blowout?" Pelley asked.

"It doesn't look like it," Bea replied.

Re:BP, you're horseshit.

[TubeSteak]

I'm actually disgusted that the US government has passed legislation making BP only liable for the first $500,000,000 of the cleanup operation - as far as I'm concerned, BP should pay for all of the cleanup AND compensate those who have had their livelihoods affected by this.

When an industry is critical to national security and the outcome of a disaster is too big for any company to repay, most (all?) governments create limited liability and an industry funded compensation pool.

Oil drilling and nuclear power are two industries that come to mind.
Any other setup and no one would enter the business because insurers would never cover the unlimited risk.

Re:BP, you're horseshit.

[fluffy99]

Are we to believe that a company with profits equal to a middle sized nation's GDP cannot afford to plug this hole? Sure, it may take hauling 500.000 tons of rocks from the coast, and would cost a few billions of $, but BP can very easily afford that.

Because that won't work? Try dumping rock and sand on the open end of a pressure washer hose and see how that works for ya.

Believe you me, the only reason why this crisis is lasting this long, is because BP is doing it piece-meal, so as to not affect the profits almost at all.

BP is proceeding slowly and carefully so they don't make this worse. The leak is small compared to what it could be. They don't want to fuck it up and have a full blown, uncapped well.

Re:BP, you're horseshit.

[BlackBloq]

Fuck yea ! Such a killer post with attitude! Not like the shit-witted defeatist drivel that says "there is nothing we can do"... bla bla "the rich are soo much better off" Bla "we always loose"!I hated reading that in the above post... modded up and all! What a bunch of weak ass pathetic wankers and babies!

Selling off their houses and jets and shit ... Nice touch! I hear by elect you to oversight the collection of debt from BP!

Re:BP, you're horseshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, the Americans have their own interests at heart here.

If BP is asked to pay too much then if an American oil company in/from Texas creates a big problem, they could be asked to pay out a lot of money too.

And those Texans, with lots of oil and oily politicians in their pockets, won't allow for themselves to be put in a vulnerable situation like that.

Re:BP, you're horseshit.

[shadowbearer]

And if the money runs out, hell, sell the BP execs houses, cars, Learjets and everything else they own

  No, that's where the government should *start* taking the fines. There is no rational reason that the taxpayers should pay for corporate fuckups, when the corporate executives responsible walk away with their "golden parachutes", and many of the politicians responsible for creating regulations to curb that sort of thievery continue to accept their silver with no consequences.

  I own my own small business. If I ran it the way many of these people do, I'd be in prison.

SB

 

Re:BP, you're horseshit.

[Mr Bubble]

"Please someone tell me, why shouldn't these soulless suits be lined up and shot, and the event televised for the education of other similar corporate psychopaths?"

Cause it would be more satisfying to rip their balls off with a plastic fork.

Re:BP, you're horseshit.

[shutdown -p now]

Oil drilling and nuclear power are two industries that come to mind.
Any other setup and no one would enter the business because insurers would never cover the unlimited risk.

So what you're saying is that the current price of oil is not a "free market" one, and is, in effect, artificially kept at a level lower than it would have been if the risks were properly accounted for?

And driving that up to where it properly belongs is a bad thing why, again?..

Re:BP, you're horseshit.

[darkonc]

$500M is less than the cost of of the drilling rig.

It's also about 4 months worth of (gross) income from a 50,000 barrel/day oil well (now the minimum estimate of what's actually leaking from the well.

Really -- you wouldn't want to something that would actually impinge on BPs profits would you? It might discourage them from doing something like this in the future.

.... I mean drilling for oil, of course.

Re:BP, you're horseshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Are we to believe that a company with profits equal to a middle sized nation's GDP cannot afford to plug this hole? Sure, it may take hauling 500.000 tons of rocks from the coast, and would cost a few billions of $, but BP can very easily afford that."

500000 tons of rocks would do little to contain the oil flow because the flow would continue between and around them. Look up the concept of fluid overpressure in geological settings. The normal gradient with depth (hydrostatic) is 0.465 pounds per square inch per foot of depth or 10.5 kilopascals per metre. So, at, say, 5km depth that's 52.5 megapasals or 7628 psi normal pressures. Overpressures are higher than that. Sometimes the pressure of the oil and gas in the well at depth can be 80-90% of what it takes to float the weight of the kilometres of rock and water above. I don't know what the pressure is in this particular well, but in many overpressured geological settings (and there are a lot of them around the Gulf of Mexico) it means we're talking pressures of tens to 100 MPa (megapascals -- i..e. >14 000 psi). That's a lot. Like an industrial hydraulic fluid system that you're trying to cap off while it's continuously flowing for weeks at its full working pressure. Or >10x a fire hose (up to 8.3 MPa or 1200 psi, apparently).

That's the kind of force you're trying to contain at depth using the weight of the drilling mud in the oil well. Granted, the number at the surface will be lower than this due to friction on the inside of the long pipe and plenty of other factors, but the pressure being contained at depth is absolutely huge and still very high at the surface. They don't call these things "gushers" for no reason. The short answer is: piling more rocks on the top isn't going to do much but make a mess of the site on the sea floor and make the wellhead inaccessible. Even at 1 tonne apiece (1000kg), there's probably more than enough pressure to push them off, and dropping them on there from a kilometre above is foolishness. Placing them gently on the sea floor wouldn't be easy either, but if you tried to do that against the broken end the pipe would probably bend out of the way from the force or burst at the edges.

Everything seems easy to fix if you don't understand the scale of the problem. As one of the followups mentions, I don't know why you modded this guy up. A lot of the positive moderation seems to be along the lines of "I'm angry like this guy is." Be rational. There's ample reason to be angry at BP without giving credit to dumb ideas like this one.

Re:BP, you're horseshit.

[Wonko the Sane]

That's why the people who have the authority to do such a thing believe that they shouldn't

They don't care what the peasants think.

Re:BP, you're horseshit.

[bill_mcgonigle]

Please someone tell me, why shouldn't these soulless suits be lined up and shot, and the event televised for the education of other similar corporate psychopaths?

The point of a corporation is to protect humans from any wrongdoing they may do. They weren't allowed in the US until about 1870 except for limited times and public benefit projects. Ironically, it was J.D. Rockefeller who bribed Congress to start allowing permanent corporations - for Standard Oil.

Booms are a scam

[Anonymous Coward]

90% of the oil is below the booms so all they are meant to do is block some of the surface oil to hide the problem. Most of the oil forms cloud like plumes below the surface and is unaffected by the booms. Also booms don't work in even mildly rough seas. The dispersants are a similar issue. They only allow the oil to drop below the surface and potentially all the way to the sea bottom. I heard an representative from the dispersant company actually call oil "nutritious" as in providing nutrition for microorganisms. He stopped short of saying the oil and dispersants were good for the environment. That's how scary these people are. Their goal is to hide the oil not solve the problem. Dropping the oil to the bottom hides it. The problem is the natural processes they are quoting happen more slowly in deep water due to less oxygen and colder temperatures so the oil will actually break down more slowly using dispersants but it will be out of sight. So long as you don't eat sea food from the area I guess it can be seen as a plus. The oil will be affecting the area for decades and potentially much longer. The spill was caused by bean counters trying to save a buck. Until they fear the fines this will keep happening. They need to make it hurt. Fine them a billion a week on a spill of this size. Over the top? The area is facing tens of billions in losses so it isn't out of line. If they know they can get hit with a fine in the billions they will be much less likely to cut corners to save a few million. Already we've had politicians saying we shouldn't be too hard on BP. You can tell it's election time and they are going to be looking for handouts. Anyone accepting money from BP after this disaster should be voted out of office, period!

DKOS Booming School

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a pretty informative article (from a left wing political blog but by a guy who works in the oil industry) about how BP and the coast guard fucked up the defensive booming:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/5/11/865387/-Fishgrease:-DKos-Booming-School

Re:DKOS Booming School

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for posting that. I've been following his diaries on there for a while now and it's really helped me figure out the situation beyond what's in the news.

Bzzzt! Wrong, but thanks for playing!

[spun]

Clinton never ran a budget surplus. He got close though, but only because he robbed from the Social Security trust fund (just like every president has for the last half-century).

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html

Re:Bzzzt! Wrong, but thanks for playing!

[Poisonous Drool]

No you are wrong, even using the government's "cooked" accounting. Here is the official US Treasury website showing the government debt for each year. Notice it increases every year of the Clinton presidency: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

Re:Bzzzt! Wrong, but thanks for playing!

[spun]

You do realize that those figures include all printed money as well, right? Says so right on the page. So, as the economy expands and we print more money so that we don't have deflation, those numbers will go up.

Re:Bzzzt! Wrong, but thanks for playing!

[Wonko the Sane]

The federal budget is not balanced as long as the government needs to rob FICA revenue to shore up the general fund.

An even more stringent definition of a balanced budget would be that the net present value of all income and expense streams add up to a positive number. By that definition the US federal government is hopelessly bankrupt.

Re:Bzzzt! Wrong, but thanks for playing!

[boxwood]

those numbers only go up to 1999. You should find the numbers for 2000 and 2001. That is if you want to be honest about it.

Re:Bzzzt! Wrong, but thanks for playing!

[spun]

If you read the link I gave, you'll see the income and expense streams added up to a positive number.

Re:Bzzzt! Wrong, but thanks for playing!

[Wonko the Sane]

If you read the link I gave, you'll see the income and expense streams added up to a positive number.

Read up on the difference between cash flow accounting and accrual accounting.

The net present value of those streams have not been net positive for many decades. Right now the federal government is underwater by about $100 trillion. Clinton didn't even make a dent in that number.

Re:Bzzzt! Wrong, but thanks for playing!

[spun]

He did better than any so called 'fiscal conservative,' otherwise known as borrow and spend conservatives. In fact, by any measure, the economy always does better under a liberal. 8.%5 average market growth under Democratic administrations, .5% under Republican administrations (or 3%, if you don't count Hoover. But why wouldn't you?)

Everyone knows that all Republicans know how to do is win elections. They despise government, is it any wonder that they screw it up when actually elected?

Re:BP CEO Hayward Predicts 'very, very modest' Imp

[Opportunist]

I kinda think this could help balance the budget. Easily. And without any cost to the taxpayer, ain't it great?

Not enough booming?

[Ken_g6]

If the booming they're doing now isn't working, maybe they need a bigger boom? Like a nuclear boom?

Re:Not enough booming?

[fluffy99]

Right, because the solution to a leaky faucet is to drop a nuke on it and hope you just melt the valve into a plug and don't just blow the end off and have a full blown leak. Keep in mind that it's a leak. The BOP didn't fully shut off the flow. Damaging the well head or fracturing the well casing would cause a far more difficult leak to stop.

Yeah the Russians did it on a few full blown leaks with success, but that doesn't mean it's not a very high risk option with more serious environmental impact than the oil leak..

Re:BP CEO Hayward Predicts 'very, very modest' Imp

[X0563511]

That article misrepresents just who/what Schlumberger is. Take a look here. They are into almost everything oil that's more complicated than banging rocks together. If you hire them, you do what they fucking tell you.

This is what happens when you don't. They know what they are doing.

Re:BP CEO Hayward Predicts 'very, very modest' Imp

[maxume]

The opening of the article:

BP hired a top oilfield service company to test the strength of cement linings on the Deepwater Horizon's well

That doesn't seem like faint praise or an inaccurate description of what they do.

NEVER WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IF IT WERE AP !!

[Anonymous Coward]

American Petroleum would never have let this happen !! AP, better known as

  Standard Oil !!

Back then, we knew oil !! Today, punk kids and there fancy electronic slide rules think they know oil !! Let me tell you, they don't know oil !!

Re:BP CEO Hayward Predicts 'very, very modest' Imp

[thegarbz]

You spend billions to bail out car manufacturers for the sake of a few jobs, what makes you think the government will attempt to bankrupt a company who provides as many jobs in the US?

Her swearing...

[IANAAC]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I thought her swearing was a form of mockery of the oil industry workers in general. And quite rehearsed.

If she were just freestyle swearing, I could completely sympathize, but because (again, to me) it was mockery reaching an almost childish level, it just came across as theatrical profanity.

Re:Her swearing...

[spun]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I thought her swearing was a form of mockery of the oil industry workers in general. And quite rehearsed.

If she were just freestyle swearing, I could completely sympathize, but because (again, to me) it was mockery reaching an almost childish level, it just came across as theatrical profanity.

She IS an oil industry worker.

Re:Her swearing...

[shadowbearer]

  Yes, she is, and that is exactly how many of the drillers talk. I know a few, both platform and land workers. She isn't lying about their after work habits, either.

  Don't get me wrong, I'm not generalizing - there are many of them who are very dedicated and professional. But if we're honest about it, it's a hellishly difficult, demanding and strenuous job, there's high turnover, and with platform workers they often don't have much else to do in their offtime but party - it's difficult to maintain any sort of real home life when you are away for long periods.

  I agree with the GP about her swearing - she was using it to make a point - because if you listen to how she was talking before that she obviously is versed enough in language to speak clearly.

  On that note I'd bet good money that the fucking executives probably swear just about as much when there's nobody around but their buddies in the club ;-)

SB

 

Re:BP CEO Hayward Predicts 'very, very modest' Imp

[roman_mir]

drop in a bucket.

According to Wiki, the total assets are 236 billion, total equity is 101.6 billion, revenue 246.1 billion, operating income is 26.43 billion, net income 16.58 billion and 92000 employees.

You shouldn't, but even if you add all of those numbers together and multiply by 20 you won't balance the budget.

Sorry.

Re:BP CEO Hayward Predicts 'very, very modest' Imp

[couchslug]

"Maybe then oil compnaies will start taking security serious and not "the nuisance necessary to keep the insurance premium low".

No, they'll just move elsewhere. They don't need to exist in their current form, and can organize differently to adapt as needed. They don't need to be US corporations, they don't need US basing, they only need to sell oil. US oil companies can simply decide not to drill here. There are plenty of places to make money.

Accidents are inevitable in offshore drilling. Pointing this out should offend no one. If we don't want another such spill, the only choice is to ban offshore drilling in areas we control-. If we are willing to accept another spill, then we allow drilling with the understanding that it will eventually happen.

Re:BP CEO Hayward Predicts 'very, very modest' Imp

[MistrBlank]

Considering the bankruptcy of that company might actually lead to the remaining companies reconsidering their practices as well as flooding the economy with some sorely needed money over a company that isn't funding nearly as many jobs as you would think. I would rather save the american auto industry than those sadistic oil barons. Hell, put the money into making MORE EFFICIENT cars. Break the hold the oil companies have had over the auto industry as well in one massive fell swoop.

atlantis

[roman_mir]

You know what would be funny in a black humor sense (African American humor for the politically correct)?

If this rig, the BP's Atlantis, which apparently never even submitted its blue prints for any inspection and is drilling some place even deeper and with more oil also sank and created another oil geyser at the bottom of the ocean. It's possible, apparently BP found some issues with Atlantis and of-course it would be even a worse disaster.

I bet BP has learned so much by now, they can plug a new leak where Atlantis is in no time and everything will be hunky dory. Oh wait a second...

yes, a good joke indeed

[shiftless]

Additionally, we could easily use ultra-capacitors to power electric cars that would take us in a range of 500 + miles and have fast recharging

lol

Re:yes, a good joke indeed

[Antisyzygy]

Interesting response. My point is that with enough investment of time and money it could be done.

Re:yes, a good joke indeed

[Black Gold Alchemist]

Why would you want to invest in that when you do gasoline decombustion?

AquaDams

[Anonymous Coward]

I know, this will sound like an advertisement, blah blah

I work for AquaDam Inc. We've contacted BP with our idea for helping with the oilspill. They say "Lot's of people have ideas, we're letting our engineers decide. We'll get back to you". And of course nobody ever does. Lately, my boss has been having me contact any companies mentioned in oil spill related news articles, and they say they've been given the same line.

Of course the "defense booms" are inadequate. They only work in calm seas, any surface agitation or wind, and the oil skips right over them. Some also get saturated, and then just start leaking oil. We need a different solution.

I think that aqua dams would work great for protecting coastal areas. They use water to fill up with, so worrying about soiled booms or sandbags or whatever isn't a problem. We've been in business for 20 years, and have worked with every level of government (that is known about, ha ha). Cities need to do something to protect their wetlands, and aquadams could be a solution.

check out our products at www.aquadam.net .
I know it's a Web 1.0 type of site, but there are abundant pictures, explanations, and contact info.
Thanks for reading
My name is matthew, nothing I've said here represents the opinion or point of view of my place of work, unless what I say matches up with what my work says :)
I'm posting from home, from my home computer on a Saturday, that's how much I believe in my employers product.

Re:BP CEO Hayward Predicts 'very, very modest' Imp

[X0563511]

They aren't an oilfield service company, is what I mean. They might do that, but that's not their specialization. Well, or at least it wasn't. I suppose it was a while back when I worked with their 20+ year old gas pumps and card readers.

Because the booms aren't installed right

[BShive]

You see the miles and miles of orange boom laid parallel to the coast? That's wrong. It's all show, and no utility.

Here's an excellent explanation of how it's supposed to be done:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/5/11/865387/-Fishgrease:-DKos-Booming-School

Re:BP CEO Hayward Predicts 'very, very modest' Imp

[maxume]

Well, on the page you link they call themselves an oilfield services provider (the leading!), and even if they didn't, in the context of them providing services on a drilling platform, it isn't real terrible to refer to them as a oilfield service company.

Re:BP CEO Hayward Predicts 'very, very modest' Imp

[shadowbearer]

  Plus, they begin by taking the fine out of the top execs net worth. It is ultimately their responsibility to ensure their company follows proper safety procedures and is in compliance with regulations.

  I doubt that it will happen that way, however.

SB

Good..

[Anonymous Coward]

This would drive up the cost of oil even faster, thereby accelerating the use of renewable energy.

Why is oil so hard to separate from water?

[spikenerd]

I know this must be a naive question, but I seriously can't find the answer. Why is it so hard to separate oil and water? Don't they kind of separate themselves? And since the oil is actually worth something, why aren't there companies lining up to skim the free oil?

Re:Why is oil so hard to separate from water?

[Anonymous Coward]

google on "kevin costner centrifuge"
(about 27,000 hits)

Raw crude acts a little different than
what you are most likely thinking about
(ie. motor oil and gasoline, etc.)

Without actually dissolving in salt water,
it actually somewhat comes apart.
The lighter stuff goes to the surface but
a lot of the heavier compounds like
asphalt and thick tar will eventually
settle on the bottom.

But WHILE this chemistry physically sorts
itself out, globs of this stuff can be
somewhat boyancy neutral...drifting neither
on the surface or on the bottom. The TV
newscasters sometimes refer to these as
"plumes". Picture it as looking somewhat
like kelp except made of heavy oil goo.

Most pumps are designed for water and dont
work real well when stuff with high viscosity
literally "gums them up". Centrifuge action
will sepearte the oil, but getting the soup
in and out of the machine is sticky business.

Re:Why is oil so hard to separate from water?

[the_raptor]

1) The ocean isn't a flat surface which prevents easy skimming from working.

2) There is gold particles in sea water as well, that doesn't mean it is economical to extract it.

Re:Why is oil so hard to separate from water?

[jimicus]

Probably because there aren't an enormous number of ships worldwide that are equipped to deal with this, and preparing booms to channel the oil (even if it's not really doing much now) is a hell of a lot quicker than building ships.

Re:Why is oil so hard to separate from water?

[noidentity]

If a barrel of oil is worth $70, your cleanup effort is going to have to be pretty damn cheap in order to make a profit on extracting a barrel of oil mixed in with hundreds of barrels of sea water.

Re:Why is oil so hard to separate from water?

[SleazyRidr]

That's a good sum up of the situation, but I'll also chime in that even when it is sitting on the surface, it spreads itself to quite a thin layer over a very large area, so collecting it all is a best very time and labour intensive.

Also note Jimicus' answer, that this really doesn't happen very often, so there's not much of a demand to have fleets of these ships waiting around to clean up.

Re:Why is oil so hard to separate from water?

[Anonymous Coward]

this is a very good point... i'd like to know too.

MOD PARENT UP

[Khyber]

"Double booms aren't being used in most places, they are aren't being anchored right, no catch basins are being used to collect the oil being trapped, with no pumps at the nonexistent catch basins to remove it. Meaning, the oil will build up and overtop or run under the booms instead of being collected and removed."

I have friends that have worked *HUGE* rigs offshore (6 months on, 6 off, $40K+ a year) *THIS* is the most accurate statement. Every oil guy I met/knew has been consistently saying BP's efforts are TOO LITTLE AND NOT EVEN TOO LATE, and they should have just bombed the shaft long ago and sealed it, then drilled a pressure-release core out and set up another rig to pull the oil up.

Sad that a bunch of barely out of high-school people working professionally on these rigs know more than the oil company pumping the shit out.

Keep it simple, or is it stupid?

[Heabdogg]

Would something like this actually work? You have to believe there's a lot readily available in the SE. http://www.wimp.com/solutionoil/

Flow rates ....

[Anonymous Coward]

Having a good flow (i.e. exhaust rate) at the blow-out, the flow of the loop-current, and the flow of the Gulf Stream to the intersection with the Greendland Sea outflow, will allow for an estimate of the day the the thermohaline circulation shuts dowm, and the new Ice Age is iniciated.

This will allow for the rates of freezing of the Barents Sea and the North Sea, and North Atlantic.

This wil further allow for the date of freezing of the Altantic off the Grand Banks, and later Cape Hatteras.

Their will be a similar freezing of the north Pacific, but delayed by some days, and some would like to estimate the ice front as it closes off Hokkaido and British Columbia/Pudget Sound.

The latter will be a major interuption to US Naval Strategtic Operations (i.e. total shutdown), less they launch all boats to equitoral ports, NOW!

Not to forget an equal major interuption to Russian Federal Republic Strategic Naval Operations at Vladivostok.

Re:Flow rates ....

[Anonymous Coward]

Robin: Holy-Ice-Age-Shit Batman! We're FUCKED!

Batman: Correct Robin. However, ... I would us the word ... Doomed ... instead for our underage readers.

Robin: Sorry Batman. I'll try to kept the fucking lind on it.

Batman: Thank you Robin.

A reliable flow rate is important if you want...

[ibsteve2u]

A reliable flow rate is important if you want to try to understand how a leak of as much as 100,000 barrels/day during a time when we are supposedly retrieving "only" 1,734,000 barrels per day in total from the Gulf is related to declining oil prices.

Put another way: "Gee...how come just one leak is equal to 1/18th of the total amount of oil that is supposedly being pumped out of the Gulf of Mexico? When there are "nearly 4,000 active oil and gas platforms" in the Gulf of Mexico?"

I've been saying this from day one

[kiljoy001]

This whole tragedy is going to cost dearly in terms of ecological damage, economic damage and monetary damage. However, what I am really wondering is if someone is going to politically capitalize on this and push strongly for nuclear or other alternate energy production methods. It seems almost ridiculous that we are still focusing on acquiring more fossil fuels when we should be building something else before it runs out.

Re:I've been saying this from day one

[AHuxley]

From drill baby drill to spill baby spill.
The US cable pundits who pushed so hard for lax impact laws, rushed drilling and low quality long term regulation now seem to be pushing clean safe oil tech as they always did :)
For a few moments US tax payers saw what they pay for under MMS and the US National Environmental Policy.
What the US press, public and law makers do will depend on the oil industry lobby efforts to 'clean up' the only spill they fear, a spew of new laws bringing the US up to international standards.

Coast Guard Under 'BP's Rules'

[AHuxley]

Has BP got the goons to cover all the beach?
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6496749n&tag=related;photovideo

Consumist thinking at work

[qbrick]

US media showing the world how to deal with such an event: Start with small notes and later, when the scale of the desaster knocks down the door of accumulating private wealth of the many make a dramatized TV feature and later a blockbuster about a brave ocean floor driller who tried to avert the catastrophe. But never ever mistrust the company in reality. You can still look surprised later when it seems appropriate.

Re:BP CEO Hayward Predicts 'very, very modest' Imp

[AK Marc]

Accidents are inevitable in offshore drilling. Pointing this out should offend no one. If we don't want another such spill, the only choice is to ban offshore drilling in areas we control-. If we are willing to accept another spill, then we allow drilling with the understanding that it will eventually happen.

My understanding is that BP went against the recommendations of the Transocean engineer in sealing the well before the accident. That makes it negligence, not an accident. Not to mention BP lied to congress when they said they had the ability to contain a spill of this nature. They didn't have enough supplies of dispersal agents, nor the ability to contain the oil, but they lied when getting permission. So, lets see, fraud, negligence, and such. They didn't expect this to happen, but that doesn't make it an accident.

Wow. I mean, wow. What's going on here?

[Whuffo]

What's with all the people blaming Obama for the failure of BP to contain or control their oil spill / environmental disaster? He's the President and he has an opinion - but he doesn't have any control over the spill itself or the folks at BP. About the only thing he could do would be to send the Army Corps of Engineers in to take care of the problem and that's not an easy choice to make. If they succeed, it'd be a big win. But if they failed then not only would BP escape blame but the ACofE and Obama would have to explain why their plan failed.

It's a big clusterfuk because in our wisdom we let British Petroleum (BP) do business in our country but they're a foreign corporation. Do you want to punish them or make them pay for all the damage they've done and continue to do? Sure, now how would you propose to do that? For extra credit, accomplish this goal without interrupting the flow of gasoline to all the BP (Arco and probably other) stations in this country and also avoid a diplomatic incident with our (for now) friends in the British Empire.

But that's not likely; instead we have some idiots who see this as a chance to promote their political agenda and a bunch of others who feel their sense of entitlement being threatened. Get a clue: if you want your toaster waffle to be piping hot, it requires energy. If you insist that nuclear is too dangerous, coal is too dirty, and oil is too dangerous and expensive then you're going to have to deal with cold frozen waffles while you huddle in the dark. There's no happy energy unicorn that's going to descend from the sky to save all of us. The solutions to these problems aren't clean and pretty and they don't make the forest animals happy. But if we don't solve the problems then life is going to be much less than it is now in a third-world kind of way. There's still some time but you can't wait forever for something that's never going to happen.

Re:Wow. I mean, wow. What's going on here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Diplomatic incident? 'for now' friends? Hahaha. Stop the jingoistic bullshit. BP isn't a British company anymore. It's a transnational, like essentially every oil company drilling on or near your soil. Those other companies may have US headquarters but do you think they would act differently towards America? You don't know your history if you do. BP is not much more 'foreign' than Texaco, when it comes to getting oil out of the ground.

I'm saddened to point it out, but it's a rig operated by a division of a transnational company operating under laughably lax US safety laws, with partner companies who hail from the US, signed off by a systematically lax energy operator working in an industry which has been poisoned by decades of underregulation, lobbying and not least by eight years of two stetson-wearing wanker oilmen at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue systematically looking the other way.

The only diplomatic incident will be when the British Ambassador to the US laughs too long at your expense at a Washington party.

Re:Wow. I mean, wow. What's going on here?

[SleazyRidr]

Enough of this crap about BP being a British company. These multinational companies dropped their ties to any specific country ages ago. Also remember the BP-Amoco merger a few years back. Yeah, the AMerican Oil COmpany, that's the one.

Re:Wow. I mean, wow. What's going on here?

[dbcad7]

Not to mention that the suspected cause of the whole thing is the cement job,, contracted by BP to Haliburton.. I'm sure people know who Haliburton is.. Once again the Dems have another Rep mess to cleanup, and the "look how fucked up your doing the job of cleaning up our mess" comments that go with it.

Re:Wow. I mean, wow. What's going on here?

[Chowderbags]

It's a big clusterfuk because in our wisdom we let British Petroleum (BP) do business in our country but they're a foreign corporation. Do you want to punish them or make them pay for all the damage they've done and continue to do? Sure, now how would you propose to do that? For extra credit, accomplish this goal without interrupting the flow of gasoline to all the BP (Arco and probably other) stations in this country and also avoid a diplomatic incident with our (for now) friends in the British Empire.

Make them pay. If they want to continue to do business in the US, they will pay the money. If they refuse, seize their assets and either nationalize it or sell it to the highest bidder. Start working up criminal liability for anyone who knew that safety checks weren't being done right and work that as high as it can go. If the board of directors knew (or encouraged) things weren't being done right, try to extradite them and make them serve jail time. Why have sympathy for anyone cultivating the attitude leading to this incident? There's 11 dead people and what could be the largest man-made environmental disaster in the Gulf ever that will take decades to recover from.

What is the BP live feed showing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Has anyone seen the BP live feed lately? I'm not sure what it's showing. Is that the BOP leak or the riser-end leak? If that's the BOP leak, where's the BOP?

Thanks.

You mean his cousin?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean his cousin? Or the family friend he put in charge of the department who were supposed to deal with Katrina? Or how about how he spent the money on defence projects when the engineers said that he should fix the seawalls?

Defense in layers?

[bl8n8r]

FTFA: "It's another layer," Touchard says. "This whole concept is defense in layers and defense in strategies."

No, actually what you are doing is damage control - damage control from the lack of adequately prioritizing disaster planning. It's the same thing I run into every day trying to explain computer and network based security.

Re:BP CEO Hayward Predicts 'very, very modest' Imp

[jbengt]

No, they'll just move elsewhere. . . They don't need to be US corporations, they don't need US basing, they only need to sell oil.

Huh?!?
BP is not a US corporation and is not US based.
TransOcean is not a US corporation and is not US based.
Haliburton deserves to die.

what happened to Amoco?

[Anonymous Coward]

what happened to Amoco? And what happened to all the other suits who have screwed up big time. Are we going to change our methods of holding executives accountable or are we just going to do that for one company?

NAIL THEM ALL UP.

PS Where are all those people who complained about EU nailing Microsoft and any other company to the wall for 1% of their profit? They should be LIVID at wanting a company completely dismantled and the proceeds used to fund government.

PPS How about paying the UK government the money for offshore drilling in the US because this was how BP managed to screw up: without offshore drilling OK'd by US government, there would be no crisis.

I could do with a tax break from the US.

PPPS And what about the US Government who do not require the safety measures that other countries require (including the UK)? Isn't part of the problem YOUR fault, USians?

Dems hated the Gingrich plan - but took credit

[walterbyrd]

Dems were pulled, kicking and screaming, into the Gingrich plan. Remember the "contract with America" which the dems called "contract on America?"

Dems despised the republican plan to balance the budget. But those same dems took credit for the plans success.

Boycott?

[CopterHawk]

If we factor the devastation of the gulf into every gallon of gasoline purchased from BP gas stations, it suddenly becomes worth driving down the street and even paying more to buy from someone else. Someone could also do some research to determine what refineries buy oil from BP and what gas stations get gas from those refineries. I'm envisioning a Google maps app to help distribute this info in a useful fashion. Granted most likely other oil companies are not being much more responsible than BP, but this could be an opportunity to effect the market and make safety and environmental stewardship more economically appealing to those in the industry.

Quality Editing is Quality

[Guppy]

If you feel the need to comment on this sentence, please please read the article first.

I realize prompts like this are par for the course on Slashdot, but it's disheartening to see we need to remind the editors too.

Terrible Argument

[Anonymous Coward]

The contrary position is that if there were NO government regulation, the companies would have had all the responsibility and may have taken issue to the blueprints being wrong. However, we had a government official walk in and say everything is in working order. If you are a company working for profit and the government OK's your work, you aren't going to do extra work to verify the governments OK! Duh! Therefor, I blame this on too much (FAILED) government regulation.
 
So, don't reply to the troll with agenda pushing friends. His argument is that capitalism is bad because the government oversight was not there. However, a government official overlooked the blueprints of the blow out unit being different than the installed unit. This is currently the subject of the forming litigation against BP, where it may be attributed to the government official not doing his job. This is what happens when you conflate government and private industry, which is what communism/socialism is by definition.

Re:BP CEO Hayward Predicts 'very, very modest' Imp

[Opportunist]

Then let's do it and hope for a few more leaks.

C'mon, we have to start somewhere...

Re:Not very critical, actually. addendum

[slick7]

watch this series if you dare. These people are raping this country. Here's your tax dollars at work

probably going to have nuke it

[Anonymous Coward]

Russia proved that nuclear detonations are the only way to stop underwater oil spills. There will be huge environmental repercussions, but this is the only solution. The longer we wait the worse the net damage will be.