Slashdot Mirror


Gulf Oil Leak Plugged?

RobHart writes "The LA Times is reporting that the Gulf oil leak appears to have been plugged by the 'top kill.' 'Thad Allen, who is coordinating the government response, says the well still has low pressure, but cement will be used to cap the well permanently as soon as the pressure hits zero.'"

127 of 611 comments (clear)

  1. glad to see this by Pojut · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm glad to see that this solution seems to be working well. The aftermath, however, is going to be a freakin' political circus. I'm simultaneously excited and dreading it.

    1. Re:glad to see this by MrNaz · · Score: 3, Funny

      Dude, they're the ones responsible for the spill. Environmental agencies are referring to the oil slick as the "black screen of death".

      --
      I hate printers.
    2. Re:glad to see this by tweak13 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have a feeling expanding foam doesn't expand too well at over 2,000 psi.

    3. Re:glad to see this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm looking forward to seeing BP get raked over the coals. Bastards. The way they attempted to cover up how bad the spill is is really disgusting. See http://www.newsweek.com/2010/05/26/the-missing-oil-spill-photos.html

    4. Re:glad to see this by Nadaka · · Score: 5, Funny

      With Apple, a slick shiny black surface is a feature, not a problem.

    5. Re:glad to see this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Kill baby krill!

    6. Re:glad to see this by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is BP's Rules, Not Ours

      Well there you go.. BP runs the American government..

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    7. Re:glad to see this by Pojut · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why do I get the impression this isn't the first time you've said that...

      Brother, if only you knew.

    8. Re:glad to see this by budgenator · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In order to do that they would have had to cut through the riser and well casing and then opened up the BOP (Blow-out-preventer) to full bore to gain access; before we assumed that the BOP had at least partially choked off the well casing or the pipes had crimps from being bent. Opening up to full-bore could easily have made the leak 10 times worst for no guarantee of success. Doing the top kill meant they only had to hook into the choke & kill port on the BOP, using it for its designed purpose and pump in the mud. If the top-kill failed then they could at least return to the wells original leakage rate.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    9. Re:glad to see this by jeff4747 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What I want to know is, once they realized that the ship-with-a-straw idea was somewhat effective at drawing 20% (or some fraction, open for debate) of the oil, why didnt they immediately deploy a dozen said ships with straws to catch the rest?

      Because there's only 1 pipe into which the straw can be inserted.

    10. Re:glad to see this by Manfred+Maccx · · Score: 2, Informative

      He's not talking about the well pressure but simply the water pressure at that depth. That's not going to be removed

    11. Re:glad to see this by fustakrakich · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just saw this quote:

      "You want a witch hunt? Start by looking in a mirror."

      *sigh* So true... This blame game has grown so very tiresome.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    12. Re:glad to see this by WNight · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's because we don't properly acknowledge that there's enough blame to go around ten times over. We let the guilty spin the issue into one of someone else being technically more guilty in some sub area.

      If we properly assigned blame, even just enough to bar them from ever participating in politics again, to every politician who took bribes or let themselves be influenced to go against the will of their constituents we'd end up with better politicians. They're out there somewhere, hidden behind the hordes of sell-outs. Instead we get suckered into trying to decide if the republicans or the democrats are more guilty and forget to punish the individuals we caught breaking the law.

      Similarly for "the corporations". Punish any attempt to influence a politician or law enforcement officer (or EPA investigator, etc) as you would bribery. Seize all assets related to the transaction and punish the offender for perjury.

      If we actually enforced our existing laws so many people are guilty (of real crimes - that you and I would be punished for) that almost our entire governing and financial sector would be gone.

      I wish we'd stop letting them misdirect us.

    13. Re:glad to see this by lgw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      All such products I've ever seen need to "set up" first, before they become structural. For some products this only takes seconds, but that's not going to work here. Also, "gas mixed with the foam expands the foam itself" is orders of magnitude below what you'd need here - not even close.

      BP has plenty of good engineers. They did think of the obvious stuff. The "top kill" is a simple, straightforward answer. I wonder why it wasn't ready earlier, but they may have started on this day 1, and it just took this long to prepare the appropriate ships and get them into position - moving heavy loads across the sea doesn't happen at internet speed.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    14. Re:glad to see this by lgw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Real" engineering is not like your geek job. When the rig blew, people died, and others needed immediate rescue to survive - and BP was there for that. There were several in-place preventive measures as part of the disaster prevention plan, but they failed - largely due to poor management culture endemic to BP, where warnings from the guys on the rig were ignored. BP certainly deserves blame for that. The same cultural problem led to the gas pipeline blowout, if you remember that.

      Efforts to plug the well started immediately, and as there's no way to know what will work, several parallel efforts were all started. Lots of silly /.ers who seem to think this is like fixing a down server are asking questions like "why didn't they drill the relief well first, since that's the only permanent fix". They did start the effort to drill the relief well immediately; it will be done in August IIRC. This isn't a down server - real engineering work is required here, real heavy equipment must be designed, built, shipped to a port, loaded, and shipped out to the middle of the gulf at 15 knots.

      The "top kill" effort was started as soon as the problem was understood - it just takes time to do stuff like this.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    15. Re:glad to see this by AlamedaStone · · Score: 3, Funny

      What I want to know is, once they realized that the ship-with-a-straw idea was somewhat effective at drawing 20% (or some fraction, open for debate) of the oil, why didnt they immediately deploy a dozen said ships with straws to catch the rest?

      Because there's only 1 pipe into which the straw can be inserted.

      ... Giggity?

      --
      "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
    16. Re:glad to see this by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You could have them, but the cost would be prohibitive. That cost has to be borne somehere, and it's likely be passed on to consumers.

      Imagine if fuel in the USA rose to even half of UK prices? There'd be a lot of howling - and it would mostly come from people who are happily bashing BP and playing the Monday morning quarterback in this thread.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  2. Too early by Hatta · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is just step one of the top kill. It's just plugged with mud, which is still streaming out of the hole. Don't start celebrating until they actually top it with concrete.

    I've got to wonder, if this does work is BP going to go ahead with their "relief well".

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:Too early by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Possibly for the reason that it's never been done before at this depth. Remember, whatever finally works will be paraded around by armchair generals as "what they should have done first".

      Hindsight can be a cast-iron bitch sometimes.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Too early by Dishevel · · Score: 5, Informative

      Because there was a chance that it could make the situation worse. They were trying things first that if they went wrong would not make the problem worse.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    3. Re:Too early by bratloaf · · Score: 5, Informative

      They were working on this from the start, as well as the "top hat" that will probably not be needed now. They had at least 3 different methods working in parallel. This one took this long because it was unbelievably complicated and had never been tried at anything even close to this depth. This (the actual stoppage) is an amazing success for the many 100's of skilled engineers that have been working around the clock on it for weeks. (Mostly not BP people BTW)

    4. Re:Too early by fireduck · · Score: 4, Interesting

      My understanding was that there was a chance it might make things worse. If the mud didn't actually slow the leak, but was pushed out as fast as it was applied, there was the fear it might further damage the already broken valve. So, rather than a partially open valve somewhat checking the flow of oil, you'd have a fully open pipe.

    5. Re:Too early by Sollord · · Score: 2, Informative

      Here the basic steps BP had to follow to do this top kill now guess which one took the longest. 1. BP had to get the ships and oil rig in place 2. BP had to deploy special gear and lines for this topkill which it also happens to be something no ones ever done before 2. BP had to load several pump ships full of mud 3. BP had to get permission from the feds to do it. Also they didn't start the wells to start collection of oil. The two wells being drilled are going to be used to divert the oil and then pumped full of cement to fully cap and seal the well. Then the wells once they are sealed will all be abandoned. Though I'm sure in the future a new well will be drilled into the same field maybe somewhat near the current one but it will in no way interact with any of the three wells once they are seals off.

    6. Re:Too early by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 4, Informative

      "They had immediately started construction of a second well to collect oil from the same reserve."

      Um, I have not seen any evidence of this. Do you mean the relief wells? Those are a bit of a misnomer - the name implies that it relieves the pressure forcing the leak by sucking out oil, but apparently a "relief well" is actually the standard way of injecting kill mud deep into a well (as opposed to a "top kill" which is apparently less likely to work.).

      Not sure if they'll continue the relief well to ensure that the current well is 100% dead by getting kill mud deeper down into the well.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    7. Re:Too early by maxume · · Score: 4, Informative

      Speculation:

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-l-cavnar/bp-top-kill-today-finally_b_590178.html

      In short, the guy thinks that maybe they waited because they didn't think it would work until the pressure in the well had reduced some.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    8. Re:Too early by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 4, Informative

      For a full plug & abandon procedure, they'd not only have to pour some cement, but actually go down the bore again, pull the string, place multiple seals and cement those, so as to protect from further blowouts. That might not be possible at all here, so some basic cementing might have to suffice until the relief well is done. While this is looking good at the moment, we have just reached a temporary solution, at the time being just a temporary seal with the mud pumps holding against the reservoir pressure. We have to hope that the engineers manage to transform that into a static solution. I am pretty sure that the relief wells have to be completed - I don't see how a long term solution could be achieved without getting down to the bottom of the well otherwise. All this hugely depends on the condition of the bore - is the casing intact? Obstructions? Partial collapse?

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    9. Re:Too early by Goaway · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because it takes a long time to prepare. They did start preparing this right away. It was only ready now.

      And relief wells don't collect oil from the same reserve. They intersect the original well and fill it up with mud from the bottom.

    10. Re:Too early by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 4, Insightful

      guess which one took the longest

      I'll take "What is BP had to get permission from the feds" for $500 Alex.

      --
      I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
    11. Re:Too early by Zarf · · Score: 4, Funny

      I would have enjoyed watching that one blow up in their faces.

      --
      [signature]
    12. Re:Too early by Locutus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      if the oil flow has been plugged and only the high pressure mud is still flowing out the other end, why does it look like there's different flow materials coming from the ejected blooms? Specifically, the breaks in the bent over riser just above the BOP shows very light colored material on the left and darker material in the center and right side leaks. Shouldn't it all be the same consistency and material?

      currently, the cnn.com alt view is what shows the top of the BOP view.

      LoB

      --
      "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
    13. Re:Too early by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm sure the thousands of Coast Guardsmen, non BP engineers, private fisherman and volunteers working to actually solve and alleviate the problem are likewise eternally grateful for your willingness to contribute by adapting and innovating snarky comments about other people's efforts while sitting on your ass ;)

    14. Re:Too early by arth1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Speaking of generals... Was Red Adair's company (International Well Control, IIRC) ever called in on this? I mean, they have extensive experience plugging holes not only on land, but have assisted with deep sea blow-outs too, like the Ekofisk Bravo blow-out that was larger in scale, but capped after just a week.

    15. Re:Too early by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "So why not go straight for the plug and tell everyone what a hero they are for saving the day?"

      Because with a diversified huge multinational, there is no such thing lose lose scenario.

      They have no urgency to do so. BP, being a diversely investment huge multinational and 4th largest worldwide company, in the medium and long term, is not affected by this one bit whatsoever. A small or large leak would have been villified equally by the environmentalists; at some point the fubar is so bad, people just want it over, and are insensitive to the number of gallons spilled as the story drags on. A large leak with minimum impact would be PR'd one way (which this may be turning into already). If it turned bad, then national policy shifts to other energy investments BP has, which are *more* highly profitable (solar, geothermal, etc.) and far less regulated.

      Call me cynical, but the less offshore oil drilling on land which was recently announced, which BP lacks leases on or is threatened with, the more offshore they can do, esp. outside the economic zone of 200 some miles, which BP is one of the leaders in the tech. They may have fubar'd this well, but this will push regulation on land and near offshore drilling, pushing BP to dominate the market further outward.

      iow, it increases regulation IN the US economically controlled areas against oil drilling, favors BP's tech for unregulated drilling, and pushes more to the patent portfolio if or when the US implement a more non-oil policy. Prices, in turn, are more controlled by deep water well drilling, and less smaller players get in on the now or soon to be defunct domestic increased drilling agenda. BP has more control of the western market, all they have to do is monitor the output by OPEC and the big companies, of which they are one. The smaller players are eliminated. They don't have the tech or capital to go deep water, and the onshore plans are gutted by the public "outrage."

      So while BP has lost about $20 billion at least and about a quarter of their market cap (due to questions of liability), they'll make that up in about 2 quarters at most, and the long term will reap more benefits. They'll gladly exchange half of year of fallout for years of future profit, instead of years of competition from smaller players. The smaller players, don't forget, have a good chance of undercutting the domestic market, and with the US sucking up 20% of the worldwide market for oil, that would have cut into big oil profits significantly.

      Note, I'm not saying BP doesn't care about the leak, meaning that I do believe they want to cap it, they didn't have the same urgency whose business is going to be crushed; theirs will actually profit from their own error. But to believe there is a right or wrong when it comes to companies (and governments who stand by) of this size is a huge mistake. YOU have a moral compass. You (rightly) see this leak as abysmal. BP individuals do as well. But in the collective of the company, it moves to a different overall will than an individual.

    16. Re:Too early by Bakkster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because there was a chance that it could make the situation worse. They were trying things first that if they went wrong would not make the problem worse.

      I guess I'm a little more cynical than this. I assumed they were trying things that would cost them the least money first.

      In theory, those are the same. Factor in the potential cost of failure alongside the cost of the procedure itself. The top kill probably costs less than many of the other methods (a 93-ton, four-story-tall concrete dome can't be cheap), until you factor in the risk and cost of failure (top kill can make more oil leak, which in turn makes future attempts more expensive).

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
    17. Re:Too early by rhsanborn · · Score: 4, Informative

      From radio reports, it sounded like this mud method had risk in that it could damage the blowout preventor causing a worse leak. The other methods were an attempt to avoid breaking the blowout preventer further and causing the hole to become unrestricted and allow for an even greater flow.

    18. Re:Too early by mean+pun · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm just eternally grateful for these BP heroes that have worked so many sleepless nights since this began in order to wrestle this thing under control. No one has ever had to deal with something like this before and by using their ingenuity and ability to adapt and innovate, they were able to accomplish a herculean feat. Yes, I'm being facetious.

      I'm sure a lot of BP personnel (and yes, a lot of non-BP personnel) have indeed worked many sleepless nights since this began in order to wrestle this thing under control. And you are right that no one has ever had to deal with something like this before and by using their ingenuity and ability to adapt and innovate, they were able to accomplish a herculean feat.

      So despite everything I think all these people have more than earned a massive THANK YOU and WELL DONE. I even think that they deserve to be called heroes. (Especially because the people that did all this probably had nothing to do with causing the disaster in the first place.)

    19. Re:Too early by jbengt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't understand why they didn't just do this in the first (or even second) place.

      In essence, they did. They started drilling a relief well, constructing the containment dome, and preparing for a top kill more or less all at the beginning. Apparently the blowout preventer needed repairs before it could accommodate the top kill attempt. Also, they needed to asses the situation, as a damaged piping and well system could be made worse by trying to pump against the pressure - worst case you could end up with oil coming to the surface through surrounding rock outside of the well casing and uncontrolled. So they prepared (too slowly in my opinion) more than one option and tried the safer and faster ones first.

    20. Re:Too early by WNight · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm sure they're totally irrelevant to the point, but also that they'd wholeheartedly love to kick BPs ass for making them do all the work.

      Snarky comments are part of keeping the political pressure on.

    21. Re:Too early by lgw · · Score: 3, Informative

      It may come as a surprise to many /. geeks, but despite drilling involving a series of tubes, the ocean is not the internet. If you want to get many tons of material to a deep-sea location, a ship has to do that, at 15 knots or so. If you want to get an new engineering design out there, you have to first figure out what is needed (meaning the design process is fairly far along), those parts need to get to an appropriate port, a ship must get to that port, and be loaded, and then move from there to where the problem is. All at the speed of real-world heavy material shipping. Not metaphorical shipping, but the kind with actual ships.

      This isn't like putting a new version of your web site up, folks.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    22. Re:Too early by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Never been done before" except in 1979 at Ixtoc (3.6km down vs 1.5km for Deepwater Horizons), where a top-kill + junk shot slowed the spill, and relief wells stopped it. Never been done successfully at this depth, true, but it HAS been done before at a well over twice as deep.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    23. Re:Too early by joebok · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Ixtoc well was 3.6km long, but it was only drilled in water 50m deep. Deepwater Horizon was working a well 1,500m deep when it blew. I think there is a huge difference between working at 50m deep in water vs 1,500m deep.

    24. Re:Too early by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Aaah, thanks for the correction. Clearly I read the info on Ixtoc incorrectly. I shall be more careful in the future.

      --
      Not a sentence!
  3. in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started by swschrad · · Score: 4, Funny

    to control the flow of nonsense over the failed well, contractors will first pump T5000 cement into his mouth under pressure, then fit ankle weights, and send him to inspect the work personally in the Gulf.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
    1. Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started by Em+Emalb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So you hold the CEO personally responsible for this mishap? If that's the case, then I don't think anyone gets to complain about how much money CEOs make.

      I mean, if I were the head of BP and every decision that was made pointed directly at me, then I'd for sure want a bajillion dollars a year.

      That's a lot of pressure to be under.

      I mean, what if that BP truck driver falls asleep at the wheel and kills a family of 4? That's on me, right?

      --
      Sent from your iPad.
    2. Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started by FooAtWFU · · Score: 4, Funny

      to control the flow of nonsense over the failed well, contractors will first pump T5000 cement into his mouth under pressure, then fit ankle weights, and send him to inspect the work personally in the Gulf.

      Typical. There's a flippin' crisis going on in the Gulf and the CEO is out getting fitted for his new fancy concrete shoes. What's next? Some exotic underwater hotel where he can sleep with the fishes? That is, if there are any fish left.

      :)

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    3. Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's what Officers and Directors indemnification insurance is for.....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    4. Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started by gmuslera · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What if that BP truck driver went into coma and went into a sleeping killing rampage that lasted a month? The original explosion could have been an accident, if well could fall into company responsibility, it could be seen as accident. But the unsucessful "solutions" till this one, and the damage that happened and will still happen for weeks or months because no appropiate measures taken aren't accidents, are company decisions, and definately responsibility too.

    5. Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 3, Informative

      First of all, that's now that the grandparent is saying at all. The GP is talking about what the CEO is saying, not the decisions made that caused this disaster. (And he's joking, at that. That much should have been obvious.)

      So really, you're off on a tangent to grind your own ax, here.

      There's a big difference between blaming someone and actually holding them to accounts. If the BP CEO is willing to pay for the cleanup and potentially go to prison for any malfeasance, then sure, he deserves the massive salary. However, past experience shows that this never actually happens and that the CEOs get a huge salary and take none of the real consequences. It's more likely the little guys with the low salaries who get canned, fined, or jailed.

      Either way, I doubt that the GP can do anything against the CEO of BP, so again, you're sort of off on a tangent of your own making here.

    6. Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started by daid303 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not responsible for the mishap, responsible for the inadequate response. Keeping officials away and not trying to solve the leak *period*, but trying to solve the leak by extracting the oil.

    7. Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started by bratloaf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually - that's almost exactly it. Right there. If it is shown that this resulted from systemic faults or negligence on the part of BP management, and is something that results from decisions of the "Very High Up" - i.e. safety shortcuts, speed at the expense of safe(er) procedures, known faults with safety equipment and/or a culture of "get it done fast".

      Things that management knew about, condoned, encouraged or "looked the other way", then I believe we should hold the CEO and entire personally responsible. That is (one of the many things) that is wrong with corporate culture in the world now. All the profits and percs of a "human" and none of the responsibility. I think if the CEO and board of corporations were held personally responsible then we'd see a lot less screwing of the public. I'm all for that and the "corporate death penalty".

      If you were the CEO of said trucking company, and encouraged or looked the other way when your drivers were falsifying log books, driving extra hours, and ignoring the safety concerns of your maintenance contractor, and your tired driver plowed into a shopping mall with a tanker truck of propane because he was tired, then yes I DO hold you responsible. If that's not the case, and the guy was just an idiot or had too many tacos at lunch and got distracted, then no.

      I generally consider myself to lean libertarian - but what we have now in the US is too many cases of privatizing profits and socializing losses/screwups - and that to me is the worst of all worlds.

    8. Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started by rednip · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I mean, what if that BP truck driver falls asleep at the wheel and kills a family of 4? That's on me, right?

      Yes, it would be, but only if your negligent business decision made the event happen; like demanding an exceedingly long work day, crazy shift work, or revolving door employment.

      --
      The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
    9. Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But the unsucessful "solutions" till this one, and the damage that happened and will still happen for weeks or months because no appropiate measures taken aren't accidents

      That's pretty unfair. Do you think you could have come up with a better solution and deployed it in less time than BP did? Do you think it's that easy to cap a failed oil well under 5,000 feet of water?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    10. Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started by Dishevel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think what he is pointing out is that most of the people who want the CEO's to be directly responsible for everything are the same people who think they can set a cap on what private citizens can earn.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    11. Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started by Duradin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's pretty unfair. Do you think he's an undersea oil well engineer with the resources of the company the size of BP?

      Easy has nothing to do with it. They weren't prepared and got publicly caught with their pants down and little intention of pulling them back up anytime soon. If they can't fix it 5000' maybe they shouldn't be drilling at 5000'.

    12. Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So you hold the CEO personally responsible for this mishap? If that's the case, then I don't think anyone gets to complain about how much money CEOs make.

      Well, uh, yes? Fact: CEO's make about a bajillion dollars a year, give or take a few million. The job is so cushy that they can run a company into the ground in 6 months, and still retire in luxury after getting fired. Right now, the risk is exclusively carried by worker bees who actually do stuff - they're the ones who get hauled in front of a jury when something goes wrong, regardless of what idiotic policies were put into place by the CEO.

      I mean, what if that BP truck driver falls asleep at the wheel and kills a family of 4? That's on me, right?

      If you put in a policy that mandates overtime, no break on overnight gas trucking and 24 hour driving shifts, then yes, it is on you.

      At the very least what needs to happen is that everyone in a position to make executive decisions about how the well is drilled and how the equipment is maintained and monitored needs to be hauled in front of a grand jury to investigate whether there was criminal negligence anywhere, or if there was a knowing disregard of standard safety and accident mitigation procedures. The spill has a chance to cause $1 trillion in damages over its lifetime of existence (the economy tied to the Gulf of Mexico is estimated at $250B), and you're damn straight that I want people in jail for that. They all have the right to due process, but they don't get to cause that much damage and then simply get off by saying "shit happens". No it doesn't, especially not if numbers like that are involved.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    13. Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started by TheKidWho · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well if they can't drill it at 5000', maybe you shouldn't be driving your car?

    14. Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Informative

      Do you think he's an undersea oil well engineer with the resources of the company the size of BP?

      Resources take time to deploy. Research has to be done before repairs can be attempted. The criticism still isn't fair.

      It's my understanding that they had plans for Top Kill from almost the beginning of this crisis but were doing investigation/research to ensure that it wouldn't make the problem worse. Or would you prefer that they move ahead blindly and ignore the possibility of doing more harm than good?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    15. Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And here, in a nutshell, the problem with American politics. It doesn't matter how bad we are, as long as you are worse.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    16. Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started by kestasjk · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Deciding who to blame is pretty pointless, the aim is (should be) to prevent it happening again. Replacing the CEO probably isn't going to make the guys specifically responsible for the kill-plug (or whatever they call it) be more careful next time.

      You can argue that a new CEO won't want the same fate, so will enforce higher safety standards, but CEOs are judged by the money made for the shareholders, not by their safety record. If a CEO gets replaced over safety for political reasons, but made a crap-ton of money as CEO, you can bet they're not going to end up in a soup kitchen..

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    17. Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started by maxume · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A lot of the numbers I have seen sort of add together to the total cleanup cost and other liabilities to at least be in the range of $10 billion. They can pay that off in 6 months.

      (I'm assuming several billion dollars of cleanup costs, and then also several billion for fisherman, and another several billion for the tourist industry)

      They could probably afford to pay $50 billion (but I don't really see how the liabilities will get that high).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    18. Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started by imamac · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If they can't fix it 5000' maybe they shouldn't be drilling at 5000'.

      True. So let them drill in shallower waters. Oh wait...that might ruin someone's "view".

    19. Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started by IP_Troll · · Score: 3, Informative

      Absolutely wrong.

      Officers and Directors indemnification insurance is for shareholder derivative suits and has nothing to do with tort liability.

      Officers and directors would to covered by the corporation's general liability policy, the same as every other employee.

    20. Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started by rsborg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think what he is pointing out is that most of the people who want the CEO's to be directly responsible for everything are the same people who think they can set a cap on what private citizens can earn.

      Well, right now, CEOs are both highly overpaid and free of responsibility. Which one would you prefer they relinquish?

      With great power comes great responsibility... this is the rule I want enforced.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    21. Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started by TheKidWho · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So you don't use plastic products either? You don't use goods that are transported on trucks that consume oil? You never walk over asphalt roads?

    22. Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started by KahabutDieDrake · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's a rhetorical question, right? Well, let me assume it's not and answer it. Corporate structures were invented for EXACTLY that purpose. Corporation: An ingenious invention for obtaining personal wealth while avoiding personal responsibility.

      I'm not inclined to tar and feather the CEO when something goes wrong. But when something goes catastrophically wrong, and takes months to come to a resolution, and is due to poor safety or operational prudence, then yes, SOMEONE needs to be held responsible, and I think that someone is at the top, not the bottom.

      As the fallout settles from here, we are going to see a handful of guys vilified, but they will be the ones that died on the rig. Nice little closed circle. The Officers in BP will walk away with nothing more than a lashing from the board of directors and the stock holders.

    23. Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started by kevinNCSU · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dude what do you not understand? He lives in the city, he walks everywhere. The food in the grocery store where he shops is CERTIFIED organic, and he walks there using the grass section between the sidewalk and the street and uses a reusable cloth bag to hold the groceries which he washes with rain water collected in the cistern of his building. The farmer that grows that food uses an electric tractor which he plugs directly into a windmill on the property, the same with the truck that brings the food into town. When he has sex he uses snakeskin condoms like the ancient Egyptians. Do you DARE to question his devotion further?!?!

    24. Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started by kevinNCSU · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, actually he just optimistically carries the snakeskin around in his wallet. This is Slashdot after all.

    25. Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started by Al+Dimond · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is almost impossible to have your hands "clean of oil". Food production and transportation uses lots of fossil fuels. Especially meat.

      But it is possible, as a society, for us to decide we don't want offshore drilling. In fact, I suspect that if oil companies were made to pay fair damages to everyone affected by accidents, and pay real penalties to governments (Federal, a handful of states, and possibly countries like Mexico and Cuba) for ecological damages, they would not find offshore drilling worth the risk. Instead, just watch as lawsuits against BP don't come close to making the affected parties whole. The court system will protect BP as long as they've followed some basic safety regulations. As if the damage sustained by all these other parties was akin to an "act of god".

      My point is that it's absurd to say that nobody can oppose offshore drilling if they participate in the economy in any way. You just have to be willing to live with consequences of stopping it (a somewhat reduced standard of living across the board due to higher prices on just about everything; less economic activity in the Gulf region; more oil importing and less oil exporting; but also less pollution everywhere; more economic incentive for energy efficiency; less sprawl).

    26. Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started by Splab · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Don't forget the billions they have pledged in funding for research into handling this better in the future.

      I find it so strange people keep claiming BP is running from the bill when BP has done all it can to limit the problem, both now and in the future. People seem to forget that BP is one of the biggest energy companies in the world (3rd I think) and are drilling all over the planet, if they fail to handle this spill or try to run away from it they will lose contracts around the world.

    27. Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well if they can't drill it at 5000', maybe you shouldn't be driving your car?

      Good point!

      Let's all work to reduce our oil consumption. I drive a fuel efficient economy car, and avoid disposable plastic whenever possible, but I'm sure there's more I can do. I'm sure there's more you can do. I'm sure there's more the EPA can do to get companies to use more sustainable practices and consume less energy.

      That was your point, wasn't it? That if we want to avoid doing dangerous things like drilling for oil in mile-deep water, we need to reduce oil consumption as much as possible. That we all need to take responsibility, and thus take reasonable but decisive action at all levels.

      I hope it wasn't some crap like "if you use any petroleum products at all you cannot suggest that we should drill less oil."

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    28. Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started by psydeshow · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well if they can't drill it at 5000', maybe you shouldn't be driving your car?

      Or maybe we should all be paying a bit more to drive our cars.

      The world doesn't run out of oil just because we can't drill for it in the middle of the fucking ocean. It just runs out of *cheap* oil.

      Oil companies really don't have any business drilling where they can't contain a gusher. The cost of the fix and the cleanup is going to so greatly exceed the projected cost of drilling the well that the project should never have been considered in the first place. Bankrupting the company does not make shareholders happy.

    29. Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started by thelexx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Astonishing. You really think that's the ONLY reason not to let them drill closer to land, considering the topic we are discussing?

      --
      "Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
    30. Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started by FauxPasIII · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > If you had $300 million, i'd rather it go to one individual where $100m was being taxed back, than say 30,000 individuals that are living in a low income tax bracket where their taxation rate is minimal.

      I can think of at least 30,000 people in that equation who'd disagree with you.

      --
      25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
    31. Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started by celle · · Score: 2, Funny

      "...optimistically carries the snakeskin around in his wallet. "

      He must still be young, I gave that practice up long ago as futile.

      ps. Using real login as I just don't care anymore.

  4. Ixtoc and BP disaster comparison by jcwren · · Score: 5, Interesting

    An interesting comparison between the 1979 Ixtoc oil disaster and the BP disaster. Note that indeed Transocean and Sedco merged in 1999.

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=127_1274931222

    1. Re:Ixtoc and BP disaster comparison by mlts · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Rachael Maddow had a blurb on this yesterday. It showed how similar techniques (including "top kill") were used in attempt to plug the leak, then the leak was finally killed by another well drilled, with a devastating impact on the environment, about six months after the fact.

      What lessons can we learn from this? First and foremost, this drives the point home that one of the first priorities is that oil should be relegated to plastic making, and not an energy source.

      Nuclear technology may not be perfect, and the biggest problem with it is that it isn't goof-proof. If a group of drunk contractors pass out on the job when putting together a solar cell array, it likely won't affect much other than the head of the guy the cell array fell on. Nuclear plants need to be engineered to be as moron resistant as possible, because both Chernobyl and Three Mile Island were caused by "cockpit errors". Hopefully Gen III and Gen IV reactors will go a long way to address this.

      This is not to say that other energy sources are not relevant, but until fusion gets able to be used on a production basis (as in multi-gigawatt reactors), the only real solution for dense areas without access to large amount of real estate is nuclear breeder reactors.

      Of course, there are other ways to help with energy. I've seen some research on generators which turn water into hydrogen and pass the stuff down a pipeline to an electricity generation station nearby a metropolitan area where it is burned. This minimizes energy loss over long distances as opposed to power lines.

      In any case, this BP disaster just further reinforces the point of getting off of oil and onto other energy sources.

    2. Re:Ixtoc and BP disaster comparison by jo_ham · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Chernobyl was "cockpit error" if we redesignate it to be something like:

      Flying the plane 6 feet off the ground at just above stall speed and disabling all the "too low! pull up!" alarms, the stick shaker and the emergency anti-stall system and then turning off the engines to see if there was enough residual hydraulic pressure in the system to deploy the landing gear, in a plane that featured an emergency throttle up that deployed the air brakes for several seconds before the engines went to full power.

      There was considerable human error in the Reactor 4 disaster, but it was hardly a textbook "cockpit error" situation.

  5. Little Dutch Boy by tedgyz · · Score: 2, Funny

    Why didn't they just call the Little Dutch Boy?

    --
    "No matter where you go, there you are." -- Buckaroo Banzai
    1. Re:Little Dutch Boy by Hatta · · Score: 4, Funny

      He's somewhere in Amsterdam's red light district, sticking his finger in dykes.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:Little Dutch Boy by truthsearch · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why didn't they call Aquaman? This is probably the only time where his superpower would actually be useful.

  6. Depends by stomv · · Score: 5, Insightful

    if you had a policy which ignored industry and federal and state and local standards on driver hours per week or hours per day, and it was reasonable to conclude that your policy played a role in the driver falling asleep, then yes.

    If, on the other hand, you had a policy which reinforced (or even outdid) the safety procedures, and despite quality employee and contractor screening, despite training, despite good policy, something bad still happened (individual negligence or simply bad luck), then no.

    In short, management's role is reducing the likelihood of major disasters. Did they do their job? I don't know the answer, but I suspect that the next few years will include a number of investigations to figure that out.

  7. Victory for Obama! by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Whew...I was getting worried about this one. But, it looks like we can chalk up another victory for Obama and his environmental record. This incident should put a stop to offshore drilling, which is good. The price of gasoline should go up to eight dollars a gallon, that should keep people from wasting it.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:Victory for Obama! by Jawnn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well..., more, as in whatever it takes, as long as we're doing what is necessary to move away from that dependence on fossil fuel. And spare me the arguments about the limitations of alternative energy. I am well aware of them and I can do the math. Doing that math also reveals that at some point, either sooner, because we did the R&D and got ahead of the curve in a global market for such things, or later, because we continued to let the oil companies have their way, alternative energy will be cheaper. Sooner, seems like a better plan, to me.

    2. Re:Victory for Obama! by rwa2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I like the quote from yesterday's /. thread... it went something like:

      We just had extremely unlucky timing with Louisiana disaster response.
      If Obama had been president during Katrina, he would have done everything possible to save those people.
      If Bush had been president during the Deep Horizon spill, he would have done everything possible to save that oil.

      Props to the originator

    3. Re:Victory for Obama! by Idarubicin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The price of gasoline should go up to eight dollars a gallon, that should keep people from wasting it.

      It might do, at that.

      The current price for unleaded gasoline in Germany is about 1.40 euros per liter, and it was up to 1.57 euros in the summer of 2008. That makes the current price about $6.60 US per gallon, and the peak just over $9 per gallon.

      Because of these horrendous fuel prices, the German people suffer terribly. They are forced to drive tiny, ugly, uncomfortable econoboxes with weak, underpowered, dreadful engines. Germans look with barely-concealed envy at the spacious, high-quality, fuel-spendthrift U.S. automobile.

      I cannot doubt that Germany's automakers desperately want to earn the same financial success and worldwide reputation enjoyed by their American counterparts.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
  8. Re:5000 barrels? by Jawnn · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I thought the 5000 barrel estimate came from BP, but the article lays it at the feet of the Coast Guard, BP's willing PR lackey,...

    There. Fixed that for ya'.
    The lack of leadership on the part of the federal government, and the Coast Guard in particular, is a national embarrassment.

  9. Well they are FIRING some of them... by RobertLTux · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The person at the top of this mess in the US gov (the director of mineral resources) got invited to resign (and did). Im sure that a few of the others are going to follow her example.

    --
    Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
  10. Re:about time by Pahroza · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There is an insane amount of engineering that had to go into this. Getting it wrong would have been an even bigger disaster.

    For some excellent discussions on all of this, head over to http://theoildrum.com/

  11. Well, it was good while it lasted by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Sometimes we need to toughen up those pansy-ass dolphins, birds, and turtles. If we hadn't cuddled them for so long they wouldn't be going extinct. Adversity breeds strength.

    And the same goes for you, Pandas. You're next! Oh, you'll be mating up a storm when we finish.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  12. Re:relief well ... bet on it by TheKidWho · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Right, because the relief well doesn't have anything to do with, you know, being a relief well.

  13. Re:about time by bratloaf · · Score: 4, Informative

    They had to fabricate all kinds of gear that had never been made before. This was a herculean effort by 100's of the most skilled deepwater engineers in the world, and they actually did it in record time. This was not a small task, it would normally take months to pull something like this off.

  14. Re:Thank God by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Regulators don't work - the companies just buy them off directly or indirectly.

    The only thing that works is accountability.

    Of course, they'll buy off the prosecuters too.

    Maybe the best thing we can do in cases like this is publish the home address of the individuals responsible and let nature take it's course.

  15. BP will not confirm by dk90406 · · Score: 2, Informative

    They (BB) say they can't confirm that. They will give an updated status later today. This is from Danish TV, so no link, sorry.

  16. Re:about time by vxice · · Score: 4, Funny

    Because they hate the environment. They had everything sitting around and it was trivially easy to to do but knocking out the environment was more fun.

    --
    every anarchist is a baffled dictator. Benito_Mussolini
  17. Engineers/Geologists on the Status of Top Kill by Gooseygoose · · Score: 5, Informative
    Pretty good stuff over at The Oil Drum on this...they just said they have two unconfirmed reports that cementing will start within hours on their twitter feed- http://twitter.com/theoildrum

    latest "live" thread with great insights in the comments: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6515

    Relevant links to top kill procedure (scroll to comments in each, they're very good.)

    Deepwater Oil Spill - Permissions and Concerns about Top Kill http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6513

    Deep Water Spill - Waiting for Top Kill (more updated tech) http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6509

    The Gulf Deepwater Oil Spill - the Top Kill Attempt (the technical aspect of what just happened) http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6505

    The Gulf Deepwater Oil Spill, barriers, flow rates, and top kill http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6501

    Hope you find this informative...

  18. Not so bad by Animats · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Now it's plugged with mud. With the flow much reduced, concrete can be put in.

    One hurricane season and the mess will be gone. 8 to 14 hurricanes are expected in the Atlantic region by the end of the year.

    Relief wells will be drilled; after all, there's definitely oil down there. The reservoir will be pumped out.

    Everybody will be a lot more serious about blowout preventers.

    More equipment for dealing with such problems will be on standby in some Gulf port for decades to come.

    No big deal.

    1. Re:Not so bad by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Gulf is very different from Prince William Sound. There was another large blowing in the Gulf in 1989 - the IXTOC I released 3 million barrels of oil over 8 months. About 10 times more than the BP spill.

      Environmental assessments showed it took about 3 years for sea life to fully recover. My guess is it will be faster this time because of the much smaller quantities of oil and the heavy use of dispersants to break up the oil which makes biodegradation much faster.

    2. Re:Not so bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      From a recent CSM article here: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0513/Exxon-Valdez-cleanup-holds-lessons-for-Gulf-oil-spill

      Two decades after the Exxon Valdez supertanker ran aground and ripped open its cargo tanks, the spill still marks Alaska's environment. Pockets of fresh crude are buried in beaches scattered around Prince William Sound and segments outside it, in isolated spots along more than 1,200 miles of coastline that received oil in 1989.

      The discovery confounded earlier predictions that remnant crude would quickly weather and disperse as waves washed it into the sea.

      "At this rate, the remaining oil will take decades and possibly centuries to disappear entirely," concluded the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, the federal-state panel that administers the $900 million civil settlement struck in 1991 between the governments and Exxon for natural resource damages.

      Now, the Exxon Valdez dumped 11 million gallons of oil. There are 42 gallons per barrel, and the conservative estimate for this leak was 5000 barrels a day. That makes 210 thousand gallons a DAY, for what, 37 days now? For a total of 7.7 million gallons, and still leaking. Oh, and most experts NOT working for BP seem to think the flow was up to double that 5k. This is on par with Exxon Valdez.

      The difference? Open beaches in Prince William Sound, where the oil could be cleaned up. The oil from this spill is settling in the marshlands, which may well be impossible to clean, and most definitely will NOT just wash clean at the first sign of a hurricane. You do also understand that being blown away by a hurricane is not the same as "disposed of", right? It will go somewhere.

      Lets not also forget we have to add in the effects of the dispersant used, which is extremely toxic.

    3. Re:Not so bad by JoshuaZ · · Score: 4, Informative

      Before you accuse other people of ignorance it might help to do a little research. By many estimates this spill is much larger than the Exxon Valdez spill. See for example http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100527/us_nm/us_oil_rig_flowrate.

    4. Re:Not so bad by jeff4747 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Relief wells will be drilled; after all, there's definitely oil down there. The reservoir will be pumped out.

      Relief wells can't be used to get oil. The relief wells are used to "bottom kill" the well, which is still necessary - "top kill" is just a band-aid. The last step in said "bottom kill" is to pump concrete into the relief well, and it's really, really hard to pump oil out through concrete.

      That being said, we can be pretty sure that a new production well will be drilled somewhere nearby.

  19. Re:relief well ... bet on it by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Informative

    Though the name's confusing, a "relief well" isn't a separate well into the original reservoir that can be put into production. It's a well that's drilled at at an angle, calculated to intercept the bore of the original well somewhere in the rock above the reservoir. If it intercepts it, pressure gets diverted up through the new well, which is presumably under control, and then a bunch of heavy mud is pumped in to plug it up.

  20. Re:Conspiracy Theories by flitty · · Score: 2, Informative

    Well, I'm not going to do the work finding the links for you, but Michael Brown, Rush Limbaugh and Fox News Hosts and guests all claimed at one point that this was allowed to happen by the administration to sabotage the Energy Bill going through congress.

    --
    Whether or not there is some sort of god, I'm not supposed to say/god is a word and the argument ends there-Smog
  21. Live Feed at Ocean Floor by PyrousLavawalker · · Score: 2, Informative

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

  22. Re:relief well ... bet on it by TheKidWho · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The point of the relief well is to relieve pressure on the main well and then seal it safely.

    Do you realize what kind of political fallout BP would receive if they were actually wasting time trying to salvage the well?

  23. Re:the goal was never by kevinNCSU · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Could you explain to me if they could quickly and easily shut down the well what is the point of having the leak continue until another well is ready? That's a lot of oil being wasted in the ocean (evaporation, treated, burned, ect.) and a lot of expense in both PR and 'faking' other solutions.

    Your telling me somehow that month long PR nightmare turning into congressional committees to investigate and fine the company so that they can-- what did you propose? -- Extract the oil from sea water for profit?? You're telling me that is more economically beneficial to them then shutting the well down quickly and easily as you believe they can, thus having no public outcry and a 4 day story on the loss of life, and then drill a new well a month later and then get all that oil INTACT?

    You honestly believe BP's CEO is sitting at the end of a table making an evil finger pyramid saying: "MUuHaahahaha, my ridiculously circuitous plan is now nearly one quarter complete. Now we just have to extract all this oil from the ocean's surface which my evil engineers who assisted in putting the bottomless pit in the Emperor's throne room insist is much easier than extracting it from a well using a pipe."

  24. Re:Conspiracy Theories by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2, Informative

    Where are all the conspiracy theorists on this one? Did Obama cause the leak so that he can push against the oil companies and car companies even more?

    The far-right kooks have been pushing an Obama conspiracy theory for a while now. For example, Limbaugh: "what better way to head off more oil drilling, nuclear plants than by blowing up a rig?"

    --
    Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
    You cannot wash away blood with blood
  25. Re:Conspiracy Theories by angelwolf71885 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    given that Obama is waiting till Friday to even have a first look at the spill and that there were NO coat card cutters or any government boat for that matter that Obama want an environmental impact study done on dredging barrier islands to protect the estuary's when we already know the oil is going to be FAR FAR worse then what re-building some barrier islands is going to do deploying oil barriers and that BP cant do anything unless the government says ok you can do it and that there wasn't even an assessment of the oil rigs in the last 1 year 4 months you kinda have to wonder just how much Obama is dragging his feet and letting this thing grow just to go you see this is why we need a carbon tax to drive energy prices up so we can push " green " energy that cant even produce 50% of our power for 1 day solar stops working after sundown wind is interment at best coal and oil keeps the damn lights on

  26. Re:Hmm... by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Because the pipe didn't break off at the BOP; it fell over sideways.

  27. Not so fast there... by TrisexualPuppy · · Score: 5, Informative

    I was told by one of my old girlfriends who works for Schlumberger (she has her own sources) that this isn't a permanent fix. They are doing a top fill because it is faster than waiting for the relief well to do a bottom fill. This top fill is likely a temporary measure, and they are still going to have to drill a relief well to intercept the main well which is going to take time.

    We can only pray that once they cap this, it sticks till they can get the relief well fully drilled.

    1. Re:Not so fast there... by Tibor+the+Hun · · Score: 3, Funny

      TrisexualPuppy, pray tell us what your young girlfriends say about this.
      Also, some pictures would be appreciated.

      --
      If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
    2. Re:Not so fast there... by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Funny

      I was told by one of my old girlfriends who works for Schlumberger (she has her own sources) that this isn't a permanent fix.

      Yeah? Well my neighbor's unicorn works with a leprechaun whose second cousin's bartender says your old girlfriend is a kiddy-diddler.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:Not so fast there... by Bugamn · · Score: 4, Funny

      Do you want pics of the left or the right girlfriend?

    4. Re:Not so fast there... by compro01 · · Score: 2, Informative

      They're already drilling a relief well, it should be really in about 2 months. IMO, the relief well should have been drilled when they did the original one, as is required in many other places, like Canada.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  28. well it's $6.60 all ready... by fantomas · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well here in the UK petrol/gasoline is 1.20 GBP / litre, there are 3.79 litres to 1 US gallon = 4.55 GBP / gallon, x 1.45 (pounds to dollars) and we're at $6.60 /US gallon in my local gas station, so I don't see $8 / gallon so far off, that's only about another 18% rise.

  29. Re:That's a relief by cowscows · · Score: 2, Insightful

    To be fair to you, perhaps you've never been out in open water and don't understand just how big something like the gulf is. You're not just looking at filtering 20 million gallons of oil, you're looking at filtering 20 million gallons of oil and billions of gallons of water.

    --

    One time I threw a brick at a duck.

  30. Re:the goal was never by jeff4747 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Wow do you have no idea what you're talking about.

    1) Relief wells can't be used to tap the oil. The last step in plugging the gusher with a relief well is to pump concrete into the relief well. It's surprisingly difficult to pump oil through concrete. And assuming top-kill actually worked, they still need to do a "bottom-kill", or risk the well blowing out again.

    2) Relief wells aren't anywhere near ready yet. They're only about 1/2 way done.

    Feel free to keep railing against multinational corps, but please don't make stuff up. It greatly weakens your argument.

  31. Re:Hmm... by Jainith · · Score: 3, Informative

    That is essentailly what they tried the first few times. Apparently there are problems due to the pressure/temperature at this depth.

  32. Re:Conspiracy Theories by blair1q · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm glad you're on the other side.

  33. Re:Conspiracy Theories by Zagadka · · Score: 5, Funny

    Holy run-on sentence Batman!

    Periods are a renewable resource. Feel free to use them.

  34. "Fun" way to clean up the spill by RobertLTux · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The US needs to basically say "If you have the needed stuff and can give us a plan you get to keep any oil you recover" and then cut the spill area into grid squares and say okay you say you can clean XK gallons so you can use these grid squares and you have these squares ect.

    BP of course can buy the oil from the various folks at whatever price or maybe have their own folks scooping up oil.

    --
    Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
  35. Re:relief well ... bet on it by maxume · · Score: 4, Informative

    The relief well does not divert the pressure. They can use it to inject mud (which has a density much higher than oil or seawater) into the original bore. As the mud fills the well, the higher density will increase the pressure until it matches the outward pressure of the reservoir.

    So 8,000 vertical feet of seawater/oil is not enough to stop the leak, but 8,000 vertical feet of drilling mud that has a much higher density can do the job.

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  36. Re:Hmm... by jeff4747 · · Score: 4, Informative

    You are describing the containment dome, which was tried and failed.

    It failed because of the high pressure and low temperature. Methane from the well was forming Methane Clathrates, which would plug up the hole.

    The "Top hat" fix was going to use a dome into which they pumped hot methanol to keep the pipe clear, but it seemed less likely to work than the current approach.

  37. Re:relief well ... bet on it by lostsoulz · · Score: 2, Informative

    This relief well is designed to hit the reservoir and then bullhead it with kill-weight mud. Pressure is not diverted - this is solely a means to destroy the payzone's ability to produce oil. BTW, most wells are "drilled at an angle." It's called directional drilling and has been around for years.

    I'm just glad nobody has mentioned nukes yet...

  38. Re:relief well ... bet on it by jbengt · · Score: 2, Informative

    As others have said in this thread, a relief well will not allow continuing operations. It is meant to provide a means for a "Bottom Kill", filling the well with mud and concrete from below, which is much more effective and permanent than the "Top Kill" that they're doing now.

  39. pebble bed reactors by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    recent tech from germany, many generations technologically removed form the 1960s era tech all of our china syndrome fears are based on

    air cooled, passive safety system. there is no failure that can cause an accident, because anything and everything can fail and nothing bad will happen: you can just walk away from a pebble bed reactor, they are foolproof

    the only issue is terrorism (not as in bombing the plant, but as in stealing fissile material and placing it in times square), so you need a really good inventory security apparatus

    nuclear+electric cars is obviously the solution to our environmental, energy, and geopolitical problems

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  40. Re:any of you watching the live stream? by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From the looks of it, the mud is working. The outflow's brown, not black, looks like it's mostly drilling mud blowing out of the pipe and not crude oil. That'd indicate the mud's stabilizing the pressure and stopping the flow of oil up the well, which is step 1. Step 2 is to pump concrete in below where they're injecting the mud, into an area where the well fluid's under pressure but now not flowing and blowing any plug away before it can harden. Step 3 happens after the plug's big enough and hardened: backing off on the drilling mud and seeing if the plug holds under well pressure or not.

  41. ABC News admits that the kill shot stopped early. by mburns · · Score: 3, Informative

    My little calculation using the units calculator at the Linux command line shows that 20 minutes is roughly, within a factor of ten, the endurance of a column of mud when its pumping is halted.

    The pumping is now reported to have halted around midnight. It is a stretch for me to imagine that the mudding job is not now mostly undone.

    My viewing of the leak video 4 hours later did not encourage me to think that the leak was capped. I thought that I saw light colored natural gas, ruddy brown petroleum, and black petroleum exiting the leaks. Now the only change is that the black substance is not apparent, and the ruddiness is intermittent.

    Somebody might want to try to correct this impression, please.

    --
    Michael J. Burns