Slashdot Mirror


BP Says "Top Kill" Operation Has Failed

MrShaggy sends a quote from a CBC story: "BP has scuttled the 'top kill' procedure of shooting heavy drilling mud into its blown-out oil well in the Gulf of Mexico after it failed to plug the leak. BP chief operating officer Doug Suttles told reporters on Saturday that over the last three days, the company has pumped more than 30,000 barrels of mud and other materials down the well but has not been able to stop the flow. 'These repeated pumping[s], we don't believe will likely achieve success, so at this point it's time to move to the next option,' Suttles said."

768 comments

  1. Top Kill didn't work, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    let's try Bottom Seduction.

  2. Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's amazing that BP can drill for oil with no provable solution to a catastrophic failure. It's like operating on a patient and going 'Trust me, I'm a doctor'.

    1. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Find a sufficiently desperate patient and promise to help him, then "trust me" might be all you need.

    2. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are the British drilling off the US coast rather than their own?

    3. Re:Amazing by beelsebob · · Score: 3, Informative

      We are drilling off our own too. And we're drilling off your coast because you gave us the contract to do so.

    4. Re:Amazing by Lumbre · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's amazing that BP can drill for oil with no provable solution to a catastrophic failure. It's like operating on a patient and going 'Trust me, I'm a doctor'.

      It's amazing that ANY corporation can drill for oil since NONE have stepped up to the plate with a viable solution.

    5. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      BP is actually the result of a merger between AMOCO (AMerican Oil COmpany) and the old BP.

    6. Re:Amazing by buchner.johannes · · Score: 1

      It's amazing that BP can drill for oil with no provable solution to a catastrophic failure. It's like operating on a patient and going 'Trust me, I'm a doctor'.

      <devilsadvocate rant>
      You think medicine was not in that phase?
      Also, no one cares about the environment except for hippies and Greenpeace freaks, right?
      When its your body, the issue is close and the price instantaneous.
      When an ecosystem dies, a couple of species go extinct, the earth heats up and oceans rise, we don't have to pay the price in the next 10 years. By then the media will focus on something else and the companies (if they still exist) will have great excuses. It's not just BP ...

      Do you know what the price is? Do you know 2010 is the year of biodiversity?

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    7. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I have one. Sue GM and Chevron to reclaim the NiMH battery patent, and bring back the fully electric car.

    8. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what the "multi-national" in "multi-national corporation" is about: exploit the whole world without being responsible anywhere.

      Hey that's capitalism, so you should be ok with it.

    9. Re:Amazing by Mathness · · Score: 1

      First of, BP isn't the only ones doing so.

      Secondly, when lobbyism is allowed to influence politicians (and law) big cooperations will get away will as much as they can.

      One can only hope that with the recent bank and oil brouhaha that some restrictions will be put in place.

      --
      Carbon based humanoid in training.
    10. Re:Amazing by Heed00 · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's amazing that BP can drill for oil with no provable solution to a catastrophic failure. It's like operating on a patient and going 'Trust me, I'm a doctor'.

      So, BP is the Dr. Zoidberg of oil exploration?

      --
      Thought thinks itself.
    11. Re:Amazing by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's amazing that ANY corporation can drill for oil since NONE have stepped up to the plate with a viable solution.

      What's really amazing is that someone types a message like that on a keyboard ... made of oil. Sitting in a room, painted by oil. Someone says that after eating food, harvested by oil-using machinery, grown by dropping oil over plants. Someone who walks, over oil (the road is made of oil, in case you don't know), over to the supermarket, constructed from nothing but oil and a bit of metal, melted and delivered by using oil. In that supermarket you buy food, which isn't infected with disease due to being packaged ... in oil.

      The only reason it is possible to keep about 80% of the US population ... well alive ... is oil.

      Hypocrisy. Truly and completely off the scale hypocrisy.

      Quite frankly, since asking the US not to use oil is asking a democracy to kill off some 80% of it's population (at least, probably more), utterly devastating the entire U.S. coast, and even inland, would probably be considered worth it by the vast majority, even for just a one month extension of the oil supply. Anyone who prefers life over death should do so. And once it becomes clear that this is exactly the blood sacrifice "green" demands, it is what will happen*. Lying about it only works as long as all the bellies are sufficiently round.

      There I've said the obvious, inconvenient, truth, and the obvious fact that even if BP deployed soldiers and re-started prohibition, we still probably wouldn't punish them. Unfortunately, for good reason. You can downmod me into oblivion now.

      * ironically, in the original gaia cultus, the early greek one, people were also sacrificed. Buried alive. Seems somehow appropriate.

    12. Re:Amazing by MrNaz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Flamebait?

      This is exactly what happened here. A government addicted to petroleum taxes as well as a band of politicians personally heavily invested in the oil industry makes for just such a desperate patient, who needs no assurance and asks no questions about the complex, expensive and dangerous procedures being conducted.

      If the government was truly objective about its handling of industry, oil companies would have been required to demonstrate contingencies for all outcomes, including total catastrophic failure of equipment or processes. It's not like the industry operates on the knife's edge of profitability and can't afford to be held to account for their safety and recovery procedures; the oil industry has both the means and the funds necessary to keep such contingencies at the ready. However, they buy political apathy, and can put the money they would otherwise spend on safety into big bonuses for their directors and major stakeholders.

      Fuck modern politics.

      --
      I hate printers.
    13. Re:Amazing by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah the whole reason this is screwed up is because of foreigners. Let's get a environmentally friendly company like ExxonMobil to drill for our underwater oil. Their record is impeccable.

    14. Re:Amazing by MrNaz · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There are alternatives to all of those products. If the oil industry wasn't so heavily involved in politics, the absurd regulatory structure that makes oil the best way to do just about anything would not exist, and alternative methods of producing many goods would come about.

      Have a look through the dormant patents held by oil companies for a taste of how things could be, but aren't thanks to businesses run amok.

      --
      I hate printers.
    15. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Praise be to the god of oil! What a rant that was. We are saturated with oil based products precisely because of the oil industry who discourage alternatives and the research into them. Get a clue.

    16. Re:Amazing by williamhb · · Score: 1

      It's amazing that BP can drill for oil with no provable solution to a catastrophic failure. It's like operating on a patient and going 'Trust me, I'm a doctor'.

      I've got some scary news for you about what doctors actually do... (195,000 deaths from medical error per year, etc)

    17. Re:Amazing by kthreadd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Instead of simply blaming governments and oil industries we have to think about our own desire to consume oil. Why don't we put more energy and effort into finding and using existing alternatives to oil? We, as consumers, have a responsibility in this situation as well.

    18. Re:Amazing by DarkOx · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Really? How exactly do you test solutions for catastrophe of unknown nature a mile underwater, working with wells of unknown pressure filled with oil and gas of unknown composition? You do understand this was an exploratory well right; the point of this thing was largely to find out what is down there.

      If you have a solution to this problem of being able to prove catastrophic failure modes can be solved by doing X with all the other unknowns you are clearly way smarted than the rest of us and I welcome our new over lord; otherwise you just another arm chair quarterback here.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    19. Re:Amazing by abigsmurf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They've all been viable solutions so far with what was thought to be a real chance of success. Ultimately most of the solutions were impossible to test beforehand.

      One solution known to work (the russians did this method), is nuking the hole and collapsing it to an extent that the pressure of the oil can't breach it. You then concrete over the rubble.

      BP cannot use this method themselves. It requires Obama to step in and take some responsibility. It's a proven method that's probably a whole lot cheaper and reliable than anything BP has done and the envoironmental implications aren't anywhere near as bad as all the oil. BP can then foot the bill for the nuke and handle any decontamination needed.

      Sadly Obama was all too willing to let companies drill for oil in the gulf, knowing there's risk of something like this happening and is content to sit there saying how awful BP are to deflect any blame he might receive.

    20. Re:Amazing by iserlohn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is that alternatives are not (yet) economical, and will never be until they get economies of scale (which is a chicken and egg problem), or until cheap oil runs out.

      Laissez-faire markets can only take us so far. Our addiction to oil is just another example of why we need to re-think the way in which markets are supposed to work, and to come up agreements on how we can internalize some of the environmental and other externalities. Things like carbon credits are crude measure, but it's a step in the right direction.

      The problem is, that there is no such thing as a "collective conscience" when it comes to money.

    21. Re:Amazing by iserlohn · · Score: 1

      Ok, well how about *not drill* then?

    22. Re:Amazing by toastar · · Score: 1

      I have one. Sue GM and Chevron to reclaim the NiMH battery patent, and bring back the fully electric car.

      NiMH??

      What is this, The 80's?

    23. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a provable solution to a catastrophic failure: a relief well. The only problem is these take months to drill.

      So perhaps all future offshore drilling platforms should have capped relief wells already in place before commencing full operation.

    24. Re:Amazing by MrNaz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why don't "we"?

      There are plenty of people who do work on finding ways around energy and production-material dependence on oil. A battery of patents held by oil companies who sue anyone who works in that field out of existence as well as a "buy and shelve" policy by shell companies owned by the oil industry is what prevents anything from happening.

      --
      I hate printers.
    25. Re:Amazing by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, we don't. It's literally impossible to elect representatives into government that will further the public interest. It is completely absurd to suggest that we completely stop buying oil from companies that do unethical and irresponsible things because there are no alternatives.

      We are completely dependent on oil and will be for some time. It is 100% BP's fault for this problem. The government shouldn't have to mandate safety. The simple fact that profit will take precedence over safety is proof that the UNRESTRICTED free market is an extremely poor system.

      --
      -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
    26. Re:Amazing by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 1

      This guy is clearly a troll.

      It's not hypocritical to suggest that we should drill for oil safely. The OP isn't stating "let's never drill for oil ever" but rather "We should only drill after a company proves they can do it safely, which none have so far".

      Your post points out our dependency on oil, which has NOTHING to do with OP's point. He's saying we need to do it safely, you're saying that we need oil. The two posts aren't even related.

      --
      -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
    27. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think medicine was not in that phase?

      Still is.

      There are only two ways that medicine advances -- crises and money in unlimited quantities.

      First -- advances from battlefield injuries -- the kid's likely gonna die anyway, so what the hell. Hey, that worked.

      Second -- money. What the hell, the NFL will foot the bill for research to get this valuable asset back on the field a day earlier.

      Meanwhile, big pharma doesn't care about real advances. The bastards would have Jonas Salk assassinated if he were alive today. "Can you believe that insufferable, arrogant son of a bitch -- he came up with a fucking CURE for polio, not just a TREATMENT. No recurring revenue for life. A couple of shots and we never see the patient again. Fuck that shit!"

    28. Re:Amazing by stealth_finger · · Score: 0

      That's like saying we're driving of a cliff but can't change direction because we're already in the car heading off the cliff.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    29. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. My first thought upon hearing this was, "Why were they allowed to drill without a provable contingency plan in place?" Expect the best, but plan for the worst. Fuck them, and fuck this Congress, President, and previous Congresses and Presidents for allowing it to come to this.

    30. Re:Amazing by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2, Funny

      NiMH batteries? Nah, feeding the rats is too much of a hassle.

    31. Re:Amazing by amanicdroid · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Fuck it, I'll pay the extra $0.50 a kilowatt for a more environmentally sound source of power. Show me the dotted line and I'll sign it.

    32. Re:Amazing by nacturation · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Instead of simply blaming governments and oil industries we have to think about our own desire to consume oil. We, as consumers, have a responsibility in this situation as well.

      Let's say an apple farmer gives his apple pickers faulty ladders to work with and, as a result, dozens of workers every year fall and break their necks. Are you saying this would be the fault of consumers who purchase apples? Should people reduce their consumption of apples to fix this problem? Or does the fault lie with the farmer and have nothing at all to do with the people who purchase the apples?

      Substitute farmer and apples with BP and oil.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    33. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Saying that alternatives are not economical is bs. It takes political will to make a change and fearless leader to finally say no. They banned the production of cars in the US during WW2 to produce tanks and airplanes - why couldn't something similar happen now to build more sustainable solutions ?

    34. Re:Amazing by forand · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You have made quite a few assertions as to the viability of attempting such a maneuver, could you please provide evidence in the form of a well respected news article or scientific journal? As was noted by another poster the USSR often claimed things worked when they, in fact, did not.

      It is also worth noting that your closing statement about Obama makes it appear that he is to blame for all of this, American Presidents, for decades, have been taking money from big oil who have demanded repayment in a variety of ways. This is not unique to the US and certainly not unique to Democrats or Republicans. Trying to make this out to be an issue about Obama alone is short sighted and politics at its worst.

      WE have a environment catastrophe on OUR hands and working together is the only way to deal with it. Similarly the only way of ensuring something similar does not happen again is to demand of all of our politicians a break from the status quo.

    35. Re:Amazing by lostsoulz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      One solution known to work (the russians did this method), is nuking the hole and collapsing it to an extent that the pressure of the oil can't breach it. You then concrete over the rubble.

      I fear "known to work," stretches incredulity to the nth degree. Assuming the blowout cannot be contained at the wellhead, I suspect the relief wells are the best approach. Sadly, it takes time to drill and case a well and then prepare to kill the reservoir. That time is something we don't have in a media-obsessed world that demands instant gratification. If you want oil, it's risky to get it out of the ground. When things go wrong, it can take a long time to fix it. That doesn't sit well with the great unwashed.

    36. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One solution known to work (the russians did this method), is nuking the hole and collapsing it to an extent that the pressure of the oil can't breach it. You then concrete over the rubble.

      Why does it have to be a nuke? Don't we have conventional weapons/bombs that are powerful enough to do the job without the nuclear side-effects?

    37. Re:Amazing by lul_wat · · Score: 4, Informative

      And the company which was sub-contracted to do this job is the same company which caused the 1979 Gulf Of Mexico oil spill (apparently) Link: http://www.wimp.com/oilspills/

      --
      Divide a cake by zero. Is it still a cake?
    38. Re:Amazing by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      or until cheap oil runs out.

      Or until we triple the taxes on oil. Use the revenue to promote energy alternatives.

      Laissez-faire markets can only take us so far.

      It's taking us straight to Hell.

      The problem is, that there is no such thing as a "collective conscience" when it comes to money.

      Ah, but there is. Unfortunately, corporations do not participate in the collective.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    39. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a douche. You point out that an "acceptable risk" would be OK. Then you back that up with an idiotic statement that can be reduced to "no risk is acceptable". What an effin' moron. There are about four thousand oil wells in the American waters of the Gulf of Mexico. One is having a significant problem. Get your head wrapped around that. Do you do anything in your daily life less risky? Driving to work every day for your career is more risky than this.

      People are such tools. Reckless abandon, my ass.... don't you even read the articles that have you all scared and worried? They spend billions, yes billions with a "b" trying to make drilling safer. Whatever happened to cause the accident, it wasn't like it was easy or obvious. Hell, it isn't even like it was really difficult and obscure. They clearly ran into a set of circumstances that they were not prepared for. But after spending all of the time and money which they have spent in preparation, you can bet it wasn't a problem on the short list.

    40. Re:Amazing by mother_reincarnated · · Score: 3, Informative

      You have no idea what your electricity costs, do you?

      I'd be willing to pay maybe $0.05/kwh more, 33-50% increase, but I'm not too interested in the 300-500% increase you seem to be willing to accept!

    41. Re:Amazing by nloop · · Score: 1

      BP stands for Beyond Petroleum. It's big enough that it isn't really any countries anymore. Also, Deepwater Horizon is technically in international water.

    42. Re:Amazing by erroneus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We don't "desire" to consume oil. We really and seriously don't.

      I come from Texas where there is no mass transit to speak of. Before I moved to an area where there is popular mass transit, I would have completely agreed with you. But mass transit is POPULAR with the people here. You don't NEED to take a car everywhere to get by. Many shops are walking distance, the definition of which has increased since the move, and the rest of most destinations are available by train and bus. I don't spend what I used to on gas just going to and from work any more. I spend a fraction of that amount for commuting now.

      When there are better alternatives made available, people will use them every time. It has been the auto industry and oil industry that protested the building of rails in most areas and they are still the parties resisting mass transit today. The masses of people who have never had an alternative to POV transportation might also get fooled into protesting mass transit on the grounds that more train and bus stops will provide increased inconvenience to drivers, but I have to say, that too is marginal. For those who have access to mass transit, they will most often report that they prefer it. For those who don't, it is hard to imagine any other way.

    43. Re:Amazing by ngg · · Score: 1

      Let's say an apple farmer gives his apple pickers faulty ladders to work with and, as a result, dozens of workers every year fall and break their necks. Are you saying this would be the fault of consumers who purchase apples? Should people reduce their consumption of apples to fix this problem? Or does the fault lie with the farmer and have nothing at all to do with the people who purchase the apples? Substitute farmer and apples with BP and oil.

      If the consumers in your world don't like the fact that the faulty ladders are killing the workers, then perhaps they should look for alternatives. Maybe they could reduce their consumption of apples by purchasing oranges.

    44. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alternate fuels will NEVER be cheaper than oil and the technology that refines and creates them will always move slowly because of that. Any threat to the oil industry will result in a reduction of price which will contain or limit that threat. Carbon credits are a f**king joke. In theory it sounds like a good idea but in reality it is a fabricated plan with heavy Wall Street influences making it a money grab under the disguise of "Saving the Environment" and the big time players (now called carbon credit brokers) have already established the rules they want to play by and are already positioned to make money from the trading of credits. The same exact concept (reducing carbon emissions) could take place with CA style heavy restrictions on carbon emissions and "fines" or levies paid directly to the local/state/federal government for non conformists. That money could be pooled and used to pay for better technology.

    45. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that alternatives are not (yet) economical

      I suspect that cleaning up BP's mess won't be particularly cheap.

    46. Re:Amazing by Goaway · · Score: 1

      No. The scale of the energy from a nuclear explosion is completely different from conventional weapons.

    47. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note that he referred to kilowatt, not kWh. $0.50 for a kilowatt is actually very very cheap. I don't know of a single energy source capable of supplying a kilowatt of electric power which costs that little.

    48. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would love to go green. But I'm not going to shut off every electronic or heating device I have for a few years and wait it out until they make the change.

    49. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently you've never heard of the North Sea?

      With the exception of national oil companies (e.g., in Saudi Arabia), the major oil companies (Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, Conoco-Philips, Royal Dutch Shell, BP-Amoco, etc.) have operations world-wide. Countries put their offshore areas up for competitive bid for the rights to explore, and companies bid. Sometimes those companies are from the USA, sometimes those companies are from elsewhere. Either way they have to operate under the rules set for the jurisdiction they are in.

      International operations are what it takes to find and supply ~85 million barrels/day of oil to the world, 20 million of which are consumed by the USA, and only 7 million of which are produced from the USA. If all these companies weren't drilling off all the coasts of the world you could easily chop off more than 20% of global production. In the case of the USA, production from the Gulf of Mexico accounts for ~1.7 million barrels per day. I suppose you could insist that it be done by only US companies, but leaving aside the fact that it mostly is US companies out there, the other ones would just set up US divisions anyway.

    50. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why can't be do both?

    51. Re:Amazing by Kijori · · Score: 2, Informative

      You have made quite a few assertions as to the viability of attempting such a maneuver, could you please provide evidence in the form of a well respected news article or scientific journal? As was noted by another poster the USSR often claimed things worked when they, in fact, did not.

      I can't help out with the viability of it - I'm not sure how you would really go about working that out, to be honest - but I had a read through the Russian reports of this and previous disasters and a group of their nuclear weapons experts have apparently offered to help out; they claim that under the USSR they performed this operation 6 times, using bombs of around 20 kilotonnes, and that five of the operations were a success. The exception (an attempt in 1972 to use a 4kt bomb to seal a gas 'fountain' at a depth of just over 2km in Kharkovskaya oblast') was not successfully closed by the detonation but the situation apparently wasn't made worse.

      Again, not passing any comment on the possibility of using a nuclear bomb, just thought I'd provide some information from Russian sources since the English-language information is rather poor.

    52. Re:Amazing by wisdom_brewing · · Score: 1

      There has never been an UNRESTRICTED free market. There never will be...

    53. Re:Amazing by Phroggy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sadly, it takes time to drill and case a well and then prepare to kill the reservoir. That time is something we don't have in a media-obsessed world that demands instant gratification.

      How about, that time is something we don't have while thousands of barrels of oil are gushing into the Gulf every day? Who cares what the media is obsessed with.

      I agree with you, relief wells are likely to be the answer, but in the mean time, we need to do everything possible to stop or slow down the problem some other way.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    54. Re:Amazing by cynyr · · Score: 0

      we have a Laissez-Faire market?!! where?! /must catch it! by the way i'm not kidding, find me a market with 0 government regulation(worldwide).

      Know anything non explosive that has the energy density of gasoline at Std temp and pressure, is easy to store and transport, is relativity cheep to make(when things don't fail), and doesn't rely on a rare elements(lithium)? I guess in theory given enough energy we could just make Gasoline/oil, but that would take something on the order of cold fusion to do on a large scale.

      --
      All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
    55. Re:Amazing by cynyr · · Score: 1

      ohh by energy density, i mean per unit volume at std temp and pressure, not per Mole, or per 3kg of mass.

      --
      All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
    56. Re:Amazing by rvw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Do you really think that Shell, Exxon or Texaco or any other oil company would handle this better, or is prepared for a problem like this? Do you really think that if one of those companies had the solution for this problem, they wouldn't offer to help?

      BP is probably to blame, and yeah you might blame Obama as well, but the real problem is the complete dependency on oil. Just like you say. And that's not BP's fault. That's not this governments fault.

      I'm not American, and for me it would be easy to blame the American people or the American system. But the reality is that we all profited from the American mentality the past century. So now we have two or maybe three crises going on, all about oil and money. And the American way is turning out to be working against us.

      The real problem is that still the American people don't realise that things should change. It's similar to the Greek going to strike because they are going bankrupt. It will only make things worse.

      I'm very glad that this accident happened in the Mexican Gulf, and that the US is the one suffering the most. That's the only way the American people start to realise that something should change, even though they don't want to pay for it. Europe and Asia are simply not powerful enough to make a real change.

    57. Re:Amazing by wisdom_brewing · · Score: 1

      Come on, potash is dropped over plants, not oil.

      Otherwise I salute you... Though packaging could be replaced with papet...

      Oil is ridiculously cheap given all its uses... A price of 10-20 times would cancel out its use in all its functions... (maybe only 4-5 times for transport... but I doubt it, petrol (gas) in the UK and most of europe is around £1.20 - i.e. $1.60 a litre, roughly 6-7 dollars a gallon and there hasn't been any noticable drop in driving...

      Long term it should be a lot cheaper, but in the short term the raw cost of producing all the required batteries, etc to shift off petrol/diesel for transport is unfeasilbe with oil below a few hundred dollars a barrel...

    58. Re:Amazing by wisdom_brewing · · Score: 1

      Drilling for oil will always be dangerous... It always has been... You're talking about drilling a hole into a pocked of superheated, high pressure, flammable fluid and gas... BP are a shambles though... Have nothing positive to say about them, bureacratic hellhole where nothing ever gets done quickly...

    59. Re:Amazing by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are alternatives to all of those products. If the oil industry wasn't so heavily involved in politics, the absurd regulatory structure that makes oil the best way to do just about anything would not exist, and alternative methods of producing many goods would come about.

      And, pray tell, what are these "alternatives" ? Let's take the simplest, most obvious application of oil : transportation energy.

      Which energy source can, with better economics, replace oil as a transportation fuel ? (better, since you say it's a conspiracy "holding us back", which only makes sense if there's a better alternative)

      And let's not forget that there are 12 "perpetuum mobile" patents (and that's just counting the U.S.). Just because a "dormant" patent exist, doesn't mean they have a working device.

    60. Re:Amazing by iserlohn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You completely miss my point. I wasn't talking about whether there was anything as good as petroleum, I was talking about whether the cost of petroleum accurately reflected the social and environmental problems that using it causes.

      Laissez Faire does not mean no government regulation. It has more to do with duties and tariffs on trade (or state involvement in industry). One of the problems we have at the moment (esp. in the US) is that oil products are not being taxed properly to account of all the negative attributes that relying on oil on a enormous scale brings.

    61. Re:Amazing by Raven_Stark · · Score: 1

      How exactly do you test solutions for catastrophe of unknown nature ...

      By having built a simulator that can reproduce all possible conditions and seeing which kill methods work. If solution does not exist, then do not drill. That is what the oil industry would have done if they were the trustworthy people conservative asshats claim they are. However, the evidence seems to suggest these are sociopathic criminals without regard for life, human or other. They are another perfect example of why free market capitalism does not work.

      --
      http://www.marxist.com/
    62. Re:Amazing by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

      It's what evolution theory states every species is always doing, of course.

      Discover a resource (ie. successfully "mutate")
      use it to capacity
      breed over capacity, without stopping for breath
      90% or-so of the species dies off due to resource shortage
      goto 1

    63. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's literally impossible to elect representatives into government that will further the public interest.

      People who believe that are so full of shit...Ok, if it's so impossible to elect a "good" politician, how do you expect any reform to happen? We should just give up if we are to believe that we are so helpless, shouldn't we? Or what, start a war?.. C'mon, man what's your solution? Goddamn crybabies really piss me off. The government/corporation is not the problem, you are. You are the one who gives them their power.. Fuck you!

    64. Re:Amazing by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      Come on, potash is dropped over plants, not oil.

      Euhm you might want to check what fertilizer is made of, specifically where exactly U.S. agricultural plants find their nitrogen.

      ... roughly 6-7 dollars a gallon and there hasn't been any noticable drop in driving...

      Compared to the U.S. there is certainly a noticable drop in driving.

    65. Re:Amazing by plurgid · · Score: 1

      China.

      Even if every American stopped driving RIGHT NOW, and FOREVER ... there would STILL be a a huge profit margin for these companies.
      Oil is a GLOBAL commodity market.

      Which is why the "drill baby drill" crowd and the "Boycot BP" crowd curiously suffer from the same logic problem.

    66. Re:Amazing by grommit · · Score: 0

      You're confusing renewable resources with non-renewable resources.

    67. Re:Amazing by shiftless · · Score: 1

      And how do you suppose BP could possibly test their emergency measures without an actual catastrophe (i.e. this one) to test on? Do you think they could possibly replicate solving a 19,000 barrel/day oil leak under 5000 feet of water in the lab?

    68. Re:Amazing by zmooc · · Score: 1

      What's really amazing is that we managed to burn up just about all "cheap" oil in a little over 100 years and now have to resort to drilling 1500 meters below sealevel.

      --
      0x or or snor perron?!
    69. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Obama let them nuke the hole it would be the end of his career the right could spin it any damn way they wanted and the far left would scream bloody murder in the streets.

    70. Re:Amazing by paiute · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem is that alternatives are not (yet) economical, and will never be until they get economies of scale (which is a chicken and egg problem), or until cheap oil runs out.

      Some allege that cheap oil is an illusion:

      http://www.iags.org/costofoil.html

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    71. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead of simply blaming governments and oil industries we have to think about our own desire to consume oil. Why don't we put more energy and effort into finding and using existing alternatives to oil? We, as consumers, have a responsibility in this situation as well.

      Actually less than you think. Massive subsidies and tax breaks make it attractive to drill in these risky areas while alternative energies get little government support. It's why corn was the feedd stock of choice for alcohol fuel, the corn lobby. None of these decisions are made for practical reasons they are made due to political pressure. Virtually all current energy sources would be drastically more expensive if you factored in secondary costs. Little things like pollution, health care and clean up. We spend tens of billions a year paying clean up costs alone. Coal is practically leveling West Virgina and several surrounding states. Water is being polluted and air is badly polluted from coal. Even hydroelectric has major secondary costs. It's badly damaged commercial fishing of some species and threatened some with extinction. People complain that wind and solar are expensive but their secondary costs are drastically less than most any other source. Once the hardware is produced they do little environmental damage where as other sources continue to cause damage at the very least while producing power most produce waste we will be dealing with for hundreds and in some case even thousands of years.We're supposed to be a geek site and yet no one has done the math. In less time than civilization has existed we will have poisoned every square inch of the planet. Science will save us? In nearly 200 years of being industrialized it has only gotten worse. I've heard that mercury released from the first metal smelting in the middle east over 2,000 years ago was still in the oceans today and in the food we eat. Imagine how much has been released in the last 2,000 years? Sustainable has become a tree hugger word. How about "survivable"? That's what we are talking about survival as a species. The planet will survive and in a few million years it will cycle most of the toxins out of the environment we just won't be around to see it. Move to space? We simply don't have the resources. If we converted the entire world's GDP to establishing space colonies it's doubtful one in a million could be moved to space. We've already exhausted most resources. Even basic materials like copper are getting scarce. It's why metal prices have shot up. Eventually a small number might live long term in space but we may have missed our window. If we had kept pushing after Apollo we could have done it but we blinked and now we are probably 30 years away from Mars, if ever. Feeding and providing iPads to six billion plus is eating up what resources we have. Before we reach ten billion most of our resources will be going just to keep the population alive. It may be too late already but we have no more than ten years to change how we do practically everything if we are to have any hope of surviving civilization itself.

    72. Re:Amazing by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 0, Troll

      Ah yes, the 'conspiracy of rich oil companies bought up all the secret plans' meme.

      Silly.

    73. Re:Amazing by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The exception (an attempt in 1972 to use a 4kt bomb to seal a gas 'fountain' at a depth of just over 2km in Kharkovskaya oblast') was not successfully closed by the detonation but the situation apparently wasn't made worse.

      This is a combination gas and oil well, as proven by the methane crap that keeps clogging stuff. So it likely wouldn't work, and we would have nuked the gulf for nothing. Until you or someone else can provide some evidence that it would work here, bringing it up over and over again saying "this problem is already solved" is fucking stupid.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    74. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you are suggesting will continue making everyone poorer. The first thing that needs to be done is get rid of ALL subsidies for ANY energy (and everything else really). Is oil really 2.49 a gallon (as it is here right now)? Who knows because Gov't is eating a lot of their costs. http://cleantech.com/news/node/554 The real cost is higher. Alternative energy will only takeover fossil fuels when it becomes cheaper. But using subsidies and taxes to accomplish this just makes everyone poorer. You will be paying more (whether thorugh the tax or subsidy) for the same product which means you have less to show for your hard earned cash.

      Capitalism is what has given everyone in a first world country their standard of living. Gov't cannot create wealth, they can only confiscate it and give it to whom they want. Kthreadd has it right, Consumers are also responsible for these situations. No one is holding a gun to our head telling us to buy oil. If no one bought it, it wouldn't be produced. The "evil" companies are just filling a demand.

    75. Re:Amazing by VennData · · Score: 1, Funny

      Nuking an Escalade factory would be better in the long term.

    76. Re:Amazing by Gulthek · · Score: 0, Troll

      There is a solution, but since it involves nukes we'll never do it.

    77. Re:Amazing by thewiz · · Score: 1

      It's like operating on a patient and going 'Trust me, I'm a doctor'.

      A doctor on TV!

      --
      If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
    78. Re:Amazing by General+Wesc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My electricity+water was $61 last month, and that was with some asshole screwing with the thermostat. Triple it. Go ahead. I'll cut back some if I need to.

      More importantly, developers will cut back. I work at an organization that builds energy-efficient houses for low-income families (not HfH, though I used to volunteer there) and thanks to intelligent design and a few solar panels, residents have had electric bills well under 100USD per year. I think once guy had an electric bill of 11USD in 2008.

      If we tax gasoline a lot, food prices will soar, and that will hit me a lot harder. We already subsidize food like crazy (and not very intelligently) but if necessary we could provide exemptions (or better, tax and subsidize--the point is to correct for the externality).

    79. Re:Amazing by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 0

      It has been the auto industry and oil industry that protested the building of rails in most areas

      You'll have to start providing some citations for your claims.

      No, we don't need you to dredge up that story about General Motors in the early 1950's. If that's the only instance you can manage to find, your argument has crumbled.

    80. Re:Amazing by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Which energy source can, with better economics, replace oil as a transportation fuel ? (better, since you say it's a conspiracy "holding us back", which only makes sense if there's a better alternative)

      Using technology developed in the 1980s by the USDOE at Sandia NREL, we could replace our transportation fuel needs with biodiesel using a fraction of our available desert land, growing algae in open raceways, using seawater as the medium. Since so much of our oil-related energy need is indeed diesel-fuel based (in transportation, shipping, and even power generation) this is a feasible solution today. Yet, no oil company is building biodiesel plants, even though we literally have suitable technology twenty years old.

      In the 1970s, it was known that solar panels would pay back the energy cost of their production in less than seven years, and in the 1980s GM built electric cars that were suitable for most households, being capable of serving the automotive needs of about 90% of the population. Yet no energy company built out large PV installations, and GM wound up crushing the cars. Yes, we could have been on a primarily-electric personal transportation infrastructure long before now. But power companies are in bed with oil companies, and power companies aren't required to buy power from producers at a reasonable rate, so there's no meaningful competition.

      Anyway, I have provided two examples of replacements which are viable, if not complete. There's not going to be a single answer anyway. Heavy vehicles or long-range ones can stick with diesel, and run on biodiesel with zero modifications; it's a good idea to run a veg-oil crankcase lube if you run biodiesel, because the blow-by from bio is less compatible with petro oil than the blow-by from petrodiesel. Small and short-range vehicles can be full-EVs. In between we can have series hybrids with diesel engines or regenerating microturbine generators using 1960s Chrysler technology! All of these problems are long-solved (twenty years or more) and your ignorance amounts to deliberate obtuseness. If you were qualified to contribute to this conversation nobody would have had to tell you any of this.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    81. Re:Amazing by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 0, Troll

      The only reason it is possible to keep about 80% of the US population ... well alive ... is oil.

      That's just the poor fucks who live in the city. I could plant enough food to feed my family out here with simple seed. I have the hand tools to harvest it. I could replace my electric jet pump with a hand pump for water.

      All those suckers who live in the blue states on the coasts are fucked, though. Enjoy your culture, I guess.

    82. Re:Amazing by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Compared to the U.S. there is certainly a noticeable drop in driving.

      There's a noticeable increase in crowding, and a subsequent reduced need for driving.

      But some of us don't like living in bee hives.

    83. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If the apple farmer is big enough to buy their way out of safety oversight, and those activities are funded by the population "addicted" to apples...then the consumers share the responsibility as well, and they really have no recourse but to consider whether they accept the lower price of apples when it's coupled to human suffering caused by the farmer. If it's unacceptable, then it's their responsibility to de-fund the farmer, who is clearly demonstrating his unwillingness to operate within acceptable parameters.

    84. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Thats it! Someone needs to invent a car that runs on apples!

    85. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, what's happening here is the "denial" phase, as in:

      The patient has a chronic and ultimately fatal disease (oil addiction) and they are desperate to maintain their fix. Thus, they go to the oil companies (their doctor) and ask them to write a prescription for what they need. The doctor drones on about the risks, the fact that the real problem is the addiction, that they don't know how much longer they will be able to supply this stuff (supplies are tight). They emphasize that the drugs they can provide have significant side effects that have been newly discovered and they will be more costly than the last time you visited. You say "Yeah, yeah, whatever it takes", having been through the routine with the doctor many times before, pay your $3/gallon for the prescription, and drive away happy.

      On your way home you hear about the overturned truck on the highway that has spilled many tons of the stuff in your own neighborhood. Even though this has happened many times elsewhere and it is exactly one of the risks that the doctor mentioned, this time it is at home. You express outrage at the government, the truck company, the doctor, and the entire medical profession for their irresponsibility. You hear a proposal from your local politician to increase safety regulations and to outright ban the manufacture and transport of the product through your neighborhood. You express approval in a letter to them and vote for them in the next election.

      You then travel, as you usually do, to get your weekly prescription and the price is now $6/gallon. You continue to express your outrage at the situation, which your local politician is happy to echo. Your transition to the "anger" phase is now complete.

    86. Re:Amazing by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Thousands of gallons of oil have always gushed into the Gulf every day. There is natural leakage that always occurs. This present situation represents a far, far greater amount of oil spilling out, so is an extremely bad situation. But there are elements within the ecology of the gulf that thrive on the oil that has always leaked out. Those elements will take care of part of the problem.

      Much as the media tries to whip up hysteria, this is not your mom's white tablecloth the oil is spilling out onto.

    87. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Yes but dentists aren't suppose to be performing open heart surgery."

    88. Re:Amazing by Kozz · · Score: 1

      That time is something we don't have in a media-obsessed world that demands instant gratification.

      I don't think that's fair at all. Instant gratification? We've moved beyond forty fucking days. And we have enough evidence that especially during the beginning, BP was playing down the size and severity, and NOT moving very swiftly at all. If you've seen some of the photo galleries of this disaster, it's got to make your innermost humanity writhe in pain. It's a nightmare. It's releasing equivalent to one Exxon Valdez spill every 3.5 to 2.4 days.

      I think we're well past instant gratification. We just want some solutions. As another Slashdot poster said in a related thread a few weeks ago, the issue that's killing us is the privatization of profit amidst ongoing socialization of the worst consequences.

      --
      I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
    89. Re:Amazing by gig · · Score: 1

      The desire for oil has nothing to do with it. In other countries they would have had to drill a reserve well just in case. Now it will take 3 months to drill one, all the while the oil shooting out. Oil companies make huge profits and this proves they have to be regulated to do the right thing. The lack of regulation in the US is a fucking joke.

    90. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ahh, but the fault does lie with the consumer that chooses to buy the apples from the farmer that continues to use provide his workers with faulty ladders, since the source of those apples may be traceable from point of sale. However, comparing apples to oil - when you buy things that have some component, process, or consumed electricity that required petroleum products in some manner, it is absolutely impossible to determine the source of the oil in order for the consumer to make a conscious effort to avoid a particular supplier's wrongdoing. Same thing can be applied to those who claim they don't purchase products made in China - somewhere along the line everything contains a component or was produced using components made in China, so the attempt at a high-level boycott is farcical. The only way to truly avoid consumption of petroleum products, products manufactured in your current favorite Country to despise, apples produced by farmers with faulty ladders, and consume only fairly treated chickens is to run off naked into the woods and live by your own devices, but you'll only a) be trespassing on someone's property, b) if not trespassing, the money you used to purchase said land is at some level now being used to further the problem, and c) still be accused selfishly avoiding the global scale of the problem. We've worked ourselves into quite a predicament, but focusing our detest and knee jerk reactions at a few specific things doesn't help. We can, however, gradually make a best effort to change our habits and behaviors, and encourage others to follow suit to reduce the resource glut, and maybe one day we'll find some of these things unnecessary and they'll just fade away and be forgotten (or, sadly, in some cases replaced with something else.)

    91. Re:Amazing by Dilpo · · Score: 1

      Where I live we can choose the electric company to pay for our energy. Many of them have plans for electricity from 100% renewable sources. The difference in cost is usually about 2-3 cents a kilowatt hour for a year long agreement. Not to say that if you sign up with one of these plans that the specific electron you use comes from a renewable source. It just means that for each kwh you use, they'll either produce or buy a kwh from a renewable source.

    92. Re:Amazing by danfromsb · · Score: 1

      If people willingly buy from a seller that they know is intentionally subverting safety restrictions in order to buy apples at a lower price, then yes, those people do hold a portion of the blame. Sellers respond to consumer demand, so consumers do have an obligation to demand safety. In fact in situations where the sellar is a corporation, consumers are often the only potential source of any ethical behavior.

    93. Re:Amazing by feepness · · Score: 1

      If you have a solution to this problem of being able to prove catastrophic failure modes can be solved by doing X with all the other unknowns you are clearly way smarted than the rest of us and I welcome our new over lord; otherwise you just another arm chair quarterback here.

      I've heard Canada requires relief drills to be ready in advance. Given that's the only proven solution, having it in place beforehand so it would be done now would seem to be prudent.

    94. Re:Amazing by JamesP · · Score: 1

      From what I heard, the company wanted to drill in a specific way, and the BP "manager" (of course) said "No, let's driil this another way"

      (sorry, can't find the source but it was in the news a couple of days ago)

      --
      how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
    95. Re:Amazing by Halborr · · Score: 1

      I actually think this is pretty spot on, and I'm from the USA (Iowa FTW!).

      There are a lot of REALLY stupid people here (as with any other country, I imagine) that will take whatever BS is thrown their way by a variety of sources, be it cable news, politician rhetoric, the internet...

      We do kind of need a disaster or major event to get this country riled up about ANYTHING, and today's generation is so used to living under disaster (9/11, the budget deficit, the "wars", ETC.) that they honestly don't give two craps. Seems it's gonna have to be an "OMFG THE WORLD IS ENDING" sized disaster.

      Cue "Moster/Suicide/America"
      ...But now it's a monster, and will not obey...
      America, where are you now? Don't you care about your sons and daughters? Don't you know, we need you now, we can't fight alone against the monster!

    96. Re:Amazing by j35ter · · Score: 1

      Dude, you're the Moron (with a capital M!)

      You put personal risk on par with risk of a global catastrophe!
      And the billions with a "b" spent for making drilling safer obviously were not spent on making *this* rig safer!

      Go back to your corporate overlords, they might drop a bone for you!

      --
      Delta-Mike November Bravo Tango
    97. Re:Amazing by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 1

      I think you're being unduly harsh, he probably gets his power from Verizon, $0.05 = half a cent.

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    98. Re:Amazing by saleenS281 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If the taxes on oil triple, you can bet your ass it won't be to promote energy alternatives. It might year one... year five the politicians will find a new pet project to divert the funds to.

    99. Re:Amazing by TimSSG · · Score: 1

      It all depends, did the Apple farmer give a very large check to the President of the USA? Tim S.

    100. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Proven methods to deal with contingencies are already in place. The primary method is called a Blow Out Preventer (BOP),.

      In this case, however, the BOP failed to do its job, and the reason for its failure is the big mystery at this point. When (if?) we learn the reason, then we can be far more specific in administering the blame. But there has been no lack of adequate preparation on the part of BP.

      We, as a society, have tacitly chosen to maintain a reliance on oil and therefore we have tacitly chosen to accept the consequences of this reliance. Like airplane crashes, these drilling accidents have happened before and, in spite of every precaution, they will happen again. Ponder this as you burn up 3 gallons in your giant SUV to fetch a candy bar and a can of soda from the local convenience store.

    101. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      This is the story from the early '50's, and no, the argument hasn't crumbled because that was when the damage was done.

    102. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be the interview on "60 Minutes" 2 weeks ago. The litany of errors they itemized that led to this clusterfuck is mindboggling.

    103. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you talking about? My electricity comes from hydro/wind, it has nothing to do with oil!

    104. Re:Amazing by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yet, no oil company is building biodiesel plants, even though we literally have suitable technology twenty years old.

      Show me the reference where algae-based biodiesel plants will produce cheaper per-mile fuel than oil.

      ...Yet no energy company built out large PV installations...

      And this is where we know you don't know what you're talking about. Do you realize how much land it takes to make a significant difference in power usage via solar power? Do the math. And then take that amount of land (which you will hand-wave as "put it out in the flyover country"), and destroy it environmentally. What, you think extracting all that sunlight doesn't have an effect?

      The bottom line is that there are NUMEROUS people who would love to be the ones who "solve" our oil dependence by coming up with a new energy source. Really, there are. And they're not even taken out in back alleys and beaten by the oil companies. They simply fail EVERY TIME. Because there is no economical alternative to oil at this point. That's just the simple reality.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    105. Re:Amazing by siride · · Score: 1

      That's a silly thing to say "government cannot create wealth". Government is not some supernatural entity. It is just another set of people doing things. Yes, a lot of what they do is not wealth-creation, per se, since we leave those kinds of non-market viable activities to the public sector, but other programs do create wealth and value, such as NOAA, NASA, the defense department, etc.

    106. Re:Amazing by Terwin · · Score: 1

      Not drilling is mostly what we have been doing.
      There are lots of wells being drilled and operating in the Gulf of Mexico, but only a small proportion of those are for or by US companies. The reason they had to go out so far that they no longer have proven solutions is because of the NIMBY crowd pushing them farther and farther away from shore.

      Let them drill where they know how to fix things when they go wrong, and they can fix things when they go wrong, the only problem is, you no longer have a horizon free of oil wells.

      When Texas joined the Union, we kept control of our coastal waters, so we have lots of relatively safe off-shore wells, other states just protest the national government when they decide that the coast of state X might be an ok place to look for oil.

      Just like the off-shore wind farm that has been going through so many regulatory hurdles off the coast of Florida(?), Texas sent that company a letter stating: when you are done having fun with red tape, come build one of those off our shores.

      Perhaps the reduced regulatory oversight is one of the reasons Texas does not seem to be participating much in this little recession the rest of the country is dealing with...

    107. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have a look through the dormant patents held by oil companies for a taste of how things could be, but aren't thanks to businesses run amok.

      I've heard that (and similar claims) numerous times from tin-foil-hatters, but I have yet to see any supporting evidence. Care to list a few of these "dormant patents"?

    108. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's amazing that anyone thinks this Top Kill was actually going to work. BP doesn't want this to work. This was probably their last action to stop it after all other means of getting the oil failed.
      It's just that BP and BO needed something to make it look like BP really was interested more in the environment and our gulf than their oil.. But they prepped us for failure prior to "moving on" to the next options. Both of the next two procedures go right back to saving the oil instead of stopping / plugging the well..

      It's amazing that anyone thinks this "attempt" wasn't just a trumped up pub stunt / pony show.. Hell, they already had the hardware for the next "containment" procedure on the sea floor before the top kill "attempt". One has to think that these two options were the next two in-line until pressure from the public and false action from the whitehouse demanded something, anything. I don't believe for a second that any oil company would ensure the success of an operation on a well with the word "kill" attached..

    109. Re:Amazing by siride · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I love this shift of blame from the libertarian crowd here. Clearly it's not the guy who runs the company's fault for providing dangerous ladders. He's only doing it because he's getting bribed (effectively) by the evil consumers. Come on! The person who does wrong is the guilty party. He might be enabled by some external factors, such as the money he gets from consumers (as if they are buying specifically from him because they *know* he uses broken ladders and they want to see the workers get hurt), but the choice to use bad ladders was his and his alone. Thus, he should get all of the blame and be held accountable. The alternative is the same old "privatize profit, socialize risk" philosophy that's been killing us. The farmer gets all the money when things go well, but if there are problems, it's up to the disjoint mass of consumers to collectively put him out of business or threaten such so that he will stop using faulty ladders. That is, he gets the rewards and society is supposed to pick up the pieces from his unethical behavior and collectively convince him to stop. This is not a workable system.

    110. Re:Amazing by owlstead · · Score: 1

      That's certainly true, once they are done with it you cannot peck anywhere anymore.

    111. Re:Amazing by PNutts · · Score: 1

      I suspect that cleaning up BP's mess won't be particularly cheap.

      It depends on whether they pay what they are legally required to or if they pay what they've promised to.

    112. Re:Amazing by jthill · · Score: 1

      The echo is even more exact. Everything they're trying now failed then. They've tried nothing new.

      --
      As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
    113. Re:Amazing by owlstead · · Score: 1

      Yes, you are obviously right. Unless of course there are other places to get oil from that 1.5 mile deep wells. And who says you cannot drill this well after doing proper research on it?

    114. Re:Amazing by PNutts · · Score: 1

      If the government was truly objective about its handling of industry, nuclear energy companies would have been required to demonstrate contingencies for all outcomes, including total catastrophic failure of equipment or processes. It's not like the industry operates on the knife's edge of profitability and can't afford to be held to account for their safety and recovery procedures; the nuclear industry has both the means and the funds necessary to keep such contingencies at the ready. However, they buy political apathy, and can put the money they would otherwise spend on safety into big bonuses for their directors and major stakeholders.

      There, I fixed that for 'ya.

    115. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only thing I really hate about mass transit is that it usually doubles or triples the travel time for most destinations where I live. Why would I want to spend 1.5 hours on a bus going to Seattle when I can drive there in half an hour, and actually be able to get home when leaving after midnight?

    116. Re:Amazing by WannabeAnonymous · · Score: 1

      I'm not an oilman, so I don't have any genuine knowledge of how to fix the problem, but why the hell not fix that blowout preventer right away? All they would have to do after that is activate the damn thing. Why is nobody saying very much about BP's failure to do that?

      If I were in charge of fixing the oil spill, I'd have a shotgun pointed at them, telling them "Fix the blowout preventer and activate it. Now."

      It appears to me that BP cares nothing about the damage they're doing. The seem to only be interested in keeping the well available for future oil production. The oil lost before they gain control has little value compared to the oil they will be able to get from the well later. I predict that everything BP tries to do will fail to permanently close the well.

      In order to prevent law-enforcement activities against me, I issue this disclaimer:
      In no way do I advocate fixing giant oil spills with the aid of a comparatively small shotgun.

    117. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except our economy isn't dependent on apples, and you don't have to drill at a mile below sea-level to get them. And I'm guessing a few hundred dollars at a hardware store wouldn't fix BP's problem.

    118. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's amazing that ANY corporation can drill for oil since NONE have stepped up to the plate with a viable solution.

      On CNN yesterday there were several viable potential solutions presented and even demonstrated by ordinary folks. The one I thought held the most potential was powdered peat moss used to absorb the oil both from the water and wildlife and which could subsequently be reused after being scooped up from the water. By the way, peat moss is one of the most absorbent materials on the planet and environmentally-friendly to boot.

    119. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One pretty surefire solution is to implement what Europe does. Have a secondary hole ready in case the first one blows out. All you have to open that to take the pressure off the first one. But America is too corrupt to ask Petroleum companies to do that.

    120. Re:Amazing by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      If people stop treating it as a "All oil or no oil" thing, then the alternatives multiply.

      The most obvious big solution to our oil dependency problem is to invest in public transport, and to change planning and zoning laws to ensure that the limitations on the viability of PT in many areas today becomes lessened through time, so people really don't face the choice of having to either walk a mile or more, or else drive for five minutes a longer distance, to get a bottle of milk.

      Will that be the end of oil? In the short term, no. It'll quantify a substantial reduction in the amount of oil, even more so in the medium term when the centralized nature of public transport makes it easier to switch over to anything from wood gas (CO) to vastly improved future battery technologies (and, of course, rail based systems can be electric, and thus Nuclear/solar/hydo/wind/etc powered from day 1)

      A massive and substantial reduction in oil dependency and thus demand will reduce the value of oil, making uneconomic much of the off-shore disaster areas we've seen over the last few decades. Burning less fossil fuels through a combination of carbon neutral energy sources and increased efficiency will also help reduce the CO2 imbalance and give the Earth a greater chance of finding an equilibrium.

      The sad part is that a concerted public transport migration could occur now, it could be a significant part of an economic infusion to get us out of our current depression state, it would easily pay for itself in reducing deficits in the medium to long term given the US's current dependence on expensive foreign oil, and yet the bizarre nature of US politics, where as many people seem to think the Gulf crisis means we need to drill more, not less, as the opposite, and the extreme anti-tax anti-spending ideology of a massive proportion of the population, means this isn't going to happen.

      Make it happen. Now.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    121. Re:Amazing by erroneus · · Score: 1

      Which brings up another, interesting weakness/failing that continues to build in our world of convenience. People fail to learn how to plan and manage their time. Once again, as a car-only person, I too went through (and continue to go through) some level of "always needing a car" all the time. But as time goes, I think more about scheduling and planning... now I even do that when I drive my car! Weird isn't it?

    122. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $11 per year? I'm pretty sure that even if I shut off the main breaker in my house, the power company here would still be charging me more than $100 per year just to be hooked up to the grid.

    123. Re:Amazing by dloose · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'm pretty sure nuclear power plants do operate on the knife's edge of profitability. They're also very heavily regulated. That's kind of why so few nuclear power plants are built.

    124. Re:Amazing by haeger · · Score: 1

      The problem is that alternatives are not (yet) economical, and will never be until they get economies of scale (which is a chicken and egg problem), or until cheap oil runs out.

      I drive a biomethane car (Opel/Vauxhall Zafira) which is perfect for me. Also, our government has put high taxes on non renewable energy so it's actually cheaper for me to drive this car than a petrol/diesel one.
      And I don't have to pay road tax for the first few years.

      Finding biomethane is a bit of a problem in some areas, but since 95% of my travel are on known roads it's not a big problem for me.

      Any city that has to take care of human waste can produce biomethane, and the cost is already there so it's just a big bonus to do it.
      Actually my city charges me to take care of my waste, refines it into biomethane and then sells it back to me.
      Clever bastards.

      --
      You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. -- Harlan Ellison
    125. Re:Amazing by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      Just in case you don't feel like reading the useless wad of text that is the parent post, let me summarize the "oil-replacing options":

      1) rebuild the US in an area the size of a small island and use bikes and busses
      2) use wood instead. But without using trees. You know, so we can live like people in Haiti or Rwanda

      And the author has the nerve to say it is "surprising" we haven't already done this : clearly there's a conspiracy preventing it.

    126. Re:Amazing by Cally · · Score: 1

      Did you know that petrol here in the UK is about 122p/l == £5.50/gal == $7.95/gall at current sterling:dollar exchange rate?

      Once the US population are happy to vote for gas prices that include some of the externalities that result from oil extraction, refining and consumption, this Brit might start taking the wailing about BP's incompetence and the corrupt regulators and Big Oil and all.

      --
      "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
    127. Re:Amazing by Culture20 · · Score: 2, Funny

      BP cannot use this method themselves. It requires Obama to step in and take some responsibility.

      Malia: "Daddy, did you plug the hole yet?"
      Obama: "After I'm done shaving, I'll put on my super-suit and get right on it. ...Michelle! Where's My Super Suit?!"

    128. Re:Amazing by Hatta · · Score: 1

      The problem is that alternatives are not (yet) economical

      I think the Iraq war and this event in the Gulf prove that oil is not economical now.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    129. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My electricity+water was $61 last month, and that was with some asshole screwing with the thermostat. Triple it. Go ahead. I'll cut back some if I need to.

      I think that was the GP's point. You will. The vast majority of America won't.

    130. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Without a duration in there, it's pretty much meaningless. If it's $0.50 per month, then yeah, that's pretty cheap. Just going by maximum power usage that should cover my air conditioners going full blast all the time (which they don't), my fridge, my lighting and my computers and various other electronics for $2.00 a month. Looking at my actual usage, I could have managed with just $0.50. Of course, if it's a steady kilowatt of power, i would have needed some sort of power supply with huge capacitors to keep it that high... It all depends on how they measure it. Measure it in kilowatt hours then divide by number of hours in the month? Measure all month and find the peak and charge for that for the entire month? Have you decide beforehand how many kilowatts you want and never let what you receive exceed that? Or go with the standard telecommunications style plan and have you decide beforehand how many kilowatts you want and if you come anywhere close to actually using that much, cancel your account.

    131. Re:Amazing by cbeaudry · · Score: 1

      The defense department creates wealth?

      Please explain that one.

    132. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You have no idea what your electricity costs, do you?

      I'd be willing to pay maybe $0.05/kwh more, 33-50% increase, but I'm not too interested in the 300-500% increase you seem to be willing to accept!

      You sir are a idiot!
      What we are engaged in right now due to the inherent shortsightedness of the markets is finishing all the (non renewable) oil on the planet and we are putting next to no price on the oil due.

      We are in effect in free fall and while we feel nothing now we sure will when it becomes clear to all that the oil will shortly be finished. The crash at the end will be hard and painful

    133. Re:Amazing by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Or does the fault lie with the farmer and have nothing at all to do with the people who purchase the apples?

      I think the point of the GP was that fault likes with both the farmer and the people who vehemently demand the lowest priced apples possible. The U.S. State and Federal governments can't even pass a tax on gasoline (used primarily by passenger vehicles) that comes anywhere close to what other industrialized countries tax. The old adage of fast, cheap, or well-made, pick two would seem to apply here.

    134. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God you are a major oil fan boy.

      Riddle me this, how much of this technology would be OFF oil if it was up to the consumer? Most of it I would bet.
      Most of the efforts to get off of oil has been stopped by guess who? The OIL companies or others with vested interest in them.

      How much farther do you think we would be now if Chevron hadn't bought the company (Through a shell company) that held the patents for the Nickel-metal Hydride Batter (NiMH) and then barred it from being used in any vehicle again. The RAV 4EV was discounted due to that fact, kinda funny how after 10 years have passed, there are still a few on the road off the stock battery that have over 150,000 miles on them that gets about 100-120 miles to a charge.

      Heck I am still waiting for them to try other engine designs that are more efficient for gasoline too such as the MIT MYT engine.

    135. Re:Amazing by dropadrop · · Score: 1

      That was my first thought too. Then somebody mentioned that the US has a limit for oil (or energy) companies liability in cases like this of 75 million dollars? If that's true, it's quite logical that there would be no big financial (apart from PR) reasons for the company to spend a lot of money beforehand researching solutions for an unlikely incident such as this.

      I've been involved in risk and business impact assesments, and the first rule of thumb is to never use more money to counter a risk then the worst case would cost if the risk realizes. By limiting the liability you ensure it's not worth it for the companies to develop expensive solutions for situations like this.

    136. Re:Amazing by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      I don't know what post you think you're summarizing, but your summary doesn't in any way remotely resemble what I wrote.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    137. Re:Amazing by sjames · · Score: 1

      You're arguing that consumers are hypocrites for complaining about the oil addiction if they use an oil based product? Recent history has shown that whenever an alternative product is presented on the market, the consumer snaps it up quickly. In spite of massive subsidies making oil based products cheaper. If the externalities were to be internalized, there would be even more clamor for alternative products.

    138. Re:Amazing by ukyoCE · · Score: 1

      Consumers will buy if the prices are cheap, and generally regardless of safety or other long term impacts. One of the reasons is lack of expertise and knowledge, but I think consumers will buy cheap even knowing about dangers.

      Corporations will cut every corner possible to undercut competitors regardless of safety.

      Capitalism does not work without the government interfering on behalf of safety and preventing collusion and monopolies. If there is a way to achieve safety and lack of monopolistic behavior without government, I'd love to hear about it.

      Ideally, the government should have been requiring and enforcing reasonable safety on the oil drilling. If this drives prices of oil up, then that's what needs to happen. Unless you consider total destruction of the environment an acceptable risk to keep costs slightly lower.

      Realistically, you have the additional issue of enforcement. It sounds like drilling was being done sloppily to save costs, making the existing (and perhaps already adequate) regulation pointless. This is a scenario we see again and again with government - existing regulations aren't enforced, a bad outcome occurs, and the "solution" is more unenforced regulation.

      It still comes down to the government though. Consumers and corporations are never going to "do whats right" without the government creating an economy where the consumers' and corporations' selfish desires are also what is best for the community as a whole.

    139. Re:Amazing by slick7 · · Score: 1

      I suspect that cleaning up BP's mess won't be particularly cheap.

      It depends on whether they pay what they are legally required to or if they pay what they've promised to.

      But who pays for all the dead fish and sea mammals?

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    140. Re:Amazing by slick7 · · Score: 1

      Bought Dogs...Bought Dogs...Bought Dogs...

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    141. Re:Amazing by ChienAndalu · · Score: 1

      Food often has to be cooled, you know.

    142. Re:Amazing by Solandri · · Score: 1

      It's amazing that BP can drill for oil with no provable solution to a catastrophic failure.

      The provable solution to a catastrophic failure was supposed to have been the blowout preventer. Unfortunately it failed in this case. A review of BOP failures has turned up evidence that perhaps they're not as reliable as they should be for a last-resort backup mechanism. Couple that with the BP executive in charge who took the Fifth but from other testimony appears to have deliberately ordered the rig operators to do things which left the BOP as the only failsafe to try to get the well completed quicker, and you have a recipe for disaster.

      As Douglas Adams said, the problem with trying to make things completely foolproof is that people usually greatly underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.

    143. Re:Amazing by slick7 · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'm pretty sure nuclear power plants do operate on the knife's edge of profitability. They're also very heavily regulated. That's kind of why so few nuclear power plants are built.

      Or melting down.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    144. Re:Amazing by siride · · Score: 1

      Certainly war itself doesn't create wealth, but many of the research projects it carries out have been very advantageous to society at large, including the Internet.

    145. Re:Amazing by Khyber · · Score: 1

      NiMH is bullshit. Ni-Zn is what you want.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    146. Re:Amazing by slick7 · · Score: 1

      And who says you cannot drill this well after doing proper research on it?

      Obviously, BP can't. Where's Halliburton when you need them? They sure seem mighty quiet.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    147. Re:Amazing by bjdevil66 · · Score: 1

      "or until cheap oil runs out."

      It may just have, if this disaster does what it could economically and environmentally do to the southern US and any other part of the world affected by this...

    148. Re:Amazing by Khyber · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Show me the reference where algae-based biodiesel plants will produce cheaper per-mile fuel than oil."

      If you can't do the math in your head alone, just be quiet.

      We don't have to drill for algae. Algae is almost impossible to NOT produce when water is exposed to light, and we can just use the sunny open desert to produce the fuel. Seawater is absolutely abundant and will work perfectly.

      The cost alone for production is far cheaper. Refining algae fuels takes nowhere near the amount of energy as it takes to refine crude into the varied useful products. The infrastructure for production is much cheaper, as well, as you're basically just making vegetable oil to use for fuel.

      Someone hasn't ever done any research on this, I see.

      Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to making LED panels SPECIFICALLY FOR algae-based biofuel production.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    149. Re:Amazing by nuldev · · Score: 1

      The first step in encouraging the development of alternative energy sources is to stop letting the oil companies buy alternative energy companies and then dismantle them. This has happened many, many times over the last 20 years, and even BP bought a solar panel manufacturer which is now running on a skeleton staff.

    150. Re:Amazing by Rising+Ape · · Score: 1

      Note that's in UK gallons, which is equivalent to $6.70 in American gallons.

      This is still more than double the US price of course - but I'm not seeing much evidence that all the extra tax money raised here in the UK is actually being used to help mitigate the damaging effects of oil - it's just going into the general tax fund.

    151. Re:Amazing by smaddox · · Score: 1

      If the only way to safely and effectively stop a leaky well is to drill a relief well, then the US government needs to require that relief wells be drilled for any and all wells. It is ridiculous that the contingency plan for this event involves leaking hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil into the gulf over a period of months.

    152. Re:Amazing by ukyoCE · · Score: 1

      Consumers can be a stop-gap measure, but are a terrible solution for keeping corporations safe. If consumers have to pick a more expensive "safe" option than other unsafe consumers, the safe consumers are going to select themselves out of existence.

      Let's continue OP's analogy, and say that the only consumers of apples are apple pie factories. There are two factories, Bob's Apple Pies and Jim's Apple Pies.

      If Bob switched to safe apples, he's now forced to charge $10 per pie instead of the $7 that Jim is charging. Bob goes out of business because no one is buying his pies, and your "safe" apple picker has probably gone out of business too.

      Whether Bob tries to do the right thing or not, the end result is that the unsafe practice will take over the market. The only question for Bob is whether he's going to continue his Apple Pie business by being unsafe, or give up the entire market to Jim.

      You could try to say it's still the consumer's fault for buying Pies from Jim. In a world of perfect world, sure. Maybe if Jim's apple pies said "27 apple pickers died to make this pie". Few consumers, if any, will know that Jim is selling unsafely-made apple pies. Jim may even refuse to disclose where he gets his applies from, making it impossible for consumers to pick safe products without government intervention.

    153. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm going to have to agree with this. The idea of using a large explosion (doesn't have to be nuclear BTW) to shift the ground to seal the bore deserves more serious discussion than any I have seen so far. In the absence of such, all I can come up with are 2 very weak arguments: (1) that it might fracture the rock around the bore and make the problem harder to deal with. A serious danger, to be sure, but can't we find some explosive experts to come up with conditions (placement, shape, size) which would minimize this danger? (2) that a demonstration of the usefulness of nukes would undermine the efforts of the anti-nuke fans.
      I mean this comment very seriously. All I have seen so far has been hysterical "OMG! nukes? you must be joking", and a few "can you prove it would work?". Get real, people. This is already a catastrophe. Everything tried so far has failed. Are you really satisfied to wait another 2-3 months until the relief bore is drilled?
      How about instead of modding me down or ignoring me, just tell me (a) why it probably won't work, or (b) why it would probably make things worse.

    154. Re:Amazing by zill · · Score: 0, Troll

      or until cheap oil runs out.

      Or until we triple the taxes on oil. Use the revenue to promote energy alternatives.

      Too bad the people doesn't control the tax rate. Big corporations do.

    155. Re:Amazing by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 1

      And the same people who came up with "nuke it" are the same ones who created an inferno that has been burning for 30 years in the desert wastelands on the Asian shelfs. The sea floor in the area which this oil well is located is already extremely delicate, to the point that oil is already seeping from it in thousands if not millions of locations. Simply "nuking it" could cause those other locations to fracture open and instead of having one location with oil gushing out of the sea bed, we could have hundreds of locations, and those wouldn't have a pipe in them which we could eventually seal with concrete or plug with a massive valve. The oil field under the sea in that location is one of the largest in the world, and is also under extreme pressure from the weight of the ocean above it and the natural gases dissolved in the oil contained there. If the pressures involved from the oil well under were found in a well on the land, the "gusher" escaping from it would be almost a mile high. The last measured standing pipe pressure was 6k psi and rapidly rising before the drilling rig exploded:

      http://www.energybulletin.net/node/52879

      --
      We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
    156. Re:Amazing by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      at $68,000,000 a day in tax revenue I don't think they have much to worry about when it comes to cost of oil.

      Tthat's approximately 9M barrels a day * 42 gallons in a barrel * $.18 a gallon gas tax.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    157. Re:Amazing by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I'm not exactly sure I trust the numbers, but in general, I agree. The true costs of the oil economy are far greater than how much its direct products (gas, diesel, plastics, etc.) cost, and because considerable effort has been made in hiding the true costs in many ways, everyone just sort of gauges it by the cost of a fill up.

      And then there comes a disaster like this. Anyone who thinks BP is going to be picking up the whole tab is delusional. At the end of the day, the taxpayer is on the hook for these disasters, and the economy in general has to absorb them. Since it's now looking like it will be months before the new wells are drilled, it's pretty much impossible to sort out just what it will cost in environmental damage, lost jobs, cleanup and so forth.

      Even if oil were half the price it is right now, it would be expensive.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    158. Re:Amazing by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So you claim that algae-based biodiesel is so stupidly simple, cheap and self-evident that it's laughable to even question it. So then, where is the cheap algae biodeisel plants that are replacing all the oil plants? Clearly if it's that superior, people are investing loads of money into it, and given that it's so simple to make it work, the fuel has to be flowing in quantity.

      And yet, astonishingly, it isn't. Even after the original poster's claim that it's 20 year old technology. Is it just that the EEEEEEEVIL OIL COMPANIES are somehow blocking every single attempt to create these plants?

      Or perhaps there are certain practicality questions that you simply don't want to deal with?

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    159. Re:Amazing by Black+Gold+Alchemist · · Score: 3, Interesting
      --
      Responsibility is an addiction
      Virtue is a temptation
      Community is a cartel
    160. Re:Amazing by izomiac · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't surprise me if you could easily afford a ten to twenty fold increase in your electric bill. But, what about the lower income families living in poorly insulated homes, likely in less temperate climates? For someone whose electric bill is $300+ a month that only earns a little over $1,000 a month, even a small increase wouldn't be affordable (KY's low power rates, temperate climate, and low cost of living being used here). Just for kicks, let's say it's the middle of the winter for an elderly old couple on aspirin and a fixed income that still live in their hundred year old home.

      OTOH, I certainly don't think the current state of affairs is optimal. I'd prefer if the price did triple, but the increase was completely reinvested in reducing the energy costs in older homes.

    161. Re:Amazing by vux984 · · Score: 1

      It's amazing that BP can drill for oil with no provable solution to a catastrophic failure. It's like operating on a patient and going 'Trust me, I'm a doctor'.

      If you can find a surgeon who can provide you with a provable solution to a catastrophic failure, please forward me his name and number! All mine want me to sign waivers that I acknowledge "surgery is risky, I might die, and they won't be held responsible."

    162. Re:Amazing by mhelander · · Score: 1

      Right, and what if we consumers and ordinary citizens organized ourselves for even stronger impact? We could even have full time salaried people dedicated to the issues at hand. We could call them politicians.

    163. Re:Amazing by starcraftsicko · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Instead of simply blaming governments and oil industries we have to think about our own desire to consume oil. We, as consumers, have a responsibility in this situation as well.

      Let's say an apple farmer gives his apple pickers faulty ladders to work with and, as a result, dozens of workers every year fall and break their necks. Are you saying this would be the fault of consumers who purchase apples? Should people reduce their consumption of apples to fix this problem? Or does the fault lie with the farmer and have nothing at all to do with the people who purchase the apples?

      Substitute farmer and apples with BP and oil.

      Your analogy is flawed and incomplete.

      The consumers demand apples, but also demand that they should not be able to see the orchards. Consumers also demand that apples be cheap; when apples are expensive, the same demanding consumers demand that the farmer be investigated, and that his orchards, ladders, barns, outbuildings, vegetable gardens, asses, horses, children - all of his property and interests - be confiscated. See also socialism.

      This forces the farmer to work on steep mountains and in canyons and other places where consumers don't go. He can't stop, because he doesn't want his things stolen. His choice is risk and wealth, or abdication and ruin.

      He uses ladders that he believes are safe and takes the precaution of putting a net under each ladder in case someone should should fall. Unfortunately, while working on a particularly tall and steep and inaccessible mountain 50 miles away from civilization, a ladder breaks, and the net fails as well...

      ---

      The real flaw in the analogy is that the consumers don't really care about the dead workers so long as they have access to cheap apples, so our scenario needs to end with an s--- load on apples rolling down the mountain and into the river to wash up on the beaches as smelly and deadly applesauce. If anyone wants to fix the analogy some more...?

      ---

      If the consumers aren't to blame entirely, they at least share in the blame.

    164. Re:Amazing by wealthychef · · Score: 1

      The problem is, that there is no such thing as a "collective conscience" when it comes to money.

      I see your point, money is essentially conscienceless, but we just have to stop seeing "The Economy" as an important end in and of itself and rather an important tool to other ends, such as having a great life, security, freedom, etc. As you point out, you can legislate a conscience by capturing the external costs as you judge them as a society. For example, valuing wetlands economically by penalizing their destruction or rewarding their creation as a government tax or other means will definitely result in more wetlands. Cap and trade reduced acid rain in the 70's or 80's or whenever that happened.

      --
      Currently hooked on AMP
    165. Re:Amazing by dwillden · · Score: 1

      If they could simply fix the BOP, they would. But it's really hard to work on a leaking firehose, while it's gushing. Oh and do it by remote control with underwater ROV's. Don't under estimate the difficulty of the task at hand.

      The BOP has failed, the device designed and installed just to prevent this kind of disaster failed. In the early days they did try to coax it into working, with no luck.


      What I'm wondering is even if it's not stopping the flow, why not keep pumping mud. It seems to at least been keeping the oil in the pipe, displacing it with the mud. If nothing else, three days of mud flowing was three days of at a minimum, substantially reduced amounts of oil flowing out.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    166. Re:Amazing by fbjon · · Score: 1

      $0.50 /kW doesn't make sense. Electricity is billed according to how much you use, which is Wh, or more commonly kWh.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    167. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Every post that I've seen in this thread that has been shilling for Big Oil has had your name attached.

      Come on, out with it, you work in the oil & gas industry, don't you?

    168. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Did you know that petrol here in the UK is about 122p/l == £5.50/gal == $7.95/gall at current sterling:dollar exchange rate"

      Of course I know that. The British government needs some way of generating revenue to maintain all of the people that're on the dole, including many families who have been on it for generations now with no end in sight.

    169. Re:Amazing by zill · · Score: 1

      If they can't demonstrate that it's safe to drill, don't drill. It's that simple.

      The car analogy would be: if you don't see a sign that says "Speed limit 100", don't drive at 100mph.

    170. Re:Amazing by edmicman · · Score: 1

      How does it work if the first hole blows before you get the second hole drilled? One of them has to be first, right?

    171. Re:Amazing by Cally · · Score: 1

      It's amazing that ANY corporation can drill for oil since NONE have stepped up to the plate with a viable solution.

      Of course there are solutions: three, in fact.

      • Don't let the well blow out in the first place.
      • The stuff BP's been trying; trigger the BOP by robot. Just because it hasn't worked here doesn't mean it's unreasonable to try.
      • Drill a relief well.

      This is a very unusual disaster - the first of it's kind. Plenty of other safe deep-water fields being safely operated around the world. My guess is that once all the wailing has died down, the great American public will basically accept the cost of one of these every 20 or 30 years in exchange for cheap petrol. (You know petrol's roughly $8 a gallon here in the UK? And look, no riots in the streets. Don't tell me -- that's because we let the Marxists take our guns away, right? )

      --
      "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
    172. Re:Amazing by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Anyway, I have provided two examples of replacements which are viable, if not complete.

      Your definition of viable doesn't take into account 'cost effective.' algae biofuel probably won't be cost effective until oil hits $800 a barrel. That would put gas prices at around $25 a gallon. If that happens, all transportation in the US will effectively stop, thus it's not viable in any real sense. So you are wrong.

      Solar is better, but it still isn't competitive with traditional methods of generating electricity, without government subsidies. If it were, it would be 100% viable, and everyone would be doing it. But it's not. You have to take price into consideration with these things.

      Incidentally, even though algae is expensive, there are a number of companies and organizations trying to make algae truly viable. Some of these are even sponsored by oil companies. So in a way, you are also wrong when you say, "no oil company is building biodiesel plants." If it ever becomes viable, they will build the plants.

      --
      Qxe4
    173. Re:Amazing by erroneus · · Score: 1

      That certainly doesn't surprise me terribly. Well, maybe a little. In this case, the charts are talking about units of heat and says little about fuel consumption although some other connections could be drawn to that end, but it doesn't say what fuel(s) are being used in each cases.

      What doesn't come as a surprise most certainly is that it could be done better... far better. It's partly who we are as a nation, but there's also that other part that seems to get in the way of progress -- our physical size. The cost of rolling things out is prohibitive in many cases due to the scale. This is true of everything from telecom to transit.

      The only way I could imagine changing that is to reverse the results of the civil war by putting more control in the hands of the states and putting the federal government in charge of national and foreign affairs a bit more. Imagine states actually competing for citizens (read: tax revenue) by keeping things modern and all that? The states would act as small countries and so the cost of deployments would be lower due to scale. Of course obvious complications would arise such as interstate tariffs and the other such things. (Did you know in Japan when taking the highway you have to pay tolls every time you cross over into another prefecture? Tolls are like $10-$20 too!) I'm not saying it's a perfect idea, but one that would serve to counter the problem of large scale deployments of updated technologies. ...rambling again....

    174. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it is the fault of the consumer. It is also the fault of the company, and of the government. As a consumer if I have the ability to either not eat apples, or eat apples from a grower who gives decent ladders to his workers, and I choose not to exercise that choice then I am partially responsible for the injury to the workers.

    175. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Substitute apples with grapes and you have yourself a boycott.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C3%A9sar_Ch%C3%A1vez

    176. Re:Amazing by rotorbudd · · Score: 1

      Would you care to tell where you live so that if a disaster happens in your country I can say " I'm very glad that this accident happened in (insert your country here)."
      The US isn't suffering, the LA coast is. And will continue to suffer for years.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it, but artillery is addressed to " Whom It May concern"
    177. Re:Amazing by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      The problem is that alternatives are not (yet) economical

      A VW Golf is a lot more economical than a Hummer.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    178. Re:Amazing by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      The defense department creates wealth?

      It created the internet.

      Government created an enormous amount of wealth in the US by building the interstate highway system. Before the economy tanked, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac created a great deal of wealth by putting houses in the hands of people who could afford them. This was before the banking industry found a way to make money by putting houses in the hands of people who could not afford them.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    179. Re:Amazing by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Too bad the people doesn't control the tax rate. Big corporations do.

      Too right.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    180. Re:Amazing by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      required to demonstrate contingencies for all outcomes

      You can't do that. If you think you can, you're not being imaginative enough. Reasonably foreseeable risks? Sure. No problem. But I can construct a chain of events that leads from drawing a blood sample from you to your death by sepsis, or from you getting into a car to go to the grocery store to said car mowing down a herd of schoolchildren. Neither of those is even terribly far-fetched.

      Maybe BP really did skimp on safety - I know very little about the drilling industry and couldn't possibly offer an opinion that means anything - but "bad things happened" is not prima facie proof of "they fucked up".

    181. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apples to oranges..... Mexican labor is cheap and can be replaced

      You point still stands

    182. Re:Amazing by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Your definition of viable doesn't take into account 'cost effective.' algae biofuel probably won't be cost effective until oil hits $800 a barrel. That would put gas prices at around $25 a gallon. If that happens, all transportation in the US will effectively stop, thus it's not viable in any real sense. So you are wrong.

      Summarized: *handwavinghandwaving* "so you are wrong".

      Try reading A Look Back at the U.S. Department of Energy's Aquatic Species Program: Biodiesel from Algae... you can go argue with the USDOE if you like. When even the oil-hungry US gov't says that you can do it, you have good reason to suspect that it's true. All the references you can eat are contained within.

      Solar is better, but it still isn't competitive with traditional methods of generating electricity, without government subsidies. If it were, it would be 100% viable, and everyone would be doing it. But it's not. You have to take price into consideration with these things.

      If it can be done at a profit, it doesn't have to be more profitable or even as profitable for it to be worth it to someone to do it. Therefore I conclude that the only reason it's not being done is some form of market-manipulating collusion... again, since it's been possible to operate such a business as profitable on a reasonable profit timescale since the 1970s.

      Incidentally, even though algae is expensive, there are a number of companies and organizations trying to make algae truly viable. Some of these are even sponsored by oil companies. So in a way, you are also wrong when you say, "no oil company is building biodiesel plants." If it ever becomes viable, they will build the plants.

      There's oil companies with small pilot plants, but only one company is serious about biodiesel-from-algae in the USA anyway. ConocoPhilips is doing something interesting with Tyson chicken in Germany...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    183. Re:Amazing by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I am for No Government, since I don't see any benefits they produce.

      Is that just talk, or are you posting from Somalia?

      Actually, governments produce nothing, they are perfect looters.

      I've lived in a few developed countries, but at least the governments only rape you metaphorically.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    184. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate printers too

      Every time I have to fix a printer issue, I fantasize about this scene from OfficeSpace.

    185. Re:Amazing by Kijori · · Score: 1

      Your signature:

      Please read and at least attempt to understand comment before replying, kthxbye.

      The start of my comment:

      I can't help out with the viability of it

      The end of my comment:

      Again, not passing any comment on the possibility of using a nuclear bomb

      What you wrote in your reply:

      Until you or someone else can provide some evidence that it would work here, bringing it up over and over again saying "this problem is already solved" is fucking stupid.

      Maybe you should read that signature once in a while?

    186. Re:Amazing by RoadNotTaken · · Score: 1

      It's like operating on a patient and going 'Trust me, I'm a doctor'.

      Isn't that exactly what doctors do? Patients die. Shit happens. We're only human and our power is limited.

    187. Re:Amazing by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Except that a whole lot of oil has now made contact with the shore. Whatever aspects of the Gulf biosphere that gobble up hydrocarbons clearly will not do so in time to prevent the catastrophe. The media hypes things, but you've got actual researchers, and even BP itself now admitting that there is vast damage being done. Yes, eventually the damage will, one way the other, be fixed, but in the meantime one of the most important fisheries in North America is being damaged, if not wiped out. Important marsh ecosystems that may have a major impact on low-lying areas of the Gulf Coast are now being inundated. That's not even talking about major secondary industries like shipping and tourism. The latter, in particular, is an important aspect of the Gulf economy.

      Then let's talk about the very active hurricane season expected, with the vast amount of oil still in large underwater plumes. It's quite possible that even if they stopped the leak tomorrow, the majority of the environmental damage is yet to come, and it's now it's clear that the flow may not be stemmed by the time the season arrives. How does anyone propose to drill in the middle of hurricanes?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    188. Re:Amazing by 517714 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, like the merger between Mercedes Benz and Chrysler. BP bought Amoco; it is billed as a merger for accounting reasons.

      --
      The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
    189. Re:Amazing by ClubStew · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      BP took shortcuts. It is their fault.

      And while I agree that our dependence on oil is a contributing factor, everyone saying it's all our fault needs to stop driving, stop taking the bus or anything that uses petrol and live up to your claims. Yes, alternative fuels will be nice someday, but get off your soapbox and start practicing what you're preaching. It's not so easy, is it?

      We need more R&D into alternative fuels but right now much of that is being done by the oil companies, and our shoddy education system based on standardized tests doesn't exactly turn out the best and the brightest to contribute to more R&D. I see that as a bigger problem that will fail to sustain America.

    190. Re:Amazing by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      It may just have, if this disaster does what it could economically and environmentally do to the southern US and any other part of the world affected by this..

      I think this disaster may have done to offshore oil drilling what Three Mile Island and Chernobyl did for nuclear power in the US... raised the level of NIMBYism to the point where future offshore oil-drilling proposals will require too much sorting through red tape to ever be profitable.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    191. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's called an analogy, you dumb fuck. Look it up.

    192. Re:Amazing by Candid88 · · Score: 1

      If the consumers knew about the faulty ladders all along then they DO share the blame.

      That's the case here. BP weren't doing anything fraudulent, everyone knew such a leak had no guaranteed fix. It wasn't a secret, it was a well published risk. Just as we all know one of the countless oil tankers leaving Alaska may again rupture and cause another massive Exxon Valdez style disaster. I bet you lot will say "nothing to do with me" on that one too, whilst still expecting the next shipment of cheap, on-demand oil to your local gas station.

      Putting all the blame on some company and trying to say we had nothing to do with it is ridiculous.

    193. Re:Amazing by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      In other countries they would have had to drill a reserve well just in case.

      So you'd have twice the chance of a blowout happening? That just shows why USA = number one. NUMBER ONE! NUMBER ONE!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    194. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The real problem is that still the American people don't realise that things should change."

      Yes, we (your thinly veiled "stupid") Americans. We have to lead, because you can't, so it's our fault. With that pathetic view of yourselves, no wonder we end up leading, if only by default so we can be blamed later if things go wrong.

      Besides, you're looking at multitudes of vibrant and hostile debate that has led to present political inactivity as a clear indicator that we don't know we should change. Are you that stupid or ignorant to comment on a system that you clearly have not recently read up on?

      We know we need to change. We just haven't decided where to. I'm a moderate conservative, and I don't think I've seen the American people, even in a bad economy and all sorts of crisis going on, this willing to engage in government. Ever. Hell, even the stupid people have come out of the woodwork (see news.yahoo.com comments).

      We know things have to change. The discussion is how will it change. Is it clean coal? Renewables? Nuclear? A nice combo combined with a better grid? There are so many ideas on the table, and you don't seem to realize that, looking at the debate which causes temporary inactivity as evidence of that we aren't willing to change? It's to where, and how that we're deciding.

      I dislike Obama greatly as a person and as a politician, but I even recognize that he is not just Jimmy Carter, but more like the previous 2 1-term Presidents; he's likely to lose in 2012, but his policies will set things up for the next President to take credit for, much like Bush senior set things up for Clinton. Not really his doing, but his as a result of his election because the American people did want to change, and he was the person placed on the pedestal for our hopes, not because of his talents (despite the liberal media claiming that to be so).

      The funny thing is, while you berate us for our inactivity, you indicate how weak your country is. It's funny that you aren't willing to do things on your own, unless we are leading. Strange. Since we've looked elsewhere for solutions, beyond our borders, such as alternative energy projects elsewhere (Iceland and Australia for geothermal for example; Spain's solar projects show how impractical it really is for the US; certain EU nations for wind show it's promise).

      Things we have looked to already:
      * going to electricity instead of oil for transportation needs--driven by public interest and corporate recognition that small, electrical cars have benefits to society; backed by government subsidies; we believe ethanol is dead because of the water demand and the food demand.
      * health care--yes, I don't like the newly adopted system, in fact I hate it, but the fact is, passing something and whatever change comes forward later, will be on the back of this initial change; although I think the Dems get too much recognition for what little they've done here
      * national transportation--nationwide hub system, with several billion coming around; I believe the EU, China, and Australia all had a hand when we took a look at their system to see what we could do here; baby steps, but it's enough
      * more criticism of corporations which blow shit up or are asses, whether it be Apple with 35,000 some employees domestically while contracting with a Chinese corp of half a million, or BP when they don't drill relief wells in near concert with the initial, or don''t backup plans, or put in known faulty parts, or our own government for taking a back seat to such corporations (which I think will be Obama's real downfall, given how he campaigned he was different)
      *revising our financial system--we already have and still are. Even Republicans hated it before the fallout that we got nearly wholly blamed for.

      Things are and have been changing over here. You just think it's going to take a couple of years or something; I'm an impatient ADD type, but even I recognize there's no way the public is going to change as fast as you think we are

    195. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bah, Europes been steppng up to the plate with an alternative solution for years - We have been fattening up you yanks. Eventually we will be abale to replace oil by throwing another suitably obbese 'amerkin' in the furnace.

      New solent Blue People its not just for food you know.

    196. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Xcel Energy in Colorado and Minnesota offers "windsource" energy for a surcharge. They claim if you pay a surcharge (approx. 10% net of the credit for coal costs), you get all your electricity from windmills in western MN). However, until more people pay windsource surcharges than XCel can deliver with its' existing wind capacity, there's no need for them to change their generating mix. Even when/if the number of consumers voting for Wind with their wallets use more electricity than XCel currently generates via Wind, who will force Xcel to build more wind and shut down coal and/or nuke? Seems like a lot is taken on faith and potential for fraud is pretty high.

    197. Re:Amazing by iceborer · · Score: 1

      Drill two relief wells at the same time as the main well and either leave the last few feet unfinished or enhance the casing to reinforce the area left open to the relief wells. When BOP fails, push through. - Unwashed Mass

    198. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah if only they could fix the BOP! Here's a nice analogy. Go outside, get a garden hose, and turn it all the way on. Now grab the business end - see how the water is "fountaining" out? Now try to completely plug it with your finger. Notice how it tightens to a spray or tiny high pressure stream at some point? And if you DO manage to completely block it with your thumb (good for you!) it's not going to last more than a few seconds before the pressure of the water is greater than the pressure you can exert with your finger.

    199. Re:Amazing by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Actually, it doesn't stand for anything.

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

      "In 2000, BP Amoco acquired Arco (Atlantic Richfield Co.) and Burmah Castrol plc. In 2001 the company formally renamed itself as BP plc and adopted the tagline "Beyond Petroleum," which remains in use today. It states that BP was never meant to be an abbreviation of its tagline."

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    200. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One must not forget that the US government was formed by, is run by and profits the people of the US.
      Through US elections the government is given power to act as they do by the people.
      The people's failure to stop, and address, the government's atrocious actions reaffirms that the government has permission and consent of the people.
      People seem to forget that the government consists of the people. Unfortunately many people are corrupt and the lust for power tends to further corrupt people.
      This isn't a new problem and can be observed in all forms of government throughout the ages. I think the root of the problem is with the people.
      A government is an expression of the people.

    201. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, I always used to wonder why we didn't use an alternative to asphalt roads, at least for the high traffic roads. They're utter crap. They have to be redone so frequently and all the road work causes so many secondary costs to the people who use the roads. Not to mention all of the ridiculous "road repair" I've seen where they "fix" the road only for it to be back to the way it was the next day. Such as when they fill a pothole and car tires have pulled out and spread the gravel in no time, or when they completely resurface a major and, in a few days, there are already deep tire ruts in it. Concrete roads would cost 5 times as much, but last 10 times longer, and there are lots of other potentially better solutions. So, why don't we use the higher quality, ultimately better, cheaper alternatives?

      I've only recently come to realize that the reason is that, if we didn't make roads out of asphalt, the oil companies would have to do something else with their waste. Spreading it out all over the place is super cheap for them, seeing as they actually get paid for the stuff rather than having to pay for disposal themselves.

    202. Re:Amazing by IdolizingStewie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As an employee of one of the companies you listed, do I think we would have handled the cleanup better, probably not. Do I think we would have had better preventative measures and emergency procedures to keep the situation from escalating to the current mess? Absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt. The accounts I have read of what was going on at the times surrounding the incident terrify me. Beyond even the engineering shortcuts taken, the idea that you need permission to hit the Emergency Shut Down was supposed to have died with the 167 men lost in the Piper Alpha disaster 22 years ago. If a lowly galley hand on my platform is the first to see a problem, I expect him to hit the ESD and then call the Control Room, not waste time runnning around in search of the only two people on the platform with the authority, who have to both agree to hit it.

    203. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know why this is insightful.

      It's not just a matter of having extra tax revenues to spend on alternative energy sources. It's also the fact that expensive oil will provide political pressure to develop alternative sources.

    204. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BP stands for Beyond Petroleum. It's big enough that it isn't really any countries anymore. Also, Deepwater Horizon is technically in international water.

      And yet, when it's a pseudo-American company, people seem all too happy assigning the blame on "America"...

      Also, BP doesn't stand for ANYTHING anymore. Beyond Petroleum is just a marketing slogan, not the company name,

    205. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is handwaving bullshit. "Algae is almost impossible to NOT produce when water is exposed to light" -- don't know if you noticed, but the open seas are exposed to sunlight 12 hours a day and they're not completely filled with algae. What's the limit on production there? You don't say, and it's not immediately obvious.

      Algae really does seem pretty promising from everything I've read. There are obstacles that are being overcome; maybe it'll be a really big deal in a few years and the people who put in the research and investment to set up efficient, effective production facilities will be swimming in cash, but you're doing a shit job of selling it now.

    206. Re:Amazing by Elektroschock · · Score: 1

      This reminds me of the Monty Python brain specialist

    207. Re:Amazing by feepness · · Score: 1

      How does it work if the first hole blows before you get the second hole drilled? One of them has to be first, right?

      No idea. I assume they drill them at the same time so the relief well could be uncorked within days.

    208. Re:Amazing by siride · · Score: 1

      This is a dangerous line of logic to go down. The entity directly responsible for the crime shoulders all of the blame (unless there are conspirators, etc.). Enablers, direct and indirect, can't reasonably count. The connections become too tenuous, too difficult to trace and too intertwined with other issues. I pay a guy to do my roof who likes to eat apples harvested by the guy who uses faulty ladders. Am I at fault? After all, I should have checked out where my contractor was getting his apples from so that none of my money paid to him ended up going to the crooked apply farmer. See why this doesn't work? What scares me most is that it seems as though the personal responsibility crowd is more than happy to give up that line when it comes to corporations, who are simply unintelligent beasts that do the bidding of the consumers. Wrong. Wrong and stupid. Wrong and dangerous. The execs at BP made the decisions to cut corners with safety and to take risks too great. All the consumers asked for was oil and hopefully at a reasonable price (due to the oligopoly of oil production and distribution, they can't even demand the latter). The consumers did not ask for faulty BOPs or not planning ahead for potential disasters like this one. How can they be held accountable in any way other than the fact that their money, mostly indirectly, ended up in the hands of BP? Yes, it is nothing to do with me. It's everything to do with the people who make the bad decisions. They are at fault and they should be held accountable. And if those companies care about the environment or public image, *they* will be the ones who start making good decisions. It's their responsibility, not mine. My responsibility is also not to make bad decisions, such as throwing garbage on the side of the road, or, ironic as it might seem at first glance, not to support companies that do unethical things. But the responsibility to maintain good ethics is still on them. I'm just not going to help them further their unethical behavior.

    209. Re:Amazing by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 1

      ...and doesn't rely on a rare elements(lithium)?

      Oh, you mean like oil or coal?

    210. Re:Amazing by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Do you really think that Shell, Exxon or Texaco or any other oil company would handle this better, or is prepared for a problem like this?

      No, but those companies probably wouldn't have had this problem in the first place. You see, BP has the worst safety/regulatory compliance of any of the major oil companies by far. They've got 760 citations for "egregious, willful safety violations" from OSHA; their nearest competitor in the oil industry, Sunoco, has 8 (Exxon, the last poster-child for oil-industry irresponsibility, has only 1.) Their regulatory compliance for EPA issues is just as bad in comparison to their cohort. And I'm sure if you look at people supplying hookers and blow to the MMS, they're right at the top, too. Bottom line, BP is "the worst of the worst" when it comes to playing by the rules despite it's pretty green and yellow logo. They deserve to have all leases terminated and no more granted in perpetuity. Maybe then they'd get their act together.

      --
      That is all.
    211. Re:Amazing by Elektroschock · · Score: 1
    212. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's say an oil BP gives his oil pickers faulty ladders to work with and, as a result, dozens of workers every year fall and break their necks...

      I'm sorry, I'm still a little confused...

    213. Re:Amazing by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

      When there are better alternatives made available, people will use them every time.

      But still people vote against politicians that will bring them better alternatives. People make bad political decisions on irrelevant criteria and are then surprised when they suffer. It's a shame most don't see the connection.

      --
      That is all.
    214. Re:Amazing by brizzadizza · · Score: 1

      So would you be willing to say that free markets work in theory? Sounds a lot like communism to me.

    215. Re:Amazing by Danse · · Score: 1

      It all depends, did the Apple farmer give a very large check to the President of the USA? Tim S.

      And that makes a difference, why? Especially considering that they cut checks to tons of politicians. How does that make them any less responsible for the results of their actions?

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    216. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm very glad that this accident happened in the Mexican Gulf, and that the US is the one suffering the most. That's the only way the American people start to realise that something should change, even though they don't want to pay for it.

      You think this is going to change anything? Did things totally change after Valdez? Consider that only a small percentage of American oil comes from the Gulf of Mexico. Most of it comes from Canada and the Middle East. If something like this happened in either of those places, should the American people be blamed for that, too? After all, they export more oil to us than they use themselves.
      The problems with complete dependency on oil are pollution and complete dependency on oil. What happened at Horizon is a result of corporate greed; they didn't want to pony up the dough to make sure things were done right and failsafes were reliable.
      And you think Europe and Asia would fix everything if they were "powerful" enough? Maybe a lot of European countries consider themselves "progressive" because they've learned how to deal with using less oil, but Beijing is probably the most polluted city on the planet.
      It's wrong of you to attack Americans like that just because our Greedy Rich Corporations do the same shit that Greedy Rich Corporations all around the world do. This is the fault of BP and politicans, not the American people.

    217. Re:Amazing by Danse · · Score: 1

      If people willingly buy from a seller that they know is intentionally subverting safety restrictions in order to buy apples at a lower price, then yes, those people do hold a portion of the blame. Sellers respond to consumer demand, so consumers do have an obligation to demand safety. In fact in situations where the sellar is a corporation, consumers are often the only potential source of any ethical behavior.

      The ladder example is rather bad, as it isn't like we have rigs blowing up every year. Since it looks like there was some seriously shady stuff going on, and a lot of big mistakes made in the interest of profit, I don't see how this reflects on the public at all. This is the fault of those people who put profit ahead of safety on that rig. The public had no way to know about this since the agency that was supposed to be the watchdog had been subverted by the industry.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    218. Re:Amazing by lostsoulz · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but this is not viable - unless you know something about offshore drilling that I don't know. Drilling three wells at the same time, but only as a failsafe to control a failure of the intended production well, is an enormous waste of money (unless you're prepared to pay for it at the pump or when you purchase anything derived from hydrocarbons.)

    219. Re:Amazing by Black+Gold+Alchemist · · Score: 1

      In this case, the charts are talking about units of heat and says little about fuel consumption

      No. Heat is directly related to fuel consumption. 1 gallon of fuel = x units of heat. It's in heat units so one can compare natural gas to diesel.

      What doesn't come as a surprise most certainly is that it could be done better... far better.

      Oh it can. By bulldozing the transport and putting in more roads to save energy. But that isn't trendy. Normal cars are close to transit systems in most scenarios anti-car activists would like to see transit. Hybrids beat transit. Eco-driven hybrids kill transit. EVs kill transit.

      It would be great to see cities compete. All the ecocities would collapse and people would move to places like San Jose and Los Angeles or they would move to New York. Huge urban sprawl, which isn't a problem if you put in enough roads.

      --
      Responsibility is an addiction
      Virtue is a temptation
      Community is a cartel
    220. Re:Amazing by lostsoulz · · Score: 1

      It's not a "leaky well," sadly. It's a blowout - this is a catastrophic loss of well control. There were contingencies in place, but they failed with a sad loss of life. Well control is an inexact science and takes time. You simply cannot have three rigs on station, each drilling into the payzone on the off-chance that one rig experiences a blowout.

    221. Re:Amazing by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      Show me the reference where algae-based biodiesel plants will produce cheaper per-mile fuel than oil.

      Who said anything about cheaper? Why should a replacement technology that doesn't benefit from the trillions of dollars of in-place oil infrastructure, economies of scale (yet), or millions of years of natural pre-processing be required to be cheaper to be considered viable? Of course it won't be cheaper. The correct question to ask is, will it be cheap enough?

      In any case, our oil addiction isn't going to be solved this decade, perhaps not even this century. But it will need to be solved, and the sooner we start moving in that direction, the better.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    222. Re:Amazing by phantomfive · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Summarized: *handwavinghandwaving* "so you are wrong".

      Once again, I'm going to have to say that for someone who has a sig such as yours, you sure do suck at trying to comprehend.

      If it can be done at a profit, it doesn't have to be more profitable or even as profitable for it to be worth it to someone to do it. Therefore I conclude that the only reason it's not being done is some form of market-manipulating collusion.

      This is poor analysis. If there is product A (electricity) that costs $1 per unit, and product B (also electricity) that costs $2 per unit, the rational consumer will choose the cheaper product. You can make anything profitable by charging more than it costs to produce, but if no one will buy your product at the price which gives you profit, then it is not viable. This isn't collusion, it's basic economics. Right now it just costs more to produce electricity with solar than with coal, and unless there are government subsidies, regulations, or technological improvements, no one is going to be able to operate a solar power plant.

      As for your USDOE paper, we have this quote:

      Even with aggressive assumptions about biological productivity, we project costs for biodiesel which are two times higher than current petroleum diesel fuel costs.

      Doubling the price of gas and expecting people to buy it is only viable with a government mandate, which maybe is what you want to do, but it won't happen. This was in 1998, although it references studies that are somewhat older.

      The price of gas has risen since then, so if your paper is correct (and my link incorrect), then bio-diesel should be pretty close to the price of gas right now. If so we might start seeing bio-diesel come on the market soon. You have to factor in the cost of switching infrastructure too, though. If that is accurate, then it would be a good thing; we can start relying on renewable resources and get away from dependence on hostile countries for oil.

      --
      Qxe4
    223. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If $0.05 is a 50% increase you are currently paying $0.10 per kWh? Where ever you live, I envy you ... we pay around $0.30 per kWh and $15 in monthly fees on top of that ...

    224. Re:Amazing by lostsoulz · · Score: 1

      I don't think that's fair at all. Instant gratification? We've moved beyond forty fucking days.

      Do you have *any* idea at all what it takes to control a blowout of this magnitude? If the media had focussed on the facts, explained the technology and indicated the options in a sensible fashion, we'd all be better informed. Everyone with an ounce of oilfield experience and/or a semi-functional brain would probably have realised that the real solution required relief wells. This is calm and patient work that quietly proceeds whilst cofferdams, top-kills and junk shots capture the media's attention.

    225. Re:Amazing by MK_CSGuy · · Score: 1

      [citation needed]
      [citation needed]
      [citation needed]
      [citation nee... ah, f*** it.

    226. Re:Amazing by Danse · · Score: 1

      There is a solution, but since it involves nukes we'll never do it.

      Well that, and because it's never been tested in a situation even remotely similar to this one, so we have no idea what the actual result would be. Throwing nukes at a problem and just hoping that it gets fixed strikes me as a rather bad idea.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    227. Re:Amazing by Coryoth · · Score: 1

      This is a dangerous line of logic to go down. The entity directly responsible for the crime shoulders all of the blame (unless there are conspirators, etc.). Enablers, direct and indirect, can't reasonably count. The connections become too tenuous, too difficult to trace and too intertwined with other issues. I pay a guy to do my roof who likes to eat apples harvested by the guy who uses faulty ladders. Am I at fault? After all, I should have checked out where my contractor was getting his apples from so that none of my money paid to him ended up going to the crooked apply farmer.

      But you should take responsibility for such things (apparently). You see in a paerfect libertarian world you would wake up at 5:00 in the morning and start checking the internet and newspapers for any and all scraps of information about companies you may purchase products from. Perhaps your fruit suppliers are now using unethical labour practices (it's up to you the consumer to police that and stop buying from them of course). Perhaps its been found that your lunch meat supplier is occasionally a little lax in their packaging plants and there is potentially contaminated meat out there (we can't give the government powers to regulate that sort of thing). You'll probably also have to check in on any and all processed foods you might want to buy -- it's not like they will publish their ingredients (or if they do, there's no reason to assume they aren't just lying) -- who knows, maybe your favourite brand of peanut butter has realised that lacing their product with opium for that extra addictive quality really helps sales.

      Of course you can't just do a casual read to find these things out; large companies with plenty of money can run effective disinformation campaigns in the mainstream media, or otherwise cover up such incidents. You'll have to dig deep through pages of personal consumer reports, spot and ignore the paid industry shills, and so on.

      You'll probably be done with that around midday -- presuming you do it every morning to keep up to date and are fairly practiced and know where to hunt down the right information. Now it's time to work on the second order issues: are companies you wish to buy from aiding, funding, abetting, or buying from any companies you have deemed unethical, or inappropriate to support? This is, of course, a bigger task again. Not only do you have the problems tracking down information as before, you have an order of magnitude more companies to work through, and complex supply chains (which you can be sure will use all sorts of subsiaries, front companies, and other misdirections) to dig through. If you're lucky you might get done all of that before midnight.

      That leaves you just enough time to go to bed safe in the knowledge that you are using the money you no longer have the time to earn to make informed consumer choices buying products that you no longer have the time to purchase. And even better, you get to do it all again tomorrow.

    228. Re:Amazing by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Some of the compounds in the Mid itself are pretty toxic, so it's swings and roundabouts. You don;t want tons of Mud flowing out of the pipe or tons of oil, but those are your choices at the moment.

    229. Re:Amazing by clarkn0va · · Score: 1

      The problem is that alternatives are not (yet) economical

      Compared to what? The BP disaster should open a few eyes to some of the hidden costs of the oil orgy. If oil is still seen as too cheap compared to the saner alternatives, then maybe we're cutting too many corners in harvesting it, as the GGP suggested, or maybe we're just not aware of the overwhelming externalities, which have not in the past been so easily and widely witnessed by the public.

      --
      I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
    230. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would, and (an "existentialist" extension to this proclamation) - so should all of us.
      Otherwise, why bother procreating?

    231. Re:Amazing by Bryan3000000 · · Score: 1

      It's amazing that people think that there could be a provable solution to cap a literal force of nature.

      Seriously - ever tried to cap an erupting volcano? How about coming up with a provable solution to cap an erupting volcano?

      Yes, it's as if people believe the government and oil industry geniuses are so immeasurably smart that they can control geological processes. Similar to your doctor analogy, which of course happens all the time and is, also similarly, completely allowed in our society. People are questioning their doctors more and more, and doctors are upping the ante to keep their status as unquestionable gods. So it goes with all experts. The problem is not that people trust the experts, it's that they think that they themselves are so stupid that they could never question the experts, especially when what the experts are offering is so attractive.

      If you're suggesting that the inherent impossibility of devising provable solutions for such catastrophe is an absolute bar to this type of industry - well that's a coherent position with which I might be somewhat inclined to agree, but I sincerely doubt you'll find many other people willing to even entertain the idea when it's expressed so clearly and directly. People are always willing to take a deal that's too good to be true.

    232. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can we pease have one story on /.without discussing the iPad?

    233. Re:Amazing by david@ecsd.com · · Score: 1
      If it's 20 year old technology, I'm guessing that the patents on said technology are only now starting to expire, and real research and development is being done.

      That's just my guess, though...

    234. Re:Amazing by darthdavid · · Score: 1

      Somalia is a Lassiez-Faire economy...

    235. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the reason this argument is stupid because if you crunch the numbers we dont have enough arable land to grow biodiesel to sustain us more than a month or two at current consumption. its non viable. so is solar. its too costly and requires too much energy to make the panels. the electric cars you spoke of cost $1m each. algae has tons of issues namely it clogs pipes, its difficult to handle and has plenty of problems. its not a be all end all. oil is far cheaper, available plentifully with high energy density and has zero problems other than environmental cost.

    236. Re:Amazing by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      If that were to be done, then the best guarantee would be legally restricting and clearly defining what the taxes are to be used for. Are current gas taxes used for road maintenance and road maintenance only?

      (Cue another Slashdotter finding a case of gas tax funds being diverted.)

    237. Re:Amazing by Ocyris · · Score: 1

      Removing explicit Limited Liability protection that the government provides to all corporations from lenders and plaintiffs would be a good start. With owners suddenly being personally liable for the actions of their company they'd really start to care about what they did.

    238. Re:Amazing by TimSSG · · Score: 1

      Does not make them less responsible; but, does raise issues. Was the regulator told to go easy on them because of the large donation?

      Tim S.

    239. Re:Amazing by nacturation · · Score: 1

      You're confusing renewable resources with non-renewable resources.

      No, the post I replied to talks specifically about blame. While I'm sure we can have a grand discussion about the merits and drawbacks of renewable vs. non-renewable resources, this specific thread has nothing to do with sustainability.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    240. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, vote all incumbents running for office out of a job, so the next government starts out less corrupt.

    241. Re:Amazing by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1
      The USSR used peaceful nuclear explosions for a bunch of projects, including 5 explosions to seal gas flares, known as operations Cleavage, Torch, Pamuk, Urt-Bulak, and Crater.

      Here's a summaryof the five. (You can get reasonable translations from google.)

      Here's a summary of Operation Torch, the one that didn't work.

      In every case, these were gas flares, on dry ground with solid rock of known composition around the wellhead.

      here is a pdf of the NRC's reports on the USSR peaceful blasts program. In a similar project, the US did a peaceful blast called Project Rulison to open a crack and increase natural gas flow from an underground pocket. What they found was that while it did increase gas flow, the gas was wildly radioactive, so there's a good possibility that doing the same thing with an underground oil flow could well radioactively contaminate the oil.

      Which means that it's likely the best outcome would be to stop this leak, leaving a big contaminated and useless oil source, and the worst would be that it would increase the leak *and* make it radioactive as well.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    242. Re:Amazing by nacturation · · Score: 1

      Your analogy is flawed and incomplete.

      I object, on principle, to supplying perfect and complete analogies.

      The real flaw in the analogy is that the consumers don't really care about the dead workers so long as they have access to cheap apples, so our scenario needs to end with an s--- load on apples rolling down the mountain and into the river to wash up on the beaches as smelly and deadly applesauce. If anyone wants to fix the analogy some more...?

      I love where you're going with this. If you can somehow work Mardi Gras into it, I think a Pulitzer might be in your future.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    243. Re:Amazing by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Which energy source can, with better economics, replace oil as a transportation fuel ?

      Depends. Are you willing to include all externalities - such as the fixing and cleaning-up of the present fuck-up completely, with nothing being shoved under the rug - into the price of oil?

    244. Re:Amazing by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Really? How exactly do you test solutions for catastrophe of unknown nature a mile underwater, working with wells of unknown pressure filled with oil and gas of unknown composition?

      They were all tested a long time ago and in much more favorable conditions. The conclusion back then was that drilling a relief well in advance (and this means, before pumping oil from the main well - as e.g. Canada requires of companies drilling in its waters) is the only guaranteed workable solution. That it was not done this time to see history repeat again is not just negligence anymore, it's criminal.

    245. Re:Amazing by floodo1 · · Score: 1

      It's amazing how few people realize that mass transit was literally destroyed by the automobile industry. I lived in a town (Fresno, CA) that had a rail line down what is one of the most major streets, and it was ripped out so as not to compete with cars. To this day no other mass transit rail line has been built.

      --
      I KUT J00 M4NG!!!
    246. Re:Amazing by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Hilariously, I never said you passed judgement on it, only that bringing it up was "fucking stupid" in light of the fact that everyone and their mom and their dog and their mom's dog has already brought it up every time the spill hits the front page. Thanks for really driving the point home, Rambo.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    247. Re:Amazing by Shalcker · · Score: 1

      Alot of people seem to have misconceptions about how exactly "Nuke option" could be done.

      What you DON'T do is drop nuke right into oil/gas and detonate.

      What you do is dig smaller hole (definitely not going down to where actual oil is), put nuke inside, and calculate payload so that it shifts ground nearby and breaks oil pipe (we're talking about moving kilotons of ground just a bit further then width of the pipe, not blowing a crater). Once that is done you should have leakage stopped completely, or at least reduced enough to stop it with other methods.Actual radiaton is buried many meters under ground by the same blast, so there shouldn' t be any contamination.

      That's optimistic scenario, but still, it has almost no risks mentioned by others (blast NEVER touches actual oil and cannot make another hole).

    248. Re:Amazing by jpmorgan · · Score: 1

      Actually, it is. Since the Valdez accident, ExxonMobil completely overhauled their procedures and practices and now run the best and safest operations in the world. Ironically, ExxonMobile are consummate professionals and BP are a bunch of cowboys in comparison.

    249. Re:Amazing by saleenS281 · · Score: 1

      Minnesota. Lightrail. I've lived it, hence my skepticism.

    250. Re:Amazing by saleenS281 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      What a brilliant idea. Let's cripple our already ailing economy by making transportation unaffordable for the masses. Meanwhile, the rest of the world will see a nice rise in their production, and a drop in their oil prices as they are not burdened by wasteful taxes.

      I hear there's a presidential race coming up, and you seem like the man for the job!

    251. Re:Amazing by shermo · · Score: 1

      In the 1970s, it was known that solar panels would pay back the energy cost of their production in less than seven years

      And what relevance does that have to whether we should build them? Just because something is eventually a net energy gain doesn't mean that it's sensible to build it.

      --
      Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
    252. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can I ask what you do pay in US? $0.05/kwh is around $0.08AUD/kwh but we pay between $0.18 and $0.22/kwh in Australia depending on peak/offpeak periods.

    253. Re:Amazing by Pence128 · · Score: 1

      Here in BC it's CAD $0.0627 / kWh. Hydro all the way.

      --
      404: sig not found.
    254. Re:Amazing by Pence128 · · Score: 1

      But how will everyone know I have a tiny penis?

      --
      404: sig not found.
    255. Re:Amazing by Ruin666 · · Score: 1

      A 2 bedroom apartment costs me over $300 or more in electricity every 3 months in australia

    256. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you can rent that energy source fairly cheaply. Around here I'm able to rent a kilowatt energy source for as little as 10 cents or so per hour.

    257. Re:Amazing by iserlohn · · Score: 1

      It subsidizes the rail system in the UK. Not that it needs any subsidizing with the prices that the train operators charge. It is a worse-of-breed hybrid public/private system, where all the profits are privatized and most of the infrastructure investment is subsidized by the government. Who should we thank for this mess? Thatcher and John Major.

    258. Re:Amazing by iserlohn · · Score: 1

      The main idea to any strategy introduced to internalize the externalities is to let the market re-balance the equation. The idea is to change the "game", so that the players get nudged in the "right" direction..

    259. Re:Amazing by buzzn · · Score: 1

      It isn't necessary to totally replace oil. Reducing consumption is the first step. US fuel economy requirements are really low, and several high efficiency cars available in Europe aren't on sale in the US yet. The last Humvee just rolled off the line, yay. I bought a hybrid this year and I'm very interested in electric or plugin cars. If everyone on this list would cut their gasoline use by 25-50% or more, that'd save about a billion gallons of gas per year. That's 50 million barrels of oil. That's bigger than... uh, I wish I could say it was bigger than the gulf oil spill. Damn.

      --
      Join the window installer's union, where prosperity is a brick throw away!
    260. Re:Amazing by liquidsin · · Score: 1

      if she didn't wanna get raped, she wouldn't be dressed that way...

      seriously, here; i don't drive - i ride a bike. i buy as much local produce, etc as possible, buy from local crafters rather than big retail where i can, blah blah blah down the line. unfortunately for me, i still can't control how these distributors get their products. unless you have some masterful plan to turn every existing mode of transportation in the world to non-petroleum right now, there is simply no reasonable way to live without some dependence on oil.

      and as far as "BP weren't doing anything fraudulent" goes, the jury's still out on that. lots of stories of known problems with the b.o.p, cementing, shitty safety/emergency procedures, etc. but it looks like there's gonna be plenty of actual blame to lay directly on those at the top. they were never given carte-blanche to get oil at all costs; there were procedures in place to prevent this very thing, and they skirted pretty much all of them.

      --
      do not read this line twice.
    261. Re:Amazing by Rising+Ape · · Score: 1

      Well, it does in the sense that the railways are subsidised by the taxpayer, and fuel duty forms part of the tax revenue.

      In any case, a large number of trains run on oil. Subsidising rail may reduce the oil demand a bit (although at colossal cost compared to the benefits), but the money doesn't help make what oil extraction *is* done any cleaner or help develop any alternatives to oil.

    262. Re:Amazing by Danse · · Score: 1

      Does not make them less responsible; but, does raise issues. Was the regulator told to go easy on them because of the large donation? Tim S.

      The regulator was already being investigated by the administration because it had been discovered that they'd been going easy on them for years, as well as engaging in all sorts of conflicts of interest, such as taking gifts, having sexual relationships, discussing jobs with the companies they were investigating, etc.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    263. Re:Amazing by InfoJunkie777 · · Score: 1

      There is one thing that would be a "stop gap", at least for transportation. That is Natural Gas or methane. Same as from the algae, but already existing and much cheaper. The USA has trillions of cubic feet of this gas. Even though the CO2 emissions are still there, they are MUCH less. And a conventional automobile engine can be converted easily to run on gas. The main problem - infrastructure. In my hometown the local gas company runs its entire fleet of trucks on methane. But the filling station there is about the only one in the state. With some time, money and effort, that could change. Even methane plants are better than coal. Less emissions. The other "up side" is less dependence on rogue governments for out oil.

      --
      Don't explain computers to laymen. Simpler to explain sex to a virgin. -- Robert A. Heinlein
    264. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is not the case. In Canada there is an idea being floated that maybe this should be required for Arctic Ocean wells, where the technical and weather challenges are enormous, the drilling window is short due to ice (only a few months), and the alternative might be to wait an entire season to drill the relief well if an accident occurs late in the season.

      Those are the only circumstances where it is being discussed. There certainly isn't anything like that implemented currently in Canada. I don't know if there is anywhere in the world.

    265. Re:Amazing by Zancarius · · Score: 1

      I've got some karma to burn, and this is probably going to get me down modded...

      I'm very glad that this accident happened in the Mexican Gulf, and that the US is the one suffering the most. That's the only way the American people start to realise that something should change, even though they don't want to pay for it. Europe and Asia are simply not powerful enough to make a real change.

      You were doing fine until you hit this part (which negates your earlier comment, by the way). But, since you and several other commentators decided to go down this road of reasoning, I feel compelled to answer (so this isn't necessarily directed exclusively at you but at other non-Americans who feel similarly to you):

      This attitude is the problem. It's pretty thoughtless of you to sit high atop your ivory tower, pleased that hard working men and women in communities supported by the Gulf have been affected most in the hopes that they affect change by having their livelihoods destroyed by a single careless entity (though I feel TransOcean shares much of the blame, too). You realize that the majority of them are going to blame 1) the US government or 2) BP. They're going to consider this disaster more the fault of those drilling for oil and less the reliance on it. I'm pretty disgusted by this philosophy. Harming a population to teach them a lesson is really no different than what feudal lords of old accomplished whenever nearby villagers pissed them off.

      Many of the alternatives aren't working out all that well, and it's not because we don't want them or they don't work. I live in an area where they were planning to build a molten salt plant for power generation. The plans were scrapped because of environmental impact studies, regardless of the fact that we'd have a clean energy facility right in our back yard. The environmentalists are their own worst enemies, so I certainly don't want to hear a comment related to US states not trying--some of us are, and some of us are suffering as a result of it.

      It's also ironic that you blame the "American system" (in this case, I can only assume you're implying our hunger for oil and thus cheap energy) for the world's woes--never mind that cheap energy has given us cheaper, easier access to mass production, increased the quality of life for many, and even the Internet. Let's not even get into the notion of modern medicine and other fields that wouldn't exist without cheap, plentiful energy! So, until you dispense with every plastic item in your household, every product produced by a factory (hint: almost everything), and turned off your computer, then you too are drinking of the "American system" fountain.

      Still, being happy that something so tragic has hit the Gulf absolutely disgusts me. There are better ways to educate people than to wish ill of them. Never mind that this is only the tip of the ice berg--there's plenty of other nations surrounding the Gulf that might be impacted as well. But I suppose destroying a small fishing village here and there is justification enough for your ilk if it means that the evil American empire is hurt in the process.

      "Ah, yes, but they wouldn't be affected if it weren't for the US oil hunger!" you say.

      How about we do something more productive than bicker about world wide oil consumption and the evils of American society? Really, I'm sick and tired of it. Saying something akin to "Hah! I'm glad that happened to those damned Americans! Serves 'em right!" isn't going to accomplish anything. Believe me: Some of us are trying to affect change, but ridiculous environmental policies here in the States are putting a real kink in things. That's to say nothing about the government and industry, either.

      --
      He who has no .plan has small finger. ~ Confucius on UNIX
    266. Re:Amazing by jackbird · · Score: 1
      the open seas are exposed to sunlight 12 hours a day and they're not completely filled with algae. What's the limit on production there? You don't say, and it's not immediately obvious.

      Zooplankton and other critters in the food web. Ever notice how "Algal Bloom" and "Dead zone in the ocean" are used interchangeably?

    267. Re:Amazing by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      You could probably just move the ceiling from "money invested" to "money invested plus all but $20M of your wealth." That would protect small and medium-sized investors while putting real pressure on the decision makers.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    268. Re:Amazing by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Where are all these mythical "pet projects" that disappear government spending while delivering no value to anyone? I mean, besides Iraq.

      Polls show that people are strongly in favor of "cutting government pork," but when you start listing specific areas of government spending, they more often want spending preserved or increased. The only area of spending where large majorities of Americans say "cut spending" is foreign aid, and I think that's mostly because people believe we spend vastly more on it than we actually do.

      If I were running things, I would put 20% of the taxes towards energy alternatives, and send the rest back to taxpayers. Shifting money from one program to another is much easier than reducing the size of the checks being mailed to your constituents.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    269. Re:Amazing by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      How exactly do you test solutions for catastrophe of unknown nature a mile underwater, working with wells of unknown pressure filled with oil and gas of unknown composition?

      With today's computational power? Easily. The oil industry is no stranger to using fluid and mechanical modeling to see what happens. Testing machined parts with those conditions is also easily done.

      But more importantly, if you can't test for a failure condition that would result in massive collateral damage THEN YOU SHOULDN'T FUCKING BE DOING IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

      You do understand this was an exploratory well right; the point of this thing was largely to find out what is down there.

      I'm sure that comes as a huge comfort to the families of the dead and all the gulf areas that are or will be affected by this.

      If you have a solution to this problem of being able to prove catastrophic failure modes can be solved by doing X with all the other unknowns you are clearly way smarted than the rest of us and I welcome our new over lord; otherwise you just another arm chair quarterback here.

      Current technology is capable of handling such wells, however it is only as capable as the implementation. New evidence indicates that BP was aware of the problems as far as 11 months in advance. Even in the weeks leading up to the disaster many issues were raised including the fact that the BOP was damaged AND YET THEY STILL PROCEEDED.

      So in short, yes there ways to test safety equipment. If there wasn't then wells like this should not be drilled.

      --
      ~X~
    270. Re:Amazing by toddestan · · Score: 1

      You simply cannot have three rigs on station, each drilling into the payzone on the off-chance that one rig experiences a blowout.

      Unless you're Canada, it seems, where a drilling a relief well alongside the primary well is required.

    271. Re:Amazing by EdIII · · Score: 2, Informative

      Too bad the people doesn't control the tax rate. Big corporations do.

      Uhhhh, how is that deserving of a Troll moderation?

      It's very true. It is a simple fact of modern politics that on a daily basis politicians *hear* more arguments from paid lobbyists, representing Big Corporate's interests, than they do from people representing what is in the interests of the People, the Environment, or our Future.

      Nothing tin-foil hat or crazy about that statement.

      It's the biggest problem we have in modern politics is that our voice, The People's voice, is heard at nothing above the level of a whisper in Congress. Take an honest look at every single action government has performed in the last 50 years and put a check mark into two columns... The People... The Corporations. Tally them up.

      Corporations Win. Therefore, they are the ones that are setting the tax rates.

    272. Re:Amazing by EdIII · · Score: 1

      It created the internet.

      Mod this as troll.

      I am tired of Al Gore not getting the credit he deserves. He worked tirelessly to bring us the joys of the Internet (NROP), works tirelessly to save us from the Global Warming Crisis, and is the only brave soul willing to fight the scourge that is ManBearPig.

      We should all be a little more grateful and considerate towards a man as great as Al Gore. Amen.

    273. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have a solution to this problem of being able to prove catastrophic failure modes can be solved by doing X with all the other unknowns you are clearly way smarted than the rest of us and I welcome our new over lord; otherwise you just another arm chair quarterback here.

      Apparently the solution was as simple as drilling the relief well coincident with the exploratory well.

    274. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great example. Actually the fault lies with government, or a lack thereof. Capitalism says the farmer has to cut costs everywhere he can to stay in business (because duh his competition will.) A properly functioning government will try to ensure safety standards (OSHA); ie: setting and enforcing rules for the game and all players.

      Government is SUPPOSED to be OUR, as in WE THE PEOPLE's collective mind. We (the USA) have a REPUBLIC, not a DEMOCRACY as FAR too many people keep saying.

      The problem is that our government has eroded due largely to lobbying and other special interest groups who organize and pelt our senators and reps, not to mention campaign financing.

      The solution, I opine, is some form of democracy where We the People are heard; a people's lobby; and generally cutting down on or stopping all current lobby groups.

    275. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's say an apple farmer gives his apple pickers faulty ladders to work with

      If a consumer purchases apples from this farmer knowing that that farmer is endangering his workers, then yes, he/she is partly to blame for enabling this farmer to keep doing business in this way.

      As consumers, we have a responsibility to collectively and firmly refuse to condone the questionable business practices of a company by giving them our business. Cynicism and other excuses for why we can't change things by acting collectively need not apply.

    276. Re:Amazing by nacturation · · Score: 1

      If a consumer purchases apples from this farmer knowing that that farmer is endangering his workers, then yes, he/she is partly to blame for enabling this farmer to keep doing business in this way.

      And consumers should take on the responsibility for routinely patrolling private offshore oil rigs, doing a detailed inspection according to industry safety best practices, and report their findings so that other consumers may apply this knowledge and vote with their wallets as appropriate? Consumers are no more able to determine which oil rig(s) their gallon of gas came from as they are which individual farm their bulk apples at Safeway came from.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    277. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huge urban sprawl, which isn't a problem if you put in enough roads.

      Really? Isn't sprawl in and of itself a problem? Or do you like endless expanses of asphalt, never-ending parking lots, traffic jams, 'pod' living, having to shuttle kids everywhere, dismal, fast-aging strip malls, and just making large portions of our cities inhospitable to humans?

      And has any city ever 'put in enough roads'? They've been trying for decades in Houston and Los Angeles, and haven't gotten there yet.

      Per-passenger mile isn't the best metric here. What you really want is something more along the lines of per-capita measure - how much energy does each person consume to go about their day? Per-mile isn't that big a factor when you don't have to go as many miles to get to your destination. I'll bet you by a realistic measure, New York City is one of the greenest cities in America.

    278. Re:Amazing by Black+Gold+Alchemist · · Score: 1

      Really? Isn't sprawl in and of itself a problem? Or do you like endless expanses of asphalt, never-ending parking lots, traffic jams, 'pod' living, having to shuttle kids everywhere, dismal, fast-aging strip malls, and just making large portions of our cities inhospitable to humans?

      Ummm, yes I actually do. And I don't think I'm the only one. What you need is a vast mixture of industrial, residential, school and commercial all jumbled together.

      But as I have stated over and over again, my goal is not to reduce my energy usage. My goal is to increase the sustainability of energy production.

      --
      Responsibility is an addiction
      Virtue is a temptation
      Community is a cartel
    279. Re:Amazing by FauxPasIII · · Score: 1

      This is why we have a media and a government, and why it's such a big problem that the media and government we have are now wholly owned subsidiaries of the exact corporate creeps they're supposed to be keeping an eye on for us.

      --
      25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
    280. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...my goal is not to reduce my energy usage.

      Well, I was a bit confused by your collection collection of posts above, where you went on about BTUs used by various transportation forms, and putting in more roads to 'improve energy efficiency'. I'm sorry I failed to read your entire posting history before commenting.

      I think if you were really concerned about sustainability, you'd be a bit concerned about the sustainability of our cities. And an environment where you absolutely need a couple thousand pounds of complex machinery, several acres of pavement, and the willingness to risk your life just to get a quart of milk isn't exactly sustainable.

      Somewhat paradoxically, a lot of folks would agree with you on the need to jumble different usage types together. It really helps to reduce time wasted commuting and getting places.

      Our other point of agreement - it would be great to see cities really compete, and allow people to choose between different living styles. Right now our choices are too wrapped up in employment, inertia, family, subsidized oil and roads, and home tax deductions to call it a real choice.

      If that true choice were available, you'd see a lot of folks choose the human-scale city over the parking lot.

    281. Re:Amazing by Black+Gold+Alchemist · · Score: 1

      My argument is this:
      1. Improving energy efficiency by relatively small amounts here and there will not really help out on a global scale.
      2. Many attempts assumed to reduce energy use by significant factors infact do not, further bolstering the conclusion that energy efficiency is not as important as previously believed.
      3. If you want to be sustainable, the best way to do that is to eliminate, not to reduce. If you use nuclear powerplants to make oil from CO2, you've eliminated oil. If you try to conserve oil by running a huge public transit campaign, then for comparable amounts of effort, you reduce oil consumption.
      4. People are misguided in assuming that people are going to choose a "human scale" city over a sprawl. My belief is that this will not happen in an open competition. Meanwhile, in comparing energy generation schemes, I estimate that everyone lives in an American suburb. If the energy scheme is not severely constrained in this scenario, then it is a good one.
      5. I've been to cities. I've been to sprawls. I liked the sprawls better than the cities. Maybe I'm an exception, but there are probably people who share my preferences.
      6. If you really want to save energy, Skype.

      --
      Responsibility is an addiction
      Virtue is a temptation
      Community is a cartel
    282. Re:Amazing by Black+Gold+Alchemist · · Score: 1

      Number 3 should read:
      3. If you want to be sustainable, the best way to do that is to eliminate, not to reduce. If you use nuclear or solar powerplants to make oil from CO2, you've eliminated oil. If you try to conserve oil by running a huge public transit campaign, then for comparable amounts of effort, you reduce oil consumption by a debatable, small amount.

      --
      Responsibility is an addiction
      Virtue is a temptation
      Community is a cartel
    283. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've got to get to bed, but a couple of quick points:

      4. People are misguided in assuming that people are going to choose a "human scale" city over a sprawl.

      I think you're off here. Data point: San Francisco, which is one of the most 'human scale' cities around, especially in the older three-story Victorian parts. It's also one of the most expensive. Why? Because people want to live there.

      Somewhere out there is a similar stat, noting that property values are inversely proportional to street widths - i.e., property on narrower streets is more valuable. Why? Same reason. I heard that one from Andres Duany, who also noted that what people really want to live in is small towns. That just isn't a choice for most folks, and suburbs make a poor substitute.

      5. I've been to cities. I've been to sprawls. I liked the sprawls better than the cities.

      I've known folks who actually paid for a Milli Vanilli record ... humans are strange creatures :)

    284. Re:Amazing by ThePromenader · · Score: 1

      I really don't understand why so many people think that the government should follow the 'for-profit' business model that is killing us today: rather, it should be a completely transparent 'non-profit' business - whose performance is judged by the voters. Cash wasted? Vote 'em out. Not investing excess in research and development of new energies? Vote 'em out.

      With that model, as any profit made comes out of our pockets anyways, at least the voter will have a say in what the government does with our tax money.

      --

      No, no sig. Really.

      ThePromenader
    285. Re:Amazing by cfrankb1 · · Score: 0

      Cut to the orange farmer now supplying falty ladders to his worker !

    286. Re:Amazing by Black+Gold+Alchemist · · Score: 1

      I've got to get to bed, but a couple of quick points:

      Me too.

      I think you're off here. Data point: San Francisco, which is one of the most 'human scale' cities around, especially in the older three-story Victorian parts. It's also one of the most expensive. Why? Because people want to live there.

      SF is actually one of my lest favorite cites. I guess I'm just not trendy or I'm crazy or most likely both. In fact I know I'm not trendy, I'm actually counter-counter-cultural.

      Anyway thanks for engaging in a reasonable discussion, instead of the vitriolic ad hominem attacks and evidence free assertions that are often made against people like me in discussions like this.

      --
      Responsibility is an addiction
      Virtue is a temptation
      Community is a cartel
    287. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes a certain amount of fault does lie with the consumer..... This is the exact argument that is being used to fight against products produced by child labour or "sweat shop" factories, the choice of product and producer lies with the consumer, if they want products that are produced in a socially responsible manner, with respect for the workers, then they select that product that was produced in such a way.

      I think your are going to see (if you are not seeing it already) a massive boycott of BP products. In this way, the consumers inform industry of the limits of what risks they are willing to accept for a cheap product.

    288. Re:Amazing by Kijori · · Score: 1

      Hilariously, I never said you passed judgement on it, only that bringing it up was "fucking stupid" in light of the fact that everyone and their mom and their dog and their mom's dog has already brought it up every time the spill hits the front page. Thanks for really driving the point home, Rambo.

      No, you didn't just say there was no point in bringing it up. You specifically said I was claiming it was a solution:

      Until you or someone else can provide some evidence that it would work here, bringing it up over and over again saying "this problem is already solved" is fucking stupid.

      (emphasis mine)

      Given that I had specifically addressed your concerns and pointed out that I was only providing information that didn't seem to be available elsewhere in the English-language coverage I don't understand why you felt the need to be aggressive and offensive, or why you're continuing to be rude when it's clear to anyone who scrolls up and reads your comment that what you're saying isn't true.

    289. Re:Amazing by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Anyone who thinks BP is going to be picking up the whole tab is delusional.

      No kidding; Exxon still hasn't paid damages for the Exxon Valdez disaster yet. You'd have to be a fucking moron to think BP intends to do any better!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    290. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bumper sticker; "My other car is a penis substitute".

    291. Re:Amazing by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      There's certainly zero evidence to support the theory that there's a massive secret conspiracy. Which of course is precisely the evidence you need to prove that there is a massive secret conspiracy.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    292. Re:Amazing by haxney · · Score: 1

      Spot on.

      I would like to add that the other thing that people tend to forget is that subsidies don't just magically appear out of thin air, that money comes from somewhere. If the government spends $1 trillion per year (which is about how much the oil subsidy is) less on oil and gas, that's $1 trillion which can be spent on other things (or deducted from taxes, though I can't imagine the government just giving that money back).

    293. Re:Amazing by soupforare · · Score: 1

      Hell no they're not. In the wonderful commonwealth of massachusetts, not only do fuel taxes go into the general fund, RMV revenues do, too. The same RMV which is, afaik, the only state agency that sees massive profi^Wsurplus. The same RMV that has cut services and locations this year. Roads are a complete mess pretty much statewide, the big dig was a massive boondoggle and, for some reason, the mass pike is still a toll road.
      The problem with legally binding taxes to something is that politicians write the laws.

      --
      --- Do you believe in the day?
    294. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the most ignorant post I have ever seen on Slashdot - well done.

    295. Re:Amazing by General+Wesc · · Score: 1

      But, what about the lower income families

      I'm not a family, but I just finished AmeriCorps, which pays roughly $11 000/year. Earning more now, of course, but a year ago I would have been fine as well.

      I work with low-income students (teen parents, most of them), and, yes, some can't pay the electric bill and have trouble paying for gas to get to school or work, but most people aren't in that situation. Allocate taxes and subsidies accordingly.

      living in poorly insulated homes, likely in less temperate climates?

      I'm in central Texas.

      There's a chicken-and-egg problem here. No one builds efficient houses except non-profits because people don't see the profit. We have negative externalities (environmental damage and oil dependence). The way to correct that is through taxes. When that causes undue pain to the poor, we counter with subsidies for efficiency improvements, and possibly for low-income families. Simply doing nothing because it's the solutions are unpopular and complicated is clearly not working.

    296. Re:Amazing by Lord+An · · Score: 1

      This is a very unusual disaster - the first of it's kind.

      Not exactly - and the attempts to close it also aren't quite the newest: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHmhxpQEGPo

    297. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's amazing that BP can drill for oil with no provable solution to a catastrophic failure. It's like operating on a patient and going 'Trust me, I'm a doctor'.

      Can we get Google to do this? ttp://bit.ly/bWHbvP

    298. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oops: http://bit.ly/bWHbvP

    299. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is why: http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list_stfed.php?order=A

    300. Re:Amazing by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      It's literally impossible to elect representatives into government that will further the public interest.

      I wouldn't go that far. Exponentially unlikely, perhaps.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    301. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's say an apple farmer gives his apple pickers faulty ladders to work with and, as a result, dozens of workers every year fall and break their necks. Are you saying this would be the fault of consumers who purchase apples? Should people reduce their consumption of apples to fix this problem? Or does the fault lie with the farmer and have nothing at all to do with the people who purchase the apples?

      If the consumers are made aware of the conditions on this farm, they should either curtail their apple consumption or start buying from another farm (which may charge more). They may be unwilling to do either of those things, and if so then yes, they must bear some measure of fault. The consumers are innocent only to the extent that they are ignorant of what is going on. However I would say that consumers who choose to remain ignorant should also take some of the blame. None of this lets the jerk farmer off the hook. He is still the primary culprit, especially if he attempted to conceal his shoddy practices. But the moment word gets out, he has accomplices.

    302. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think that's fair at all. Instant gratification? We've moved beyond forty fucking days.

      Do you have *any* idea at all what it takes to control a blowout of this magnitude? If the media had focussed on the facts, explained the technology and indicated the options in a sensible fashion, we'd all be better informed. Everyone with an ounce of oilfield experience and/or a semi-functional brain would probably have realised that the real solution required relief wells. This is calm and patient work that quietly proceeds whilst cofferdams, top-kills and junk shots capture the media's attention.

      And in the meantime, maybe the media should focus on what's going on with the booming efforts since this gusher is going to continue spewing oil for months. Think BP could at least focus on getting that right?

    303. Re:Amazing by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

      sadly i have to agree with you here, i was a major obama supporter and having seen him during this disaster shows me he is just as bad as bush was (hands in deep pockets) because his lack of action shows me just how much change he really meant to do in office. I guess this will also serve not only to wake people up to our oil overlords, but also to how deeply rooted their influence is in the senate and office....we dont own the us the oil does....who ever owns the oil owns the us...

    304. Re:Amazing by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

      ummm...when was the last time you saw someone be able to mass produce their new vehicle that would put oil out of business because it ran on xxx (insert your fuel type here). I have heard of steam engines, electrical, dating back a long time, and still nothing on todays market worth a damn....funny how that is...

    305. Re:Amazing by carp3_noct3m · · Score: 1

      No, its like a doctor operating on a patient but forgoing gauze and stiches because of time and money constraints, and then the doctor infusing blood to the patient in one arm while the patient bleeds out the other. The technology for containing such a spill is available. It has not been used. I heard an interesting report on the radio over the weekend(no sources unfortunately) from a person who had attended some of the best oil boom classes in the industry, who said that they had looked at all the pictures of the coast and had not seen a single boom done properly, and that if done properly they could have easily (barring actual resources, or amount of booms available) not let anything but the smallest blobs of oil touch the coast.

      --
      "It's ok, I'm completely secure as long as my iron is off"
    306. Re:Amazing by mother_reincarnated · · Score: 1

      It varies greatly by location. I pay US$0.19/kwh for daytime use, which is on the expensive side.

      Unfortunately I work from home (I don't say that often!) so most of my use is daytime.

    307. Re:Amazing by mother_reincarnated · · Score: 1

      You're the one that chooses to live in Hawaii buddy (or some other country, but HI is the only state in the US with those kind of rates). I pay about $0.20, but that is really high for the US.

      Take a look at http://www.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=electricity_factors_affecting_prices ...

    308. Re:Amazing by mother_reincarnated · · Score: 1

      So on $11,000/yr you would be OK spending $2500-3600/yr on electricity (5x increase)?

      Riiight.

    309. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's amazing that BP can drill for oil with no provable solution to a catastrophic failure. It's like operating on a patient and going 'Trust me, I'm a doctor'.

      Just like the nuke industry.

      There's been plenty of talk on the news to the effect that, absent a finding of willful negligence, BP's damages are capped at something like $38B, with pending legislation to raise it to $78B in future.

      What you don't hear, especially with the big new push for nuclear power, is that they have similar privileges. Since ages ago, there's been a law capping the industry damages at some ludicrously low level. And that level hasn't risen with inflation, you can damned well bet. So now they' re liable for probably not much more than rebuilding one small city.

      The cap was a joke when instituted, likely less than a couple percent of potential damage.

      But since the the insurance companies balked at insuring even that low number, that's where the cap was set.

      I say, "If you fuckers can't insure it for full value of damages, you can't run it -- period".

      Instead, the sons of bitches could destroy or pollute forever the whole eastern US and walk away laughing and saying, "Fuck to you, folks -- you got us for a few billion and the rest is yours to pick up, suckers. Read the contract next time."

    310. Re:Amazing by General+Wesc · · Score: 1

      I would have been able to afford it, yes. I saved up more than that much. Rent+utilities+food was roughly $550/month--cheaper during the summer. West Campus, Austin, Tx. One of the more expensive neighborhoods, due to being three blocks from campus. Again, I could have cut back. Air conditioning is a luxury I grew up without and could forgo again if I had to. And there are cheaper places to live.

    311. Re:Amazing by mother_reincarnated · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry even Austin is more expensive than that. Are you sure you're the entire household? Living in an unsubsidized house or apartment? Paying your actual and FULL living expenses?

      (Full market rent, making the full car payment, or the repairs if it's an old car, your own gas and tolls, your insurance (don't forget medical! That costs like $500/mo and your $11k/yr employer won't provide it in the real world), clothing, full price for groceries and food, your phone, and on and on.)

      Yeah, I didn't think so.

      Hopefully by now you've realized your experience isn't that relevant to the real world and actual working people/families. Don't be naive and think they aren't the vast majority of the people who would be paying your $0.50/kw(h) surcharge.

      Because in the REAL world people can barely survive on $11k/yr... They definitely don't have things like medical care which would definitely be a priority over paying triple the electric bill, wouldn't it?

    312. Re:Amazing by rvw · · Score: 1

      I don't mind that you're critical. My point of view is not static or absolute, and you have some good points.

      If you read my post, you'll see that I wrote this:

      "But the reality is that we all profited from the American mentality the past century. "

      So I totally agree with you that my life would be very different without oil and the US enterprise mentality. I live in the EU and know that our system isn't perfect as well.

      If I say that I'm glad that this happened so close to the US, I mean that for US policy, the main interest is self interest. That is my perception of it. This hits the US badly, and that motivates US politicians to make laws to prevent this, and it motivates US companies to invent or fund solutions for this kind of problem.

      For the people in Louisiana and other states across the coast, that's a different matter, and I'm not glad that this happened to them, as a kind of punishment. That would be pointless and wouldn't help at all. Punishment is not the way to go.

    313. Re:Amazing by Zancarius · · Score: 1

      If I say that I'm glad that this happened so close to the US, I mean that for US policy, the main interest is self interest. That is my perception of it. This hits the US badly, and that motivates US politicians to make laws to prevent this, and it motivates US companies to invent or fund solutions for this kind of problem.

      I should reiterate that part of my motivation for more or less blowing up on you was due in no small part to the shear number of posts that have been largely critical of the US oil consumption and generally echoed the sentiment that a disaster near the US is a good thing. You happened to make a convenient target since my frustrations mounted about a third of the way down the discussions, but I appreciate that you're much more level-headed than the others. I understand your motives, I think they're wrong, but I am at least appreciative that your intentions aren't malicious.

      I don't live near the Gulf, I'm not affected directly by it (though that remains to be seen--this will certainly hurt the US economy and most definitely hurt BP which may hurt all of us in terms of energy costs), and I don't personally know anyone who works in and around the Gulf. I suppose it's really an issue of how we see disasters; I see them as exactly that, and I would never dream of exploiting them as a method of affecting policy changes. Some people do--and it's certainly an effective method to say the least--but I don't agree with it. I suppose my pragmatism is tempered by what little empathy I do have, and it's most certainly bothered by the shear devastation Gulf communities are liable to face. That's to say nothing about the environmental devastation. (Add to this the proximity of Gulf stream, and it might be worthwhile to consider that at least some oil might make its way to the East Coast of the US and possibly toward other nations across the Pond.)

      For the people in Louisiana and other states across the coast, that's a different matter, and I'm not glad that this happened to them, as a kind of punishment. That would be pointless and wouldn't help at all. Punishment is not the way to go.

      I'm glad that at least you agree there and were willing to make clear your intentions. I appreciate that.

      Please do understand that much of my frustration comes from the perception of the US abroad. I suppose it's enlightening--it gives me a glimpse into how the French must feel whenever someone brands them as cowards.

      Fortunately, not everyone in the US matches one-to-one with the perceptions held abroad. The stereotypical "loud, obnoxious, rude" American is just as annoying to us here in the 'States! Not all of us drive SUVs (though I admit I do--I live in the backwoods, more or less, in a rough part of the country where roads are often unimproved and snowfall makes travel by other means difficult). Not all of us are wasteful. And some of us are actually mindful of what our impact on the world around us is.

      Perhaps, though, my perceptions are influenced by where I live. I live in a mixed juniper/pinyon pine forest where water is something of a scarce resource. I was raised to be mindful of wastage, and to conserve whenever possible. It is therefore interesting to observe those who have moved here from California and other nearby regions. They aren't quite so careful with our resources because they have often never had to conserve. It's a lesson in irony in a way; in spite of California's environmental laws and that many of its citizens are quite left-leaning politically, they're among the most wasteful bunch I've seen short of Texans. Then again, city dwellers don't often understand the concept of conservation here in the US, and I suppose that's where much of the negative stereotypes are generated from.

      I also have a theory about this type. I suspect the reason they support stricter environmental laws is precisely correlated with the fact that they cannot conserve. Thus, many of them rationalize it

      --
      He who has no .plan has small finger. ~ Confucius on UNIX
    314. Re:Amazing by General+Wesc · · Score: 1

      'm sorry even Austin is more expensive than that. Are you sure you're the entire household? Living in an unsubsidized house or apartment? Paying your actual and FULL living expenses?

      Nope. That's not really relevant, though, is it? What's relevant is that we have an uncorrected externality, and we need to correct it. This whole examination of my personal finances is a red herring.

    315. Re:Amazing by mother_reincarnated · · Score: 1

      I'm sure nobody but us is reading this, heh, but anyways...

      If you go and reread the original post by amanicdroid, my reply to him, and your reply yo me, I think you'll see the relevance.

      The biggest point of correction that I'll make is that we're not talking about correcting an externality but the "cross elasticity of demand" between regular and clean energy.

      Economist humor abounds! Taken in that context I am in fact arguing that there is an externality and you against it (you'll gladly pay plenty for clean energy).

      However I really wasn't talking about externalities, I was trying to talk to the fact that amanicdroid and you were both saying "I'll pay shitloads more" to which I was trying to point out that you will not get fit to the curve ;)

    316. Re:Amazing by General+Wesc · · Score: 1

      (you'll gladly pay plenty for clean energy)

      I'll gladly pay my portion of the cost of a dramatic reduction in energy usage. If I'm the only one paying more, no change will be made in construction methods, etc., so it's only worth the cost to me if a lot of people do it.

      As for green energy...yeah, it'd be nice, But I think the majority of the problem is energy waste (chiefly space heating and cooling), not dirty power generation. At any rate, it would be a lot easier to meet our energy needs with clean energy if our energy needs were cut in half, or even 10%.

      I was trying to talk to the fact that amanicdroid and you were both saying "I'll pay shitloads more" to which I was trying to point out that you will not get fit to the curve ;)

      True enough. I recognize that raising prices will be really, really painful for many people, but I think the majority could handle it, just as they handled rising gas prices (despite the fact that fuel consumption seems to be incredibly inelastic) and countless other changes over the years.

      Gas prices are a good example to consider. They can happen relatively rapid, and while many people complain when they rise, people manage to cope, despite the fact that they can't do much about their consumption in the short term. In the long term they can get a more efficient car. Houses are a much longer term invested, but they're also a lot easier to modify to make much more efficient (and there's an insane amount of government money available to help people do that right now). It's hard to say how much we can cut back (as I said, I went without AC for years and can do so again--but it would suck), but it's pretty clear that we have the ability to do things much more efficiency.

      On further thought, though, I will accept that taxes are the incorrect way of addressing the issue. Taxes will encourage people to cut back on their usage, but the real savings comes in the initial investment. People would be much willing to buy an energy-efficient home (or weatherize their existing home) if the long-term savings didn't come with an up-front investment. We need to make energy-efficiency cost-effective in the short term, via subsidies. (And there is a ton of money government out there for just that.)

  3. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I believe the proper tag for this is 'now what'

    1. Re:So... by davidbrucehughes · · Score: 1

      The "next option": sit down and cry. By July people will be begging for the nuclear option, and that will mean the end of the SE US.

      --
      om namo bhagavate vasudevaya
    2. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well if what I did after seeing the title is any indication, it's for your jaw to drop open, your face to droop down, and be incredibly depressed.

      Man, shit. Fuck. I mean, seriously what the hell man? What the hell? Now we not only have all this oil in the water, there's all this mud screwing up the water too?

      What next, let's shoot nuclear waste at the hole because if we're lucky it'll melt through and dig a deep enough hole for the oil to fall into? It's like solutions will, if they don't solve things, just make things worse. If they're doing to need to take drastic measures, TAKE IT. Don't take less then drastic measures which poison the water even more before moving on to the real drastic measures.

      On the plus side, if we have *another* spill some time in the future, I'd hope to high heaven that they'll have figured out how to deal with it after the disaster, the catastrophe, NAY the CATASTRAFUCK this has been.

    3. Re:So... by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      Nuke it. It is the only way to be sure.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    4. Re:So... by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      Wile E. Coyote unpacks his Acme Corporation "Underwater Oil Well Stopper" and lights the fuse.

      It explodes in his face.

      The well says "Meep! Meep!" and keeps gushing along.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    5. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well if what I did after seeing the title is any indication, it's for your jaw to drop open, your face to droop down, and be incredibly depressed.

      Man, shit. Fuck. I mean, seriously what the hell man? What the hell?

      I live on the west coast of Florida, near Tampa. That was exactly my reaction this morning. The oils not here, the beaches are safe. So we're told. At least we can't see the oil. And yes, the loop currents might keep obvious contamination for appearing on local shores. But I'll tell you this: I've got an 18th month old son and there's no way in hell he's going in the water. Anyone here care to bet their life on BP's assertions that the dispersants are safe? I might bet my own but I'm not betting my son's. That's the kind of shit that doesn't appear for 20 years. Not saying that's the case here but I'm not willing to take the risk.

      Man, shit, fuck....

    6. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One small tactical nuke won't be the end of SE US. Off the coast of San Diego California there was a undersea atomic test (Operation Wigwam). Didn't kill off California. Hattiesburg, Mississippi has already been nuked(although underground (Salmon) ) as has Green Valley, Colorado(Project Ruilson) Rifle,Colorado(Rio Blanco) Farmington, New Mexico (Gasbuggy Operation Plowshare) Alamogordo, New Mexico(Trinity) Carlsbad, New Mexico(Gnome) Fallon, Nevada (Shoal VELLA UNIFORM) 900+ at the main Nevada test site, Hi Las Vegas and 3 at Amchitka Island, Alaska( Long Shot (1965) Milrow(1969), and Cannikin (1971))

      Maps of the fallout: http://www.260press.com/maps.htm

    7. Re:So... by stonewallred · · Score: 1

      how so? I fail to see the logical leap from begging for the nuclear option and the end of the SE US. I would assume, since I have never seen nor heard of one, we lack a nuclear device that is large enough to destroy the entire SE US. If we did, it would have been talked about. So explain your statement, as it makes no sense.

    8. Re:So... by slick7 · · Score: 1

      Nuke it. It is the only way to be sure.

      The only way to be sure of what?
      What happens then if a "nuke" should fail? Then what?

      Kiss our collective ecological asses goodbye?

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    9. Re:So... by xerent_sweden · · Score: 1

      Then we get mutant oil rigs, and ain't that cool?

    10. Re:So... by slick7 · · Score: 1

      Then we get mutant oil rigs, and ain't that cool?

      Mutant Teenage Ninja Oil rigs.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
  4. long history of cutting corners by damasterwc · · Score: 2, Informative

    the good people at larouchepac have compiled nice laundry list of crimes they've committed floating around out there... this is compiled from state and federal testimony.

    1. Re:long history of cutting corners by Fluffeh · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The bit that I loved the most was:

      Two BP representatives scheduled to testify in Lousiana on Thursday, today, dropped out. Mr. Vidrine cited an undisclosed medical issue. Another top BP official, the well-site leader, who was scheduled to testify, Robert Kaluza, declined to do so, asserting his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Transocean's assistant marine engineer on the Deepwater Horizon also called in sick.

      Can you cover your ears with your hands and sing "la la la" loudly please?

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    2. Re:long history of cutting corners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      LaRouche and his ilk are nutters. Why are you even linking to that nonsense?

    3. Re:long history of cutting corners by dangitman · · Score: 1, Informative

      the good people at larouchepac

      LaRouche and "good people" in the one sentence? Mutually exclusive.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    4. Re:long history of cutting corners by bmo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >larouchepac

      These are the same people over the past decades who have done nothing except spout nonsense.

      They're the nuttier parts of the Tea Party. They're the ones comparing Obama to Hitler. They're the ones that said your grandma is going into an oven. They're the ones that came up with "death panels" bullshit.

      They. Are. Nuts.

      I've seen other people calling you out being modded down. Go ahead, mods, mod me down, but before you do, look here:

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

      I wouldn't trust a Larouchian to tell me the sun was going to rise in the east.

      --
      BMO

    5. Re:long history of cutting corners by roman_mir · · Score: 0

      Fifth amendment not to testify? Well, isn't the next step to start a criminal investigation against all of these people, including all of the top management in all of the companies involved?

      On the issue of the spill, the Ixtoc spill in 1979 happened about 160km into the gulf and at about 50 meters of water and they did EXACTLY the same thing as they were doing this time, so obviously it did not work then, it's not working now and it will not work. The only thing they know how to do is drill, not to stop the consequences of failed drilling. So their 'bottom kill', or drilling a relief well (likely more than one) and then inserting mud and cement from the bottom of the current well is the only way that BP/Transocean/Halliburton know how to do.

      This Oil spill needs to be stopped now, it took 9 months to fix it in the Ixtoc disaster in 50 meters of water, it will take YEARS to do this here. By the time they stop the spill, the Gulf of Mexico will be gone. It will be totally annihilated and not only gulf of Mexico (I read someone write this as Guelph of a Mexican, I thought it was funny).

      Nuke it. Calculate the necessary force to collapse the shaft, put the nuke where it should be (probably somewhat under the ocean floor to one side of the well shaft). I would also drop a bunch of shipping containers filled with rocks on top of this place just in case first, then nuke it.

      In fact I think the drilling must be all stopped until there is a procedure to stop a leak like this within a week rather than taking months or years.

      As an idea for the future development: how about preparing giant metal containers that can interlock together and can be filled with rocks, that could be dropped or lowered to the bottom of the ocean together or one by one and then a mechanism to interlock them so that they could be set on top of a leak like this and then connected together and pushed down maybe with ability to dig into the ocean floor to anchor themselves, like a Lego system that would put a heavy metal floor on top of the ocean floor and would just press down against a leak like this altogether, possibly aided by large propellers that would add dynamic push to the static, gravity added push against the leak.

      Of-course this is just of top of the head and maybe stupid, but I don't see this guys coming up with ANYTHING NEW at all for decades now. The same shit they tried 30 years ago for Ixtoc and what they always try is the same shit that did not work 30 years ago, is not working today and probably just cannot work at all.

    6. Re:long history of cutting corners by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      Nutters, or people who are parodied by the big media because they say the things that are not in the interests of the incumbent commercial-political cartel?

      --
      I hate printers.
    7. Re:long history of cutting corners by foobsr · · Score: 1

      The bit that I loved the most was: ...

      You will love it even more when you read about suicides and deadly accidents of people who were willing to testify.

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    8. Re:long history of cutting corners by DarkOx · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      What does LaRouche have to do with the TeaParty? The fact is if you look at the Teaparty has lots of intelligent educated members. Its rallies have actually be characterized by being peaceful and resulting in less damage to property and shared services than Obama political rallies. People like you and the press are routinely characterizing the TeaParty as a bunch of violent raciests; its just not true. You people also apparently don't understand its politics at all as LaRouche would be the last person in the world to join the TeaParty.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    9. Re:long history of cutting corners by bmo · · Score: 5, Informative

      >What does LaRouche have to do with the TeaParty?

      The LaRouchians are within your ranks. Get to know them.

      If this is not obvious to you, YOU SHOULD BE MORE OBSERVANT.

      >Its rallies have actually be characterized by being peaceful and resulting in less damage to property and shared services than Obama political rallies.

      Not when you ransack classrooms when you don't like the New Deal collage on the wall.

      http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joan_walsh/politics/2010/05/14/maine_tea_party_worse_than_you_thought

      Posting with no karma bonus, because it's off topic.

      --
      BMO

    10. Re:long history of cutting corners by Leebert · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Fifth amendment not to testify? Well, isn't the next step to start a criminal investigation against all of these people, including all of the top management in all of the companies involved?

      The fifth amendment exists to protect the innocent, not the guilty. It's probably the smartest thing someone could do if called to testify in front of Congress for something like this, particularly if they aren't guilty of any wrongdoing.

    11. Re:long history of cutting corners by maxume · · Score: 1

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

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

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    12. Re:long history of cutting corners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      larouche = nazi

      They are the closest thing to Nazis that the US has, ie, violent, anti-semetic, fascist, cult-like.

      Now, all that doesn't mean you should discount what they have to say. You should discount them because the are conspiracy theorists who also like to exaggerate the hell out of everything.

      I talked to one when I heard them yelling that Obama was a Nazi on a street corner(which was well before the far right picked this up), and they explained that any limits on health care spending was akin to murder and since Obama's healthcare proposal contained limits, that made him a genocidal nazi (their words). They had no solutions themselves, just a conviction that healthcare should be free.

    13. Re:long history of cutting corners by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      because it took 9 months to 'fix' the Ixtoc well leak and that only was in 50 meters of water.

    14. Re:long history of cutting corners by ConfusedVorlon · · Score: 1

      this nuke idea keeps coming up.

      I know it has worked in the past - but then drilling for oil has worked in the past.

      How confident are people that the nuke option won't make things catastrophically worse?

    15. Re:long history of cutting corners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      "how about preparing giant metal containers that can interlock together and can be filled with rocks, that could blah blah blah blah"

      Thank god we have you here to tell us how to do it. In all seriousness, the reason they don't "just simply do <insert whatever fucking thing here>" is because the idea you came up with in 20 minutes with no engineering knowledge or even a proper comprehension of what EXACTLY the circumstances are we're dealing with here is probably not going to work. And by "probably not going to work" I mean that someone who actually knows what they're doing would shoot you for presenting something so stupid.

      You're talking depths of over one mile. Do you know how much pressure there is that deep? I'm willing to bet that you don't, but let's assume that you do. Do you know what the implications are of that? Do you know how to power "large propellers that would add dynamic push to the static, gravity added push against the leak." a mile under water? What the fuck? Do you know how to get these "large legos" into a hole that is (how wide? Surely you must know, you're apparently the fucking expert on this shit.) while exactly (how many?) BARRELS of oil rush out per minute? You need (how much?) force to "push against" this leak in order to stop it.

      Yes, oil companies should be required to have solutions for stopping leaks such as this, but could everyone please stop putting out their nonsense "engineering solutions" out there. The situation isn't as simple as you think and people smarter than you are working on this. If you came up with it in 10 seconds then it WON'T FUCKING WORK. STOP ADDING TO THE NOISE BY SPEWING MORE FUCKING BULLSHIT. That's exactly the LAST thing we fucking need right now.

    16. Re:long history of cutting corners by maxume · · Score: 1

      So you think that in the contest between the depth and 30 years of technological advances they lose ground?

      They had to drill 10,000 feet of seabed for those wells, so there is some room for optimism.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    17. Re:long history of cutting corners by roman_mir · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Thank god we have you here to tell us how to do it. In all seriousness, the reason they don't "just simply do

      - you are an ass. For decades the oil drilling companies have come up with nothing at all, my point is that there are probably things better than nothing that can be done.

      You're talking depths of over one mile. Do you know how much pressure there is that deep? I'm willing to bet that you don't

      - you are an ass. 10 meters of water = 1 atm, were I went to school it was explained in the 6th grade, which was at age of 12.

      Do you know how to power "large propellers that would add dynamic push to the static, gravity added push against the leak." a mile under water?

      - you are an ass. People have been powering things under water for a hundred years at least. One possibility is to run a cable from a ship on top, that could power that with nuclear or diesel.

      What the fuck? Do you know how to get these "large legos" into a hole that is

      - you are an ass. I said place enough containers on top of the ocean floor that depending on the leak size, connect them together. What is the best way to connect them together is an engineering question. How many of them should be dropped is a question of total leak magnitude and force.

      (how wide? Surely you must know, you're apparently the fucking expert on this shit.)

      - you are an ass. I precisely said that I am no expert on this shit but that the so called experts have done Absolutely nothing in decades to improve any of their procedures have obviously failed in the past and are failing now.

      while exactly (how many?) BARRELS of oil rush out per minute?

      - you are an ass. BP Specifically would not allow scientists anywhere near the leak so that they could not ever tell anyone how much oil is siphoning out.

      Yes, oil companies should be required to have solutions for stopping leaks such as this, but could everyone please stop putting out their nonsense "engineering solutions" out there.

      - you are an ass. Who are you to tell people what they should and should not be putting out there?

      The situation isn't as simple as you think and people smarter than you are working on this.

      - you are an ass. As far as people working on this being smarter than me, that is totally your own conjecture and is not a fact.

      If you came up with it in 10 seconds then it WON'T FUCKING WORK.

      - you are an ass. Many things can be improved or thought of in 10 seconds, but the implementation with all the necessary calculations take much longer than that and I was quite specific on the fact that I am not providing a calculated solution but a cursory idea that the oil companies don't look at.

      STOP ADDING TO THE NOISE BY SPEWING MORE FUCKING BULLSHIT.

      - you are an ass. Follow your own advice.

      That's exactly the LAST thing we fucking need right now.

      - you are an ass. Who the fuck is 'we'?

      what an ass.

    18. Re:long history of cutting corners by roman_mir · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      What I think is that they are lying every second of every day, I don't see a single reason to believe a thing they are saying and the only 'advancement' for the past 30 years since Ixtoc was that they decided to change names of their failed attempts to stop the oil gushing.

      They used to call the cone, that they tried putting over the leaking well a 'Sombrero'. Now they call it 'Top Hat'.

    19. Re:long history of cutting corners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You people"

      Nice us versus them mentality. Think it'll help stop the oil leak?

    20. Re:long history of cutting corners by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "The fact is if you look at the Teaparty has lots of intelligent educated members"

      Where's the "-1 Hilariously Misinformed" when you need it?

      The fact that your signature indicates a desire to repeal a pretty crucial constitutional amendment, and that you spout support for a troupe of batshit crazy republicans in disguise, leads me to believe I shouldn't listen to anything you have to say.

      --
      If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
    21. Re:long history of cutting corners by jpyeck · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Of-course this is just of top of the head and maybe stupid

      ^^ This ^^

      30 years ago, drilling a well at this depth was not possible. Drilling technology has advanced to the point where drilling at this depth is now possible. Technology has also advanced to the point where the "same shit they tried 30 years ago" is even an available option at 5000+ ft down.

      As an engineer, I take offense when people come up with stuff off the top of their head and assume that teams of professionals haven't considered the same options and rationally analyzed the feasibility.

      I can assure you, all the crazy ideas you can possibly consider, and more, are being discussed among the engineers at BP who actually have experience in this industry. Yes, this spill is horrible. No, I can't believe BP doesn't want to have this fixed ASAP. The engineers on the front line simply don't have time to address the media, therefore you are left with execs so far removed from the actual work that they look like incompetent boobs

    22. Re:long history of cutting corners by roman_mir · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      As an engineer, I take offense when people come up with stuff off the top of their head and assume that teams of professionals haven't considered the same options and rationally analyzed the feasibility.

      ^^ this. Your statement is complete and utter bullshit when related to this situation. No, they have not rationally considered the options and have not rationally analyzed the feasibility. They are doing exactly the same thing they have been doing for the past 30 years at least. The current oil spill is a mirror image of the Ixtoc disaster, the difference is just how deep they are drilling. They couldn't stop the spill in 50 meters of water with the blow out preventer, it did not work then, didn't work now; with the 'sombrero' = 'top hat', with the 'junk shot'= some metal balls they were throwing into the well then, they couldn't stop the leak with pumping the mud='top kill' etc.

      You can take all the offense you like, but this is simply the truth. Engineers are not running BP or Transocean or Halliburton. Engineers matter only to the question: how much more money can we dig out of the earth and not: how do we deal with a disaster we may cause.

    23. Re:long history of cutting corners by Rockoon · · Score: 2, Informative

      This.

      Any competent attorney will tell you to ALWAYS invoke the 5th when you are being COMPELLED to testify about ANYTHING.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    24. Re:long history of cutting corners by roman_mir · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh, and the BP fucked up the boom installation thus allowing the oil to come to the shore lines, to the marshes, they also use the dispersants in 1979 and now.

      Most importantly, and which puts a nail into the coffin of your argument, every step of the way BP and Transocean and Halliburton engineers were trumped by the management and told not to pay attention to any of the known problems: the broken BOP, the rubber coming up, the dead battery, the bad concrete seals, the pumping of the mud out, the disregard to their own standards in terms of testing, they did not do a SINGLE thing right to PREVENT this and they had Nothing ready to stop this.

      So to all of the 'engineers' taking 'offense' - shut the fuck up. You lost all of this and that's why there is this disaster and nothing is working to stop it. The only thing that worked before and may work now is drilling the relief wells.

      I say take the BP engineers and management out, put in engineers from other oil companies and from NASA and Military and do what is necessary. Whether it means dumping a whole bunch of containers with rocks on top or using a nuke or both or anything else. The people who are in charge there right now cannot be trusted.

    25. Re:long history of cutting corners by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 2, Informative

      If people would have a look at the geology in the Gulf, they perhaps would finally shut up about the nuke nonsense. You can't just drop a nuke on top of it and hope it closes the wellbore. The seafloor in the Gulf is a huge layer of sediment, hundreds, if not thousands of feet strong. If you nuke that, you just blow away the silt and sand - now you have an underground blowout spilling the oil into the sediment layer, from where it will find its way up. So, if you want to collapse the bore, you gotta drill down to solid rock and explode your nuke there. At that point, you can as well drill a relief well. Besides, do we have a nuke that works under the pressure of 6000+ feet of water? This is a completely different situation than it was back when the Russians used nukes.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    26. Re:long history of cutting corners by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      What I think is that they are lying every second of every day, I don't see a single reason to believe a thing they are saying

      Well, then, you might as well run around waving your arms and exclaiming 'they are using puppies to try to plug the hole! puppies and kittens!'

    27. Re:long history of cutting corners by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      There you go again, coming up with stuff of the top of your head.

      Flame on, brother.

    28. Re:long history of cutting corners by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 0, Troll

      Has anybody told you you're kind of cute when you're angry?

      They haven't?

    29. Re:long history of cutting corners by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      you are the first.

    30. Re:long history of cutting corners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I was about to post the same thing. After reading the LaRouche commentary on the spill, I clicked to see their video, "The Case for Impeachment". At 0:36 in the video: "In characteristic negro fashion, the president went absolutely berserk and demanded that all such senate insubordination be crushed immediately." This, to me, raises some red flags as to the credibility of their other arguments.

      Did they think it wasn't racist because the guy they paid to read the script is Black?

    31. Re:long history of cutting corners by damasterwc · · Score: 1

      I say we make them fully and 100% accountable, and seize their global assets to the point they reach bankruptcy if necessary. The supertanker suckup option still exists but we have to stop Obama from running cover for these slimeballs and have direct action. They look at it in terms of cost to them to clean it up... our government ought to look at the cost of NOT taking action then seize control of the situation (and later of BP).

    32. Re:long history of cutting corners by phantomfive · · Score: 1
      Assuming Wikipedia is accurate, anyone who follows LaRouche is either a nutter or naive. Check out just one sample:

      In Beyond Psychoanalysis, LaRouche argued that bourgeois elements of a worker's persona had to be stripped away to arrive at a state he called "little me", from which it would be possible to build a new personality, centred on a socialist identity.[15] In this "ego stripping" process, members would be subjected to verbal attacks and personal criticisms by the entire group, until they broke down.[42] This, LaRouche argued, was the point at which an individual "abruptly 'breaks free' as if from a drugged state; a sudden personality change occurs, in which the group sees the real person come forth, assume control of himself, or herself, and bring the ego-state under control."

      If this is accurate, and if the descriptions of his 'ego stripping' processes are accurate, he doesn't deserve to be parodied, he deserves to be under a criminal investigation. In addition, he's weird. Check out his opinion on AIDS (and apparently gays):

      AIDS was a leading plank in LaRouche's platform during his 1988 presidential campaign. He vowed to quarantine its "aberrant" victims who are "guilty of bringing this pandemic upon us."[105]

      --
      Qxe4
    33. Re:long history of cutting corners by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      I reject your reality and substitute my own!

      Seriously, who is your dealer and can you hook me up?

    34. Re:long history of cutting corners by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      I see you're off the meds again.

      Nurse? Nurse?!

    35. Re:long history of cutting corners by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Nutters, or people who are parodied by the big media because they say the things that are not in the interests of the incumbent commercial-political cartel?

      No, just straight up nutters. These people spam my physical, snail-mailbox with insane theories and weird ideology. There is no grip on reality with these people.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    36. Re:long history of cutting corners by Suhas · · Score: 1

      I say take the BP engineers and management out, put in engineers from other oil companies and from NASA and Military and do what is necessary.

      The Hell! Prius software has bugs, call NASA. Oil well blows up, call NASA. If the buck stops at NASA making it the last resort for all sorts of engineering problems, then why are we cutting off funding to it?

    37. Re:long history of cutting corners by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      quit being delusional and thinking hitler was for "small government" like modern day right wingers

      Modern right wingers are not at all for small government - not when it comes to persecution of gays, or other such things that must be done in the name of decency.

    38. Re:long history of cutting corners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I say we make them fully and 100% accountable, and seize their global assets to the point they reach bankruptcy if necessary. The supertanker suckup option still exists but we have to stop Obama from running cover for these slimeballs and have direct action. They look at it in terms of cost to them to clean it up... our government ought to look at the cost of NOT taking action then seize control of the situation (and later of BP).

      In case you hadn't noticed, it's not Obama that's running cover for them...

    39. Re:long history of cutting corners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You people"

      Nice us versus them mentality. Think it'll help stop the oil leak?

      The TPers are all about "us versus them". Just talk to them and they'll categorize anyone you care to name!

  5. Suppose they can't stop the oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What would that mean for the environment?

    1. Re:Suppose they can't stop the oil by Swampash · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well I presume that it would mean the sterlization of the Gulf of Mexico and the poisoning of the South of the USA.

    2. Re:Suppose they can't stop the oil by wisdom_brewing · · Score: 0

      Long term? Over fertilisation and a very interesting new ecosystem... If the well contains as much oil as it predicted and say 30% of it makes its way out and continues at its current rate then we have a few decades of flow at current rate....

      Oil is very energy rich, there is life that will thrive off of it. Maybe Louisiana residents can be like gold-rush individuals panning for gold... Stratifying the water and oil, skimming it off and then selling it for $80+ bucks a barrel... If it can't be stopped it will be very interesting...

    3. Re:Suppose they can't stop the oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'll like just get a literal dead sea in which the only life is a bunch of bacteria. Oil isn't exactly healthy for any life form except a few freak strains of those little buggers.

    4. Re:Suppose they can't stop the oil by MrNaz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Don't shovel that crap you fucking industry shill.

      Nothing but a very small number of anaerobic microbes can survive in an oil-saturated environment, as oil coats cell surfaces and prevents oxygen transfer. A dumping of that much oil into the world's ecosystem will have catastrophic results, and if it makes its way into the Gulf Stream, it'll be spread globally with results too great for me to describe without sounding like a crazed religious apocalyptic doomsayer.

      If the entire well is emptied into the global current system, it will be enough to reduce fish populations to levels where seafood is taken off of humanity's menu. It's unlikely that whales will survive, as krill cannot survive even with trace amounts of oil in their water. And the effect on atmospheric oxygen with phytoplankton levels reduces is impossible to predict, but it'll be large.

      This is a catastrophe, not some "shift in ecological balance". Take your misinformation and downplaying tactics elsewhere.

      --
      I hate printers.
    5. Re:Suppose they can't stop the oil by maxume · · Score: 1

      It won't kill the krill dude. If 10 billion gallons leak, each gallon of oil will have about 30,000 gallons of seawater to mix with (that is assuming that none of the 10 billion gallons degrades over time).

      (I don't mean to imply that it would fully mix or anything, just that by the time it gets to the Pacific, it will have had the opportunity to mix with quite a lot of water; if it breaks up, that means there isn't going to be much of it in any given place, if it doesn't break up, that means it will be surrounded by lots of water with no contamination)

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    6. Re:Suppose they can't stop the oil by bazorg · · Score: 1

      and if that happens I'll blame Jennifer McCreight.

    7. Re:Suppose they can't stop the oil by 7+digits · · Score: 1

      > It won't kill the krill dude. If 10 billion gallons leak, each gallon of oil will have about 30,000 gallons of seawater to mix with (that is assuming that none of the 10 billion gallons degrades over time).

      Sure, 30000 to 1 is low. Next time you take a bath (~300 liters), spill 1cl of gasoil in it (1 centimeter of the bottom of a small glass). Then take you bath, and come to post here about the results again.

    8. Re:Suppose they can't stop the oil by wisdom_brewing · · Score: 1

      Equate it to an underwater volcano - albeit a large one... Loads of relatively toxic (to current ecosystem) crap speweing from the seabed...

      I'm just throwing a possibility out there, life is surprisingly quick to adapt and I like to think that it's a lot more resilient than most people think...

      Yes, it is a catastrophe, people and animals have died as a result. A friend of mine works for BP and he doesn't give a sh*t, I do and am very bothered by the speed of the reaction.

      But im quite happy with your label of me as an industy shill, when I was only speculating over a potential positive from this situation - I'm sorry but I try to look at all the possibilities and given the negativity of most of the rest of the posts I thought to inject a bit of the opposite...

      Apologies for upsetting you sir

    9. Re:Suppose they can't stop the oil by cdavidneely · · Score: 1

      I have heard this argument over and over. It would be a valid argument IF the oil was going to mix with the water until it makes a homogeneous mixture. It is not. The issue that people who make this assumption completely ignore is the fact that oil and water don't mix. The danger of the oil completely mixing with the oceans and creating some giant slushy of oil and water is unlikely considering the size of the ocean but the overall volume of the ocean isn't the issue. The surface area is. How much oil would it take to cover enough of the surface of the ocean to cause catastrophic results.

    10. Re:Suppose they can't stop the oil by maxume · · Score: 1

      Why? I'm not enthusiastically hoping that 10 billion gallons of oil spew into the oceans, I'm pointing out that it probably won't kill sea life as we know it.

      Also, can I put chemical dispersants into the tub?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    11. Re:Suppose they can't stop the oil by wisdom_brewing · · Score: 1

      Does anything eat or could eat those little buggers?

    12. Re:Suppose they can't stop the oil by maxume · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, it is an oversimplification. But the oceans are huge. 10 billion gallons spread over the 335 million square kilometers of ocean surface would have an average depth of 0.00012 millimeters (yes, that's right, 0.12 microns).

      Of course, that is still an oversimplification, because it will not spread evenly over the entire surface of the ocean (but much of it will degrade, boil off or mix into deeper water). But it does at least start to put the numbers into some sort of context.

      And that's the nothing goes right for many years scenario, the more likely scenario is that they limit the spilled oil to several hundred million gallons. Which is still a huge freaking disaster, especially in the gulf, but anyone worrying about the future of sea life in general is being irrational.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    13. Re:Suppose they can't stop the oil by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Seven years bad luck... That's about how long the thing will spew if left alone

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    14. Re:Suppose they can't stop the oil by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Also, can I put chemical dispersants into the tub?

      You mean soap?

    15. Re:Suppose they can't stop the oil by maxume · · Score: 1

      Indeed.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    16. Re:Suppose they can't stop the oil by JDevers · · Score: 1

      You should, soap is a required component for most proper bathing...

    17. Re:Suppose they can't stop the oil by melikamp · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and if you compare it to the size of the solar system, it's not even a blip.

      How about just the Gulf of Mexico? I get

      37'854'117.8 m^3 / 1'600'000'000'000 m^2 = 0.0237 mm

      I know little about oil film, but according to this table, it is very, very thick. The highest value in the table is 0.002 mm.

      Let's do the world ocean, I am not so sure about your math. I get

      37'854'117.8 m^3 / ( 3.61 * 10^14 m^2 ) = 0.000105 mm, which is very close to your value. It is in the table already, and it is at the point where you can see it with an unaided eye.

      Does it still seem to you that 10 billion gallons is too small for the ocean? It looks to me like it's just about enough to cover the entire planet with a visible oil film.

    18. Re:Suppose they can't stop the oil by maxume · · Score: 1

      Yes, 10 billion gallons could make a film that covered the ocean. But if it is all making a film, then it isn't washing up on beaches and killing the krill. And much of it would degrade and boil off (like, more than 1/2 of it, given that we are talking about this well taking more than 10 years to leak that much).

      I'm not trying to downplay the damage that is being done to the gulf, I'm dismissing histrionics about this potentially killing all the whales.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    19. Re:Suppose they can't stop the oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... the poisoning of the South of the USA.

      You just made all the lefties on /. start spanking their monkeys.

      Why do you hate monkeys?

    20. Re:Suppose they can't stop the oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A visible film is enough to kill krill. Even so, most phytoplankton cannot survive with even an amount so small that you cannot see it with the naked eye. No phytoplankton means nothing for krill to eat.

      Yes, this could result in a huge impact on whale population, and just about anything that lives in the sea.

    21. Re:Suppose they can't stop the oil by floodo1 · · Score: 1

      we've already reduced "fish populations to levels where seafoods is taken of of humanity's menu."....or at least damn near close :( Over fishing is a HUGE HUGE problem, that few people recognize :9

      --
      I KUT J00 M4NG!!!
    22. Re:Suppose they can't stop the oil by buzzn · · Score: 1

      Well I presume that it would mean the sterlization of the Gulf of Mexico and the poisoning of the South of the USA.

      Not that this is an excuse for BP, but apparently we were already managing to do that before the spill... http://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/topics/deadzone/

      --
      Join the window installer's union, where prosperity is a brick throw away!
    23. Re:Suppose they can't stop the oil by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      replying to undo mods

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    24. Re:Suppose they can't stop the oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a catastrophe

      Perhaps, but what's worse is that your parents didn't believe in birth control, and now the rest of us on Slashdot have to suffer as a result.

  6. Lets Try by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Lets try the same thing again, except with BP senior execs

    1. Re:Lets Try by Heed00 · · Score: 1
      --
      Thought thinks itself.
    2. Re:Lets Try by bobdotorg · · Score: 1

      Lets try the same thing again, except with BP senior execs

      Pretty sure that this would be considered a 'Junk Shot'

      --
      __ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
    3. Re:Lets Try by DiEx-15 · · Score: 1

      People keep saying "Try Nukes!" but based on BP's performance so far, the question "Would you trust them?" comes to mind.

      I mean whats the worst that they could do? Oh wait... I kind of like not glowing in the dark.

  7. Nickels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    If BP converted their quarterly profits to coin and dropped a huge sack of nickels on the spill it would stop.

    I'd rather they use dollar coins, by way of punishment, but at this point I'll take the nickels.

    1. Re:Nickels by slick7 · · Score: 1

      yeah, Susan B. Anthony dollar coins.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
  8. Why only focus on the leak? by krou · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Okay, plugging the leak is important, but why aren't BP also doing something like this to contain the effect of the leaked oil: use 'empty supertankers to suck the spill off the surface, treat and discharge the contaminated water, and either salvage or destroy the slick.' Instead, they're just rolling out containment booms and sending people out to mop up beaches, never mind trying to initially insist that the crude was red tide, dishwashing-liquid runoff, or mud. Oh wait, the supertanker idea costs a lot of money. Sorry, sorry, my bad.

    --
    'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
    1. Re:Why only focus on the leak? by lolbutts · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Unfortunately, BP has been using dispersants on the failed well to prevent the oil from slicking on the surface. Because there is so much oil, the slicks on the surface are still happening, but this isn't all of the oil. I don't know of any defensible estimates for the % of oil that is getting to the surface versus hanging out in "clouds of oil". However, it seems that most people, even BP, will acknowledge that this is a nontrivial amount of oil. Though it would be nice to do something more about the oil. Perhaps it could even dissuade them from using the dispersants... (Haha, I kid. They wouldn't backpedal on the effectiveness of dispersants now.)

    2. Re:Why only focus on the leak? by Jezza · · Score: 1

      Money isn't the issue here. This is costing BP a fortune. What we're all forgetting is deep drilling is inherently risky - as the oil is under so much pressure. Sad to say what you're suggesting isn't doable with a leak of this size - it is simply too serious, with too much oil. BP's real failure happened before the accident, this is a situation you can't allow to happen. In addition to the on going environmental damage 11 men were killed - personally I think there is a case of culpable homicide to answer, and BP employees should be charged.

      We also need to think about our use of all oil, it is becoming very hard to obtain the huge amount of oil we're using. This accident shows that it simply isn't sustainable and there is an urgent need to rapidly reduce the amount we ALL use. This needs to be done to protect the environment (even if you don't believe in global warming - this accident shows just how dangerous to the environment deep drilling techniques can be) and to ensure security (let's face it - most of the oil is in places that are politically "difficult").

      Of course, lastly there is the huge question about what MUST be done to help the people who will lose their jobs as a result of this. If we're ever to restart deep drilling we need better safety procedures BEFORE an accident and a workable plan for AFTER. But really most of the problem here causing the accident in the first place. This goes deeper than just not wanting to spend money to clear it up - in truth they don't lack any amount of money, they just don't have a clue what to do.

    3. Re:Why only focus on the leak? by testghost · · Score: 0

      I am sure that come a year or two when gas prices head upwards of $5 to $6 a gallon, people will be screaming for BP to start drilling again. This oil spill is just an excuse to lash at BP because they are a for profit company, and that is the whipping boy people attack because they are unable to compete in a global market. In reality, most Americans, especially here in California, value being able to drive somewhere without astronomical gas prices than some gunk dumped in some flyover states. Maybe BP needs protection like diplomats do from unpopular nations. I'd say give companies diplomatic immunity so they can do business and not be affected by politicos stirring up the rabble and handing pitchforks and torches.

    4. Re:Why only focus on the leak? by vlm · · Score: 1

      In addition to the on going environmental damage 11 men were killed - personally I think there is a case of culpable homicide to answer, and BP employees should be charged.

      The suits at the top get charges, but the guys whom did a bad concrete pour get away with it?

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    5. Re:Why only focus on the leak? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Money isn't the issue here. This is costing BP a fortune.

      And yet, they are not yet out of money, and they could be spending more, i.e. to do the booming correctly to contain the slick. Which they are not. Which suggests that it's about money.

      This goes deeper than just not wanting to spend money to clear it up - in truth they don't lack any amount of money, they just don't have a clue what to do.

      that is complete bullshit. They're not even doing the things they know how to do. They're not even trying!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Why only focus on the leak? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      No it just doesn't work. The fact that the oil is dispersed subsea along with the fact the leak is so deep and thus the slick gets really wide on the surface means that it's actually quite in-effective. I seem to remember really early news reports 3 weeks ago talking about skimming and separating oily water with a quote that they managed to suck up some 200000 barrels of oily water of which only 10% was actual oil.

      If this solution is going to work here there needs to be some careful thinking about how it can be applied specifically to the well because simple skimming operations are outright failing.

    7. Re:Why only focus on the leak? by maxume · · Score: 1

      The fact that they are spending a fortune does not mean that they are responding in every way possible, they have many, many fortunes to spend.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    8. Re:Why only focus on the leak? by lostsoulz · · Score: 1

      Okay, plugging the leak is important, but why aren't BP also doing something like this to contain the effect of the leaked oil: use 'empty supertankers to suck the spill off the surface

      The oil does not simply sit on the surface waiting for a giant supertanker vacuum cleaner. It pollutes the entire water column over a vast area.

    9. Re:Why only focus on the leak? by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 1

      "sweet and sour crude"

      Hell yes! Bust out the egg rolls people, it looks like the gulf just became a whole lot sweeter!

      --
      If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
    10. Re:Why only focus on the leak? by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 1

      Apparently they're not even doing the booming right.

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    11. Re:Why only focus on the leak? by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 1

      Couldn't we sink a pipe down to near the leak to get more of the oil before it spreads ? Heck build an entire damn water purification plant with dozens of pipes going all the way down over the damn thing if needed. A water purification rig.

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    12. Re:Why only focus on the leak? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what they were trying to do with those top-hat things. It didn't work.

    13. Re:Why only focus on the leak? by Jezza · · Score: 1

      I think that's something a court should get the chance to decide. I just don't have anything like enough information to reach a view, but I think it's really important that such a view is reached. As I said the biggest failure is letting the accident happen.

    14. Re:Why only focus on the leak? by IICV · · Score: 1

      Because there is so much oil, the slicks on the surface are still happening, but this isn't all of the oil. I don't know of any defensible estimates for the % of oil that is getting to the surface versus hanging out in "clouds of oil".

      We'll know pretty soon actually - according to my wife (who's getting a doctorate in Earth Systems Science, so she knows this stuff) the processes that produce oil always produce a specific amount of methane (like how when you run current through water, you always get two parts H to one part O). The NSF has just gotten funding to send one of her old professors out into the gulf on a boat to measure methane levels, from which they hope to work backwards and calculate a real flow rate.

    15. Re:Why only focus on the leak? by failedlogic · · Score: 1

      Its not like the supertanker vacuum is going to suck up everything. I think the intention is just to remove some of the contaminants even if it amounts to 1% or 10%. At least its less that would otherwise stay in the water.

    16. Re:Why only focus on the leak? by slick7 · · Score: 1

      In addition to the on going environmental damage 11 men were killed - personally I think there is a case of culpable homicide to answer, and BP employees should be charged.

      The suits at the top get charges, but the guys whom did a bad concrete pour get away with it?

      Why focus on BP? Where was Halliburton and what were THEY doing? Somehow they were involved, but for some reason, they seem to disappear. Why?

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    17. Re:Why only focus on the leak? by jbengt · · Score: 1

      The oil does not simply sit on the surface waiting for a giant supertanker vacuum cleaner. It pollutes the entire water column over a vast area.

      That does not mean you should let the oil that does get to the surface alone without trying to scoop it up.

    18. Re:Why only focus on the leak? by IdolizingStewie · · Score: 1

      First, it's CEMENT, people, not concrete. They are not the same thing.

      Halliburton gets a pass because they were doing what they were doing on the express written direction of BP engineers. Secondly, a poor cement job is not some amazingly unusual event. It can be rectified when the problem is discovered. This is why we use two barriers.

    19. Re:Why only focus on the leak? by buzzn · · Score: 1

      Right at the end of that motherjones article is the clue as to why BP isn't containing the oil: "They take these bags to a plant and separate out the sand so they can process the oil" Oh, this saves them the effort of pumping the oil into a tanker and shipping it. You see they just hire some cheap labor to scrape it off the beach and then send it to the refinery. Much easier!

      --
      Join the window installer's union, where prosperity is a brick throw away!
    20. Re:Why only focus on the leak? by slick7 · · Score: 1

      Too much water?

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    21. Re:Why only focus on the leak? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Something like that should be done. It's better than letting it float around and muck up the shoreline. By the time you get people scrubbing birds with toothbrushes and dish soap, it's a bit too late and a much less effective use of manpower.

      Also we have a nice shipyard in Biloxi. If the president had any cajones, it shouldn't be that hard to start an emergency production order of some skimmer vessels. Even something as simple as a dozen or so barges with some pumps and centrifugal separators and generators to power them slapped on, then towed and anchored in the problem areas would be better than the nothing in use now. The technology involved isn't that new or groundbreaking, and about a dozen half-decent shipyard people could weld together and knock out something that would make a working high-volume skimmer in a week.

    22. Re:Why only focus on the leak? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean we'll get more realistic numbers than "5000 barrels a day"? Awesome! (For those of you not in the know, BP has said things along the lines of "the well is leaking 5000 barrels a day....we are siphoning off about 5000 barrels a day....no, there is still oil leaking that isn't siphoned.")

    23. Re:Why only focus on the leak? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Yep. That's what happens when you manage people. You are responsible for their failures.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  9. Repel earths forces with mud and cement by OpenQL · · Score: 1

    Okay that should work?

  10. BP working relentlessly by OrwellianLurker · · Score: 4, Funny

    Doug Suttles later stated that BP is hard at work to come up with even cooler names for their next failed attempts to stop the oil leak. When questioned about their competence to do the job, he was quoted saying "we're stuck between overkill and final death."

    --
    'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.' - Mao Tse-tung
    1. Re:BP working relentlessly by GF678 · · Score: 1

      "we're stuck between overkill and final death."

      They should have used Unreal Tournament nomenclature.

      M-m-m-monster KILL... Kill... kill...

    2. Re:BP working relentlessly by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      "The final solution" has a nice sound to it.

    3. Re:BP working relentlessly by noidentity · · Score: 1

      Sorry, your names fail because they don't have the word "top" in them. Top hat, top kill... maybe top top is next.

    4. Re:BP working relentlessly by Pax00 · · Score: 1

      So if they get away with it all it will go down as GODLIKE?

    5. Re:BP working relentlessly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MO-MO-MONSTERR KILLL!!!

  11. Déjà-vu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Seems all to be a Déjà-vu : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHmhxpQEGPo

    1. Re:Déjà-vu by Jezza · · Score: 1

      Excellent link. I'd not seen this - but I agree totally with everything she said.

    2. Re:Déjà-vu by krou · · Score: 1

      Thanks for that ... would give mod points if I had 'em.

      --
      'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
    3. Re:Déjà-vu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I gave mine. One of the most informative posts I've seen around here.

  12. let hell freeze over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    time to inject the liquid nitrogen and freeze the pipe shut.
    lol my capcha is felony

  13. wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...trying to shove some beach mud into a pipe spewing a slippery substance at several thousand gallons a day didn't work...i can't believe it failed.

    1. Re:wow by thygrrr · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Mud" is a technical term for all sorts of drilling fluids specifically designed to keep the pressure on an oil well.

      In this case, they used a special type of "Mud", even, "Kill Mud".

      But it still failed (and the failure has quite possibly damaged the Blowout Preventer atop the borehole further, potentially increasing the amount of oil gushing into the ocean.

    2. Re:wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Mud" is a technical term for all sorts of drilling fluids specifically designed to keep the pressure on an oil well.

      In this case, they used a special type of "Mud", even, "Kill Mud".

      Specifically it's an engineered fluid of precise, high density. It is dense enough to float most rock.

      IIRC, it's injected down the space inside the drill pipe, then makes a u-turn after exiting at the drill face and flushes the drilled rock particles up between the drill pipe and the bore wall, thereby clearing the "drilled chips" out of the way.

      For an excellent treatment of drilling technique, see "A Hole in the Bottom of the Sea: The Story of the Mohole Project" http://www.amazon.com/Hole-Bottom-Sea-Mohole-Project/dp/B000NPVA56/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275221670&sr=1-3 by Willard Bascom. He was director of the project some 50 years ago.

      One example: To get an idea of the scale of a drill pipe, imagine a circular stairwell in a tall building with a marble first floor. Hang out over the railing from a few stories up. Grasp the end of a piece of piano wire that reaches to the marble floor. Now spin the wire with your fingers. It must reach the floor. It must also bear against the floor just hard enough that the properly-shaped tip of the wire can drill into the marble. You must not let the tip bear too hard against the marble or the wire above the tip will bend sideways and collapse out of vertical, making it unable to continue drilling. Easy.

      Also explains how the actual bore need not be vertical, but can be bent off to the side. This was part of the justification Iraq used for invading Kuwait before Gulf I. The Iraqis claimed that the Kuwaitis were drilling wells near their mutual border, but curving the bores sideways into pools which were actually vertically under Iraqi territory.

      Lost in all the discussion is that, according to one account I heard, the bore starts on the seabed some 5K feet down, but the end of the drill was already an additional 13K feet below that level. Expensive crap to lose.

    3. Re:wow by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      To elaborate a bit - water based muds like used there usually contain clay minerals, mostly bentonite, to adjust their rheological properties, and barite, which has a high density, to reach the desired mud weight. Apart from that, there's basically nothing which has not been included in various drilling muds.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
  14. Solution. by Buzzsaw5 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why don't they start pumping into the well all the bullshit they've been spouting for the last month. That should plug that sucker up real quick.

    1. Re:Solution. by JamesP · · Score: 1

      I hear fat executives make a really good well plug

      --
      how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
    2. Re:Solution. by 517714 · · Score: 1

      Not true. Their bullshit flows like water.

      --
      The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
  15. Expect repost.... from 1979! by leuk_he · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is all deja vu. This has occures before. In 1979 a oil well in the gulf blew and it took 9 months to close the gap, using the same techniques they used so far.

    So expect repost of failed attempts for the next 9 months.... in the true /. tradition. If it is important it will be posted again. ;)

    1. Re:Expect repost.... from 1979! by virtualonliner · · Score: 1

      Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
      - Albert Einstein

    2. Re:Expect repost.... from 1979! by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Oh quiet. People think that this stuff is new or something, in the same way that the gulf doesn't already leak a few million or is it a few hundred thousand, barrels of oil naturally every year anyway. The reality is when you're dealing with a BFP is to go through the steps of things that have and haven't work in the past. Working your way through up to what will work. Anywho it's just my guess but they'll have to use something in relation to relief wells, it's a large amount of oil with just a little bit of water giving it forced pressure.

      *parts may be sarcasm.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    3. Re:Expect repost.... from 1979! by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      9 months? That's for a well that started only 50 meters below the ocean. Here the depth is 1500 meters. I takes more than one try to drill the relief well into the right place - to puncture the current shaft. I think it may take years to do this right.

    4. Re:Expect repost.... from 1979! by robably · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of situations where doing the same thing over and over again produces different results.

      Also, insanity has a lot going for it.

    5. Re:Expect repost.... from 1979! by vlm · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of situations where doing the same thing over and over again produces different results.

      Yeah, unfortunately very much like triggering blow out preventers, and cementing in casings.

      This accident won't necessarily go down in history as the "worst" but I'm certain it'll be remembered as the least lucky ever.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    6. Re:Expect repost.... from 1979! by linzeal · · Score: 1

      Perhaps we need a crack team of well-endowed porn stars and scuba suits?

    7. Re:Expect repost.... from 1979! by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Perhaps. They better be tough enough to withstand 150Atm of pressure.

    8. Re:Expect repost.... from 1979! by khallow · · Score: 1

      It's too bad that technology hasn't advanced in 30 years.

    9. Re:Expect repost.... from 1979! by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      It has not advanced for plugging oil leaks at all. It was completely, totally stagnant for decades. The proof is very simple: Ixtoc disaster. Every single thing they are doing now directly corresponds to every single thing they have done then. The final solution? 9 months later they drilled the last relief well.

    10. Re:Expect repost.... from 1979! by microcars · · Score: 1

      Is there a followup report on the environmental damage from this? What happened to all the oil that flowed for 9 months?

      --
      I like microcars
    11. Re:Expect repost.... from 1979! by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      This is all deja vu. This has occures before [youtube.com]. In 1979 a oil well [wikipedia.org] in the gulf blew and it took 9 months to close the gap, using the same techniques [reuters.com] they used so far.

      Furthermore, they couldn't even get those same techniques to work in a mere several hundred feet of water... and now they expect them to work at a mile deep??

    12. Re:Expect repost.... from 1979! by Mashiki · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah you can look up the cleanup reports for it. The reality is there was no real long term damage, and the old boon, skim and soak methods they were using at the time were 40yrs old. Travel to the areas where the spill were and you won't find environmental damage.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  16. Nuclear energy anyone? by jackflap · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And so proponents of nuclear energy are seriously considering trusting companies like BP with nuclear power?

    Nuts..

    1. Re:Nuclear energy anyone? by wizardforce · · Score: 1

      So your solution is to continue trusting idiots like BP with ruining our environment with oil? now that is insane.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    2. Re:Nuclear energy anyone? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Unlike oil, nuclear has historically attracted enough controversy to ensure decent oversight and regulation from teh evil government, and other such worthless, taxpayer-money-sucking organizations that can actually ensure safe operation.

      Whereas oil - well, we all remember "drill, baby, drill!". After all, what could possibly go wrong there, and even if it would, why'd anyone care? It's not like it's nuclear...

    3. Re:Nuclear energy anyone? by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      There have been many more oil accidents than nuclear. By your logic we should have many more nuclear accidents.

    4. Re:Nuclear energy anyone? by selven · · Score: 1

      Modern nuclear plants don't have any failure states nearly as bad as what's happening now.

    5. Re:Nuclear energy anyone? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      BP yes, but not in America. Honestly your government alone is to blame for this. In Australia regulators breath down the necks of oil giants and nuclear research facilities with strict regulations that would make Americans regulators jaws drop.

      Someone tell my why BP Texas City refinery has no independent shutdown system, and what safety systems they do have are energise to trip (rather than the safe method of de-energise to trip). Conversely the refineries here which are a quarter of the size in Australia have a SIL-3 rated shutdown system independent from their main control system and even controlled and managed by completely different departments.

      I trust the company a lot. I would trust them to drill on the Australian Northwest shelf despite this incident. I just don't trust the American business units. Quite frankly they scare me.

    6. Re:Nuclear energy anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and other such worthless, taxpayer-money-sucking organizations that can actually ensure safe operation.

      As they have adequately proven in the past few months in both the coal-mining and oil-drilling industries.

      Scrape the shit out of your ears after you yank your head out of your ass.

  17. 3 the whales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well, whats another 30,000 barrels of shit floating around in our oceans.

  18. Not prepared by Vicegrip · · Score: 4, Informative

    I suspect that they always knew their attempts to fix it would fall short, this is all make-busy to give the appearance that everything that could be done is being done. The correct solution appears to be forcing oil companies to drill relief wells for existing exploitation. The idea here is that the relief well is mostly completed so that if a disaster occurs, instead of taking months to connect to the main well, the work can be done within days.
    BP's experience is showing us that the relief well is the only solution that will work.
    It's why the Canadian government is taking the position that one must be drilled at the same time as a new well is being built. Unsurprisingly, oil companies are already lobbying hard to have these measures curtailed.
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-will-take-tough-stand-on-offshore-drilling/article1557095/
    "At issue in talks between the oil industry and the National Energy Board on relief wells in the North is whether they must be drilled during the same season as the primary exploration well. The window for drilling in the North is only a few months because of ice conditions. However, allowing oil companies to wait a season to drill relief wells could leave a new well exposed to a potential rupture for a year or more. Mr. Pryce at CAPP said the policy for relief wells was devised in the 1970s, and alternative technology for dealing with ruptures has advanced considerably. "

    --
    Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
    1. Re:Not prepared by timmarhy · · Score: 1
      what would you have BP do though - try nothing while they drill relief wells?

      on the one hand people like you claim they are trying everything knowing it won't work, and on the other people are claiming BP is trying to save money. the 2 can't exist at the same time.

      I agree with relief wells being in place, however your also overly optimistic that they would stop disasters like this in days. a week maybe if everything worked well.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    2. Re:Not prepared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "alternative technology for dealing with ruptures has advanced considerably."

      Why do they keep using only the stuff that doesn't work on the BP well then?

    3. Re:Not prepared by wizardforce · · Score: 1

      You cant stop every disaster but what BP did was nothing short of negligence and it shows that we need to put a few rules in place to help stop further disasters. Will it stop them all? no of course not but it will help reduce the frequency of them.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    4. Re:Not prepared by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      BP can do nothing in the short term.

      About 3 days into this, BHO should have turned to BP and said, "How large a diamater hole can you drill for me right beside this well, say 1000 - 2000 ft deep?"

      "DoD, how small a diameter nuke do we have?"

      Assuming the hole is bigger than the nuke (we have suitcase nukes, so this ought to be a "yes"), insert nuke into 1000 ft hole, detonate. Molten rock rushes to seal oil leak 1000 ft. underground. Problem solved.

    5. Re:Not prepared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't two wells just double the risk of a blowout?

    6. Re:Not prepared by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Yep then in 4 years time when the gas prices double because every well now needs two drilling rigs leased at $1mil each per day, the people will complain and the government will withdraw the restriction in an attempt to reduce their dependence on foreign oil.

    7. Re:Not prepared by maxume · · Score: 1

      Drilling operations are by no means a 100% cost component of retail gasoline.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    8. Re:Not prepared by khallow · · Score: 1

      Drilling operations are by no means a 100% cost component of retail gasoline.

      Perhaps you ought to think about that some. There are two obvious rebuttals. First, it just has to be a significant cost component. Increasing barrier to entry fucks up the exploration market which has a direct effect on the cost of retail gasoline. Second, even counterproductive or irrelevant stuff can rationalize itself on any ground. For example, US corn ethanol subsidies raised the cost of corn and gasoline, yet it still became law.

    9. Re:Not prepared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Before this, there is the possibility that the "top kill solution" was to offer some public relation delay for them to prepare the installation of the containment valve, which will, just like indeed with the relief well solution, enable them to use the well again.

    10. Re:Not prepared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the Obama administration actually thought this had a good shot of working (probably because they were told by BP it should), otherwise he wouldn't have went down there and claimed credit for the success on his way to vacation.

      It is mind boggling to think of the pressure this oil must be under if it can spew at the rate it us while being under a mile of hydrostatic pressure from the ocean.

    11. Re:Not prepared by maxume · · Score: 1

      Well, do you think such a regulatory change would actually cause gas prices to double in 4 years?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    12. Re:Not prepared by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      It's pretty obvious what changes need to be made to prevent the next disaster before it happens. BP is guilty of criminal negligence, to a degree that shouldn't have been possible.

      But let's get back to the matter at hand. None of that will help to stop this disaster.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    13. Re:Not prepared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think he was really saying that they shouldn't try, just that no one at BP is terribly surprised by the failure, and that they are nevertheless forced to sound optimistic about the various measures which will almost certainly fail (until ~August when the relief wells will allegedly be done) to placate the media.

      Stopping a massive oil leak in a week would be a considerable improvement over the current situation, reducing the size of the spill by at least an order of magnitude.

    14. Re:Not prepared by khallow · · Score: 1

      Well, do you think such a regulatory change would actually cause gas prices to double in 4 years?

      In itself, no. But it would probably cause a significant increase in the cost of gasoline which coupled with other problems (such as carbon taxes and unusual instability in the Middle East) could cause large price increases. The regulation in question sounds poorly thought out. Most wells don't have oil flow under pressure naturally. To stop an uncontrolled flow, you would just stop pumping stuff into the oil field. And for many that are naturally pressurized, the consequences of an uncontrolled flow aren't that severe. You just pump up the oil that comes out. That means the entire "relief well" mechanism is unnecessary for most wells. You also have to consider that the relief well could itself be a source of failure in some oil fields. You don't want your relief well blowing out either. Just because you have a relief well, doesn't mean it is usable. This would be an ongoing expense to keep it viable.

      Finally, keep in mind that the Deepwater accident involved a faulty blowout preventer. A properly working one wouldn't have caused this accident. We'll probably find that the BOP was in someway inadequate or improperly installed. A badly drilled (and hence ineffective) relief well would be an easy next step in an incompetent driller scenario.

    15. Re:Not prepared by maxume · · Score: 1

      The regulation makes more sense in the Canadian situation, where the drilling season only lasts for a few months, and they might have to wait several months before even starting to respond to a blow out.

      It doesn't sound like our viewpoints are all that far apart, my response to the other poster was phrased the way it was because they had also made a rather absolute statement.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    16. Re:Not prepared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      They are not required to drill a relief well at the same time - that is nonsensical.

      They are in fact required to show that they will be able to drill a relief well in the same season.

      Given that icing is not a problem in the gulf, they don't have the seasonal issues that Canada has, and thus a relief well can be drilled at any time. The problem in this instance is the depth of the well.

    17. Re:Not prepared by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Yep then in 4 years time when the gas prices double because every well now needs two drilling rigs leased at $1mil each per day

      What the fuck, can't you read? He didn't say "keep two rigs around". He said you force them to drill a relief well first. That means take your rig, drill down nearly to the deposit, cap, then move on to drilling the actual well. Then, if shit goes down, you bring in a new platform (just like BP is doing today) to complete the relief well.

    18. Re:Not prepared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BP is guilty of criminal negligence, to a degree that shouldn't have been possible.

      From what I see they've complied with all currently applicable laws, IOW they aren't guilt of anything.

      But don't let the facts get in the way of your xenophobic anticorporate rant, you fat mouth-breathing redneck.

    19. Re:Not prepared by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      what would you have BP do though - try nothing while they drill relief wells?

      As I understand it, "Top Kill" had a significant chance to make things worse. Given that, "do nothing" may have been the right choice.

      I don't know, because I don't have nearly enough information to make that call, but it's not automatically a bad choice.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    20. Re:Not prepared by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      From what I see they've complied with all currently applicable laws, IOW they aren't guilt of anything.

      I'd bet that laws were broken; obviously we'll have to wait for the courts to sort that out. And of course they should be presumed innocent, until proven otherwise, but I feel like presuming otherwise. If BP broke no law, then our laws are inadequate and need to be fixed.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    21. Re:Not prepared by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      No. Infact the slides I have seen by the Australian Competition and Consumer Comission show that it makes up 30-50% of the cost. With 10-25% being the refining + retail + distribution costs and in Australia the rest is all taxes.

      These figures include a profit margin too but they will likely stay the same as costs are passed on. In America it's probably worse since you have very low taxes on petrol. Drilling may not be 100% of the costs, but it's nieve to think that they aren't one of the largest contributing factors.

    22. Re:Not prepared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Canadian requirement for relief wells to be drilled in the same season as the main well is only in arctic areas where if you don't have the relief well done at the same time, you have to wait until the next season.

    23. Re:Not prepared by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Yeah 4 month drill and cap operation is a completely trivial cost.

      Let me spell this out quite clearly for those of us who don't quite comprehend the costs involved with drilling the well. This relief well on side a normal well will dramatically increase the cost of the well. That in itself won't drive petrol prices up, but along with other restrictions that will no doubt find their way into the system after this spill you will effectively limit deep sea drilling to only the supermajors.

      For those who have just joined us, the major competition in crude oil comes from the several medium sized players. These medium sized players who can not afford the added cost of equipment, time, and more importantly lobbying and paperwork which will be needed to drill in the GoM will effectively create a mini oligopoly for the Exxon, Shell, Chevron, and if they are still around BP. The cost will also make some of the smaller wells unviable and ultimately reduce output, and we're back to foreign oil.

      Gas prices may go up, or another war will drive them up, or a president with a foreign oil agenda will crack the shits, but ultimately very heavy restrictions which are imposed quite often get removed several years later by a party who doesn't remember why they were brought in in the first place. Either that or the American people will elect a psycho "drill baby driller" politician who always disagreed with the proposal and remove it.

      I never said it was a bad idea. I am actually all for it. But don't expect it to last for a resource as heavily demanded as oil, especially in a country like America.

  19. It's all for show from now on. by lightversusdark · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've come to the conclusion that this is mostly for show.
    Best case estimates of success for any of the proposed solutions have been incredibly low.
    Repeated failures are changing the problem conditions with each attempt.
    BP has to appear to be trying absolutely everything (and I suppose they are), but I think there is an executive acceptance that nothing before the relief wells kick in (August!) is going to make a dent in the flow of escaping oil and gas.
    The ROV operators and everyone with a real job to do are doing amazing, admirable work, but I just feel that this is all futile.
    We are down to real basic mechanical approaches.
    No technological solutions exist, none have been developed as there is no demand, as the oil companies have not invested in disaster management technology. Unproven response measures like the dispersants have been at best useless, and increasingly appear to have had an overall negative effect on the situation.
    We seriously don't have any bright ideas about dealing with this, and it's already too late.

    --
    "There is nothing nice about Steve Jobs and nothing evil about Bill Gates." - Chuck Peddle
    1. Re:It's all for show from now on. by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      ... don't have any bright laws about regulating for this, and it's already too late.
      The US allowed the oil sector to write its exploration and drilling laws.
      The US knew its protection systems where not great but still handed out more rushed waivers.
      http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18881-oil-industry-failed-to-heed-blowout-warnings.html
      Next Fox 'tea party' public chat with your Dem or GOP legislator, remind them of the oil cash they accepted, their drill baby drill enthusiasm (read it back to them) and their lax law making.
      Post to youtube with tags and keep on asking.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:It's all for show from now on. by wisdom_brewing · · Score: 1

      Ok, somewhat expensive:

      Get several hundred dry-cargo ships full of iron ore, or other heavy but mass-available commodity and just dump it over the well... Keep doing it, over and over again... Eventually the weight of it will stop the "leak"... Though it could take a very long time, and require millions of metric tonnes of material...

    3. Re:It's all for show from now on. by lena_10326 · · Score: 1

      That would be like using gravel to dam a lake. It'll still seep and then erode away the material.

      --
      Camping on quad since 1996.
    4. Re:It's all for show from now on. by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Funny

      DEC AlphaServer 3000s. They make great boat anchors.

    5. Re:It's all for show from now on. by Genda · · Score: 5, Informative

      Hhhmmm, I don't know, but I think this would have been a really simple thing to prevent... no need for any new technology whatsoever

      1. First replace the entire bozo squad passing for government regulators, in fact jail the lot of them, for receiving bribes, and causing billions of dollars of damage to the country.
      2. Next when an oil company installs emergency shut off valves at the well head, make certain they work, BP knew for a fact theirs didn't work and ignored it.
      3. Additionally, when your high tech well has special high pressure seals, design expressly for potential disasters, and you know you've damaged or destroyed them, stop drilling, and fix the seals, BP knew they had a problem when they brought huge chunks of rubber and again ignored it to continue drilling.
      4. Finally, when some idiot from an oil company tells the folks on the rig to remove tons of drilling mud from the well, now, to shave a few days off of opening the well to pumping later, knowing full well that leaving that mud in the well is a critical safety feature for preventing disasters like... this one, they should be politely shot in the head. Twice.

      There was absolutely no need for this mess. BP played loose and fast with the lives of millions of people. Hell, they virtually murdered the drilling crew. They knew they were engaged in risky behavior, they cut dozens of corners, shaved the rules, lied about their problems, and did anything at all to cut their expense and increase their profit. At some point, when a company creates, literally manufactures a disaster of this proportion, and the only significant cause is a blatant and callous disregard for human life, and environmental safety, I think it's only fair to invite them to leave the country permanently. They've demonstrated they have absolutely no interest whatsoever in being responsible, decent, or even vaguely accountable. We're still the largest consumer of petroleum products in the world. They must serve us, and not the other way.

    6. Re:It's all for show from now on. by vlm · · Score: 0, Troll

      BP knew for a fact theirs didn't work and ignored it.

      You need to add a cite when you state something that ridiculous.

      BP knew they had a problem when they brought huge chunks of rubber and again ignored it to continue drilling.

      You must either have, or be quoting someone with, no industry experience at all. They call them "pigs" but they're basically big rubber stoppers with some molded in scrapers. After you pour in the cement, you put this (usually) rubber stopper on top and then push the works down the hole using the mud pumps. That makes sure there is no cement stuck in the bore. Not surprisingly, you drill thru the pig once you start drilling again. Not surprisingly there is all manner of rubber junk brought to the surface. There is actually an interesting way to fix this problem, by passing some sort of international UN binding law that annular BOP confinement rings may only be manufactured with yellow seal material and pigs/plugs/etcs may only be manufactured with, let say, red seal material. It has to be international in scope or else the contractor whom last worked in Saudi where all the pigs (err, sorry for kosher joke) are yellow, so when he sees yellow seal material floating in the mud tank his reaction would be "eh just a drilling pig".

      The worst part, is when everyone on the rig is highly specialized, if some laborer sees "stuff" in the mud tank, his opinion about it isn't worth a whole heck of a lot more than the average dude on the street, because of that high level of specialization.

      They knew they were engaged in risky behavior, they cut dozens of corners, shaved the rules, lied about their problems, and did anything at all to cut their expense and increase their profit.

      And thats different from every other person and every other company that has ever existed, exactly how? Careful throwing those bricks in your glass house. Ah, you go first...

      I think it's only fair to invite them to leave the country permanently

      Who, the suits at BP whom frankly are more of a financing shell company (like GE or to some extent the old GM), or the american and foreign contractors whom actually did the work that failed, or the govt regulator types that can't be everywhere all the time? Your plan does seem like a very efficient way to remove all the personnel with experience with these problems who also have a high level of motivation not to make the same mistake twice, so in the long term, I think your plan for revenge will come back to bite you.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    7. Re:It's all for show from now on. by ShnowDoggie · · Score: 4, Informative

      Genda probable got those statements from 60 minutes. This is what they are reporting. There is mounting evidence that at least some of these facts are true. Bottom line - compare what was in the application to drill, with what they did, and they either outright lied or cut corners.

    8. Re:It's all for show from now on. by wisdom_brewing · · Score: 1

      You dump enough gravel, it solves the problem - at least temporarily... and youre using something a lot finer than gravel, and of greater density to resist erosion, etc...

      In any case, I'm only suggesting this as a ridiculously expensive temporary solution until the relief wells are drilled...

    9. Re:It's all for show from now on. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally, when some idiot from an oil company tells the folks on the rig to remove tons of drilling mud from the well, now, to shave a few days off of opening the well to pumping later, knowing full well that leaving that mud in the well is a critical safety feature for preventing disasters like... this one, they should be politely shot in the head. Twice.

      Ok, I'm going to have to stop you RIGHT there.

      That's a waste of bullets.

    10. Re:It's all for show from now on. by Kenz0r · · Score: 2, Informative

      After reading your comment I watched the episode online, thanks for pointing it out to me.
      I don't live in the US so I can't watch CBS on tv.
      I recommend to everyone that hasn't seen it yet to check it out, it's been really educational.

      Props to CBS for not filtering out non-US IPs like other some tv stations do.

      --
      +1 Funny Signature
    11. Re:It's all for show from now on. by IdolizingStewie · · Score: 1

      What you're neglecting is that this isn't gravel to dam a lake, it's gravel to dam a firehose. If you can't get the first bits of gravel to stay in the area long enough for later bits to fall on top, you can't make any progress.

    12. Re:It's all for show from now on. by IdolizingStewie · · Score: 2, Informative

      Pigs go in pipelines. What you are calling pigs are simply referred to as plugs on every rig I've ever been on and are generally manufactured in bright colors and made out of different types of rubber than an annular, which is typically black. I have only heard the generic "rubber" used to describe what was brought to surface, but I would think the mudman would be able to tell the difference.

  20. Re:From Russia with Love by oiron · · Score: 1

    A wonderful example of a cure worse (or at least, with as many potentially unknown effects) as the disease!

  21. You can never get a decent plumber in the UK... by freddled · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hmm. The problem here is you are asking Brits to fix a leaking pipe. Queue lots of sucking of teeth, scratching of heads and HUGE estimates. There is probably a guy there right now, using the undersea robot to tap the pipe and go, "well your problem, mate, is its all your own fault see, no offence, I've got a bit of twig I broke off a tree in my van. I'll stick that in the hole and wiggle it around while I think of something more plausible but it will cost you..." Call in the Poles. They have great plumbers: quick, efficient, well qualified. They'll have it fixed in a jiffy and clean up the mess afterwards.

    1. Re:You can never get a decent plumber in the UK... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently they called in a guy a mate of their has used before. He took a look and went off to get a part but hasn't been back since.

    2. Re:You can never get a decent plumber in the UK... by Swampash · · Score: 1

      You must have missed the bit where British Petroleum and Amoco merged to form "BP". (Hint: AMerican Oil COmpany). I'd be surprised if there was ANYONE British working on this fuckup.

    3. Re:You can never get a decent plumber in the UK... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny post mate, but though Brits do know how to queue very vell, a-thank you, the word you are looking for is cue.

    4. Re:You can never get a decent plumber in the UK... by TheGothicGuardian · · Score: 3, Funny

      Call in the Poles. They have great plumbers

      Personally, I'd check the Mushroom Kingdom for plumbers. I know a couple of guys there that work pretty cheaply, if you don't mind their use of mushrooms every now and then.

    5. Re:You can never get a decent plumber in the UK... by freddled · · Score: 1

      And lo it came to pass that on the appointed hour of Armageddon, the Brits did come in their legions and attempt to correct the grammar and spelling of Satan's hordes...

    6. Re:You can never get a decent plumber in the UK... by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1

      Where is a link to the Peter Serafinowicz sketch about a polish plumber/neurosurgeon when you need it...

  22. Time to invest in renewable energy? by fantomas · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... because your BP shares are going to be worth a lot less ;-)

    Seriously though this accident has thrown up a lot of interesting information - such as how the US imports vastly more oil than it produces on its own territories, and I can only imagine regulation around oil drilling will become more strict rather than less after this has all been sorted out. Given that the USA does love to consume energy I would have thought that the silver lining might be increased investment in alternative energy sources; you've got a huge country with a lot of space for generating wind/solar/wave power. Now might be a time to explore more than pilot projects? Possibly an increased nuclear power plant program as well though I am not too sure about whether this is in political favour at the moment?

    One thing amazes me about the present fiasco is that we don't hear of more accidents like this, how many offshore oilrigs are there round the world? I guess the oil industry is either pretty careful or pretty lucky when it comes to oil extraction (or good on PR cover-ups...)

    1. Re:Time to invest in renewable energy? by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      Well, this accident was sort of the worst case scenario in that every fail-safe mechanism failed. I'm sure there are more blowouts than we hear about, but the systems in place to stop them (the BOPs etc) actually work.

    2. Re:Time to invest in renewable energy? by rally2xs · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Oh, don't get me started!!!! Everybody starts screaming "renewable energy" when something like this happens, and then starts blathering about windmills and solar and junk like that. CLUE: NONE OF THAT WILL POWER YOUR CAR DOWN THE HIGHWAY!!!! For that, right now, you need OIL! That's the bottom line. Period. End of story! No solar farm, no wind farm, no geothermal plant is going to change that until we get a really sexy battery breakthrough.

      Almost every day, we seem to have another researcher somewhere that claims to have done that breakthru. Ha! Last best one I saw was from a couple university researchers that announced a nanowire lithium battery in December, 2007. Keep reading, find out that their nanowire anode is good for 10X capacity ONLY if a similar breakthrough is found for the cathode, which it has not. Without that, it is a 3X capacity nanowire battery. Plus, further research has been "funded" by... the Saudis, on Saudi soil. You think we're ever going to see this battery again, considering what success might do to Saudi oil exports???? Not freakin' likely!

      The Chevy Volt will be about the best we can come up with for probably a really long time in the future. Most people's daily travels, about 85% of them, are less than 40 miles round trip, so 85% of most people's daily travels could be 100% electrically powered, and shifted to... coal, or natural gas. Nope, we STILL aren't going to be building enough windchargers or solar farms to do much about that for a VERY long time. Scientific American's January 2008 issue (possibly 2009, I forget) outlined a plan to go 100% solar, but that has a little drawback of requiring a breakthru in solar cell efficiency AND it'd take 100 years to implement. Back to the drawing board...

      Lacking a battery breakthrough and an absolute necessity to stop using fossil fuels, maybe a crash program with solar thermal, which works already, and a smart grid to dristribute power could be combined with a 100% electric car transportation system that could (somehow) get its electricity in real time like the buses that get their power from overhead wires. Still needs a battery 'cuz you can't string those everywhere on the planet, but might work. Hideously expensive. Plus, you'd have to shoot all envirowackos of the sort that trump up roadblocks like some in California that a power wire running through a forest is somehow unacceptable. Geeeezzzzz... I'd like to boil these guys in oil, every one.

    3. Re:Time to invest in renewable energy? by vlm · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, this accident was sort of the worst case scenario in that every fail-safe mechanism failed.

      Its worst case in a hell of a lot of other ways:

      1) Timing. Wells kick all the time while drilling, but while you're drilling you've got the mindset and equipment to work around it so you don't get blowouts. Cement jobs fail all the freaking time, but thats OK since you've got a hole full of heavy mud. BOPs, being mechanical devices in the ocean, fail on occasion, but thats OK because four nines of uptime, combined with un-used rate of four nines, means no problem for about eight nines. Too bad it all happened at the precise worst time.

      2) Geology. Despite whatever the idiots on TV say, this is a hybrid gas/oil well not an oil well. A leaking oil well is no problemo you just suck up the oil at the source. Can't do that on a hybrid well because the methane hydrates from the gas clog up the works. Also oil gushers rarely catch fire and vaporize the platform, TV movies excepted. A leaking gas well is no problemo for the TV newsies because nothing washes on shore. Turning the GoM into a big methane fizzy drink is not an ecological ideal but its not, relatively, as bad. So, if it were a pure oil well, you'd have an intact platform uncontrolably squirting oil into a supertanker tied up next door, or worst case you'd be able to capture about 99% of the oil at the source. Or if it were a gas well you'd probably still have sunk the platform and killed everyone, if not even worse than it was, but there would be nothing floating ashore. Also the geology of the bottom of the GoM is completely unknown to the newsies so you get idiot ideas from people whom refuse to understand that the bottom of the GoM is a thousand feet of muck. They think its like the "little mermaid" movie where its all solid granite, and all their ideas reflect that inaccurate assumption.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    4. Re:Time to invest in renewable energy? by ShnowDoggie · · Score: 1
    5. Re:Time to invest in renewable energy? by je+ne+sais+quoi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      One thing amazes me about the present fiasco is that we don't hear of more accidents like this, how many offshore oilrigs are there round the world?

      It does happen every few years or so. We just don't hear about it because they aren't usually as large as this one, nor in as deep water, which exacerbates the difficulty of any possible fixes including relief wells (but you can expect more and more deepwater wells in the future). Also, the public and the media have short attention spans, and the oil companies will cover these things up if they can and/or wait for the public outcry to die down. BP tried the same thing here, claiming that the well was only putting out 5000 barrels per day and it wasn't until oil started showing up on shorelines that anyone questioned them. Exxon never paid more than half the money they were supposed to after the Valdez, they just funded an endless stream of lawyers to move it around in court until people gave up trying to get it.

      I can only imagine regulation around oil drilling will become more strict rather than less after this has all been sorted out.

      You'd think that would be the case, but the oil industry lobbyists are already probably in high gear waiting for the news media to switch to some other topic so they can go back to baiting the rabid conservative segment of the population with drill, baby, drill slogans and paying off their favorite politicians and funding their reelection campaigns. On the other hand, after the Exxon Valdez the U.S. did start requiring that oil tankers docked in their ports had double hulls. But I guess that a certain political party will resist any new regulations for drilling in the current political climate.

      --
      Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
    6. Re:Time to invest in renewable energy? by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      No, not the Nissan Leaf. It only goes 100 miles on a charge, and the charging cycle is too long.

      A viable electric car, to be bought instead of a regular car by the buying public, is going to have to go as far as a regular car (300 mi) and recharge in as short a time as it takes to fuel a regular car (about 3 minutes.) The Chevy Volt does that. Nothing else so far does.

    7. Re:Time to invest in renewable energy? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Seriously though this accident has thrown up a lot of interesting information - such as how the US imports vastly more oil than it produces on its own territories

      According to the media, this well's oil would have been sold on the international market.

      People who think "drill baby drill" will make their gasoline prices drop are living in a fantasy land.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    8. Re:Time to invest in renewable energy? by fantomas · · Score: 1

      I can believe it - though as I noted in my original post the rig was in US territorial waters.

    9. Re:Time to invest in renewable energy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As you imply, the situation is pretty simple, and if anything good could come out of this event it will be a better appreciation for it:

      ~85 million barrels/day global production
      ~20 million barrels/day USA consumption
      ~7 million barrels/day USA production, in decline
      ~1.7 million barrels/day Gulf of Mexico production, in decline

      Do the math. Can the US afford to stop offshore oil exploration? Pretty obviously not, unless there is a MAJOR investment in alternatives. And I don't mean the piddling little investments so far. I mean a major, "Manhattan Project" scale reorientation/investment. Whenever I hear people talk about alternatives I don't think they have a proper understanding of the scale of the problem. No, this isn't something that will be solved with biofuels -- not unless you reduce consumption in a major way and accept higher food costs. No, this can't all be solved with nuclear -- not unless you solve the waste storage issue or invest in new types of reactors. No, this can't all be solved by putting up solar panels and wind turbines -- unless you're willing to pay a lot more for energy, and accept huge areas covered with them (including your backyard). There are options here, but people don't understand what it will actually take to implement them. 20 million barrels/day is a lot of cheap energy, and the rest of the world wants theirs too and is willing to pay for it.

      "One thing amazes me about the present fiasco is that we don't hear of more accidents like this, how many offshore oilrigs are there round the world? I guess the oil industry is either pretty careful or pretty lucky when it comes to oil extraction (or good on PR cover-ups...)"

      You have part of it: the oil industry is pretty careful and these events are rare. For obvious reasons there are huge economic and other reasons to for oil companies to prevent these events from happening. But like a rare plane crash, despite safety measures they still happen. Why don't you hear about them much? The short answer is, people in the USA and their news organizations largely don't care if an oil well blowout is contaminating beaches elsewhere in the world. There is, however, plenty of reporting in the international press when these events happen, whether in the North Sea, off the coast of Australia, or Mexico.

    10. Re:Time to invest in renewable energy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only 1% of power production in the US comes from oil. Virtually all power plants that rely on fossil fuels are either using coal or natural gas.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2008_US_electricity_generation_by_source_v2.png

      Oil is primarily used for things like cars and planes. If you want to use wind or solar power in a vehicle, you have to do it indirectly. All of the current technologies for this have big drawbacks. Electric vehicles have limited range and recharging takes a lot longer than filling a gas tank. Hydrogen is expensive, difficult to store, and would require a new network of filling stations.

      Ethanol and biodiesel are the most widely used alternative fuels to date. Gasoline in much of the US is already 10% ethanol, and some stations offer 85% ethanol that can be used in certain cars. The problem with these fuels is that you end up using farm land that would otherwise be used for growing food. As a result, increasing ethanol production means that food gets more expensive. There's been some effort recently to move to natural gas. It's cleaner and cheaper than gasoline, but it's also difficult to store and requires a new network of filling stations. Natural gas is being used in some areas for vehicles with limited range like garbage trucks.

      I wish reducing oil consumption was as simple as building some windmills, but sadly it's a much more complicated problem.

    11. Re:Time to invest in renewable energy? by codepunk · · Score: 1

      You don't know much about stock do you? Now is the time to buy stock in BP not sell. The demand for oil is increasing not decreasing so the stock is only going one direction and that is up.

      --


      Got Code?
    12. Re:Time to invest in renewable energy? by stonewallred · · Score: 1

      nuclear power plants. safe, clean and cheap if the laws were changed to prevent multi-decades lawsuits aimed to prevent them from being built. plenty of cheap electricity and friendly to the environment. phase out gas cars, starting with older models and working up, and encourage/bribe folks to drive electric.

    13. Re:Time to invest in renewable energy? by owlstead · · Score: 1

      For transport, you currently need oil. But if I'm not mistaken, that's just a part for which oil is used for. So your whole rant sounds a bit off topic to me. The question is not if you need oil, it's if you need this well, and if deep drilling is really absolutely necessary. It's not like this is an inexpensive operation by itself.

    14. Re:Time to invest in renewable energy? by owlstead · · Score: 1

      Huh? Of course it does not have to. As long as it can use cheaper energy, it can offset it's drawbacks against that. Of course, that does not mean that 100 KM would be acceptable to a lot of people. But you're requiring that it should have all advantages and no drawbacks, then you're not being fair to the electric car. It's like saying an SSD cannot be a good replacement for a HDD unless the price and capacity is equal to that of a hard drive.

    15. Re:Time to invest in renewable energy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Geeeezzzzz... I'd like to boil these guys in oil, every one.

      funny thing that... we've plenty of the stuff in the Gulf of Mexico right now =]

    16. Re:Time to invest in renewable energy? by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Informative

      According to the media, this well's oil would have been sold on the international market.

      So whoever bought that oil wouldn't be bidding for - and driving up the price of - the oil the US does use.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    17. Re:Time to invest in renewable energy? by geggo98 · · Score: 1

      [...]

      One thing amazes me about the present fiasco is that we don't hear of more accidents like this, how many offshore oilrigs are there round the world? I guess the oil industry is either pretty careful or pretty lucky when it comes to oil extraction (or good on PR cover-ups...)

      The problem here is that this kind of extraction is one of the most difficult worldwide. Not only that drilling underwater is much more difficult than drilling on land or even harvestig oil sand, but it happens on a depth where drilling is only recently possible.

      One should think that everyone is extremely careful when operating under such conditions. But according to recent information it looks like this was not the case.

      So the real reason while you don't hear about similar accidents all the time might be that most oil harvesting operations are not happening under such extreme conditions.

    18. Re:Time to invest in renewable energy? by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      I'm just saying, my current car goes that far, refuels that quick, and I wouldn't replace it with anything less capable. Now, some city dweller that never goes anyplace could maybe put up with the electric as it now stands, but I'm heading for a road rally in Tucson in August, and getting there is a matter of maybe 20 hrs the 1st day, 12 hrs the 2nd day, and maybe 6 the 3rd day. I just can't tolerate something that refuels every 100 miles and takes longer than about 3 minutes to do it.

    19. Re:Time to invest in renewable energy? by owlstead · · Score: 1

      Well, not everybody is called rally2xs I presume.

      Personally I cannot tolerate this planet going to pieces because people seem to think you can stop global resource abuse *and* keep doing things like you mention all at the same time - just because you think it is fun.

  23. Re:From Russia with Love by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd rather they'd nuke BP executives.

  24. Top kill by slasho81 · · Score: 1

    The only thing this operation managed to properly pump is the term "top kill".

    1. Re:Top Kill by roman_mir · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I would add the following few lists to the above.

  25. Obligatory by JohnnyBGod · · Score: 4, Funny

    Obligatory link: http://twitter.com/BPGlobalPR

    We are very upset that Operation: Top Kill has failed. We are running out of cool names for these things.

  26. Falacy by aepervius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Firstly this is not the same domain of competence and risk, to drill an oil well thousand of feet deep, and to maintain a nuclear plant. Secondly nobody is trusting BP with a nuclear plant, but trusting other company. Finally there are many nuclear plant world wide maintained in a satisfactory state, and only a few major incident, none in the last 20 years with the latest design. There isn't many bulk way to generate energy for a baseline and/or peak electricity generation, fission, coal, gas, oil. Note on how 3 of those release carbon in the atmosphere which was trapped for a long time. Without going into global warming debate, nuclear plant are today the only baseline/peak generation which avoid that. Other generation method do exists, but the possibility are either exhausted (hydroelectric) are not compatible with baseline generation (wind, solar for example).

    So carbon or nuclear, by govt or by private, TAKE YOUR POISON. The only real alternative is to go back to a pre-modern society.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:Falacy by dbIII · · Score: 0, Troll

      The answer is to accept that it is poison (instead of the pretence that nuclear runs on magic beans), and to build small units such as pebble bed where the consequences of failure are a lot less than the 1970s dinosaurs painted green that the US nuclear lobby want to build.
      There is a good reason why plants to the "latest design" have no problems, it's because most of those are completely imaginary nuclear plants that were never built. Real ones are slowly falling apart and getting decomissioned before major problems occur.
      The obvious answer is to build prototypes of the new designs and go from there until there is something possibly even commercially viable. Some of the smaller systems that are still in development even have the possible advantage of very short construction times and mass production - so the things could potentially be ready and running in less time than the decade or more (ask the swedes for how much more) that it takes to build one of the 1970s designs painted green that are being flogged off as "new technology".

    2. Re:Falacy by BasilBrush · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The only real alternative is to go back to a pre-modern society.

      Or go forward to a post-modern society. Rejecting what is current does not mean going back to what was before, but moving forward to something new.

    3. Re:Falacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fission is magic beans compared to even something as clean as natural gas. What failure mode of a modern NPP do you propose which is more dangerous than one oil spill, one week of coal plant emissions?

      It's so hugely irresponsible to continue burning hydrocarbons in applications where they can reasonably be replaced, that any opposition to nuclear power is sociopathic. You are a sociopath.

    4. Re:Falacy by rirugrat · · Score: 2, Funny

      BP will also be responsible for the Great Garbage Avalanche of 2505.

    5. Re:Falacy by maxume · · Score: 1

      That's where the strong eat the weak, right?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    6. Re:Falacy by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      Firstly this is not the same domain of competence and risk, to drill an oil well thousand of feet deep, and to maintain a nuclear plant. Secondly nobody is trusting BP with a nuclear plant, but trusting other company. Finally there are many nuclear plant world wide maintained in a satisfactory state, and only a few major incident, none in the last 20 years with the latest design.

      The reason we haven't had a "major incident" in the last 20 years is because 31 years ago we had a major incident at Three Mile Island that scared the shit out of everyone.

      On the other hand, BP just orchestrated the fucking Chernobyl of oil spills.
      And like Chernobyl, the incident is going to fundamentally change the industry.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    7. Re:Falacy by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      That's where the strong eat the weak, right?

      That's the world now!

      It's difficult to make predictions, especially about the future. But it's safe to say it won't be like the present, or the past. Talk of going back to a pre-modern society is nonsense. It's only possible to go forward.

    8. Re:Falacy by maxume · · Score: 1

      It's implied in my first post, but I'll make it explicit: That's where the strong survive by eating the flesh of the weak, right?

      It isn't particularly obvious to me that we can make enough calories without putting a lot of energy into agriculture.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    9. Re:Falacy by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      What a strange and macabre thing to say. For sure population growth needs to be curtailed at some point, but the cannibalism idea is perhaps a symptom of too many bad movies and computer games.

      First thing to note is that the current agricultural systems of using vast quantities of petrochemicals has to stop. It's not an option. Oil is a finite resource, and only the fuel use can be replaced by nuclear or alternative energies.

      Secondly, modern agriculture is incredibly wasteful:

      Many countries subsidize farmers to NOT produce.
      We waste fuel to ship produce halfway round the world. Post-modern agriculture would involve people eating food from the most local sources.
      Petrochemicals are used by farmers to produce the same crops year in, year out on the same land. Crop rotation is the less petrochemical dependant method.
      Producing meat is 10 times less efficient than producing crops.
      Genetic engineering means improved yields, and pest and decreased resistance.
      etc.

      I'm no expert on agriculture, someone who was could give a much longer list of ways of making agriculture far more efficient for a world after abundant and cheap petrochemicals.

    10. Re:Falacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      can't be done with uranium. we can't get it out fast enough. see Peak Uranium. demand already exceeds supply.

    11. Re:Falacy by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      So carbon or nuclear, by govt or by private, TAKE YOUR POISON. The only real alternative is to go back to a pre-modern society.

      Just because you don't see it doesn't doesn't mean there is no way to use less energy overall and more (ultimately, mostly) environmentally friendly energy sources.
      European countries are well on their way and even China is seriously considering it. As opposed to the US.

    12. Re:Falacy by dbIII · · Score: 1

      With respect, salesfolk call anything designed after 1970 "modern nuclear power" which of course includes things very similar to the plant that blew up in 1986. If you had completely read my post you would have noticed it was advocating the approach that you treat the things as dangerous and thus build designs that cannot fail in such a catastrophic manner - eg. pebble bed that has units too small to fail that way.
      It's simple. You treat it as poison and make sure the worst possible dose will not be paticularly bad. The "clean, green, runs on magic beans and not real dirty hard to process rocks" argument is counterproductive. It's dangerous and dirty like everything else and it should only be deployed in such a way that the danger is taken into account.
      Work on your reading comprehension skills before handing out insults, or if it's a simple "any nuke now at any cost" brainwashing I suggest growing out of it. Instead it should be "the right nuke when it's ready" and some actual effort going into R&D instead of the poor funding of the past three decades. Pebble bed may even be ready now, there is an accelerated thorium breeder getting built in India, and there is a lot of progress with small reactor designs that may be able to be mass produced by a company in Los Alamos.
      Don't mistake the attitude of opposing old designs we know are utter crap with being "sociopathic" - and try showing more maturity.

  27. How to really motivate them... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Here's an idea for how to really motivate BP - and any other company with the potential to cause such massive havoc...

    For every day that the oil continues to gush, the top 10% of their employees, by total compensation, should be required to work for a day on the clean-up crews. Not simply going to meetings and coming up with plans - they are to get down and dirty scraping oil off rocks and washing birds. The kind of work that gets oil under your fingernails and in your hair, with the smell soaked so deeply into your skin that it takes weeks to get it out.

    After all, these guys have so much money in the bank that firing them won't hurt, and fining the company will just translate into higher oil prices. If they had some real skin in the game, I think we would have seen them take the problem a whole lot more seriously from day one.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    1. Re:How to really motivate them... by wizardforce · · Score: 1

      I say we burn their company to the ground and then make them clean up the spill... Every last one of them. If your company makes money off of a dirty industry that is destroying an entire ecosystem, you ought not to get out of it without scars.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    2. Re:How to really motivate them... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Most of the shareholders are safe. The BP staff are as interchangeable and disposable as any expert staff where in the Soviet Union.
      They get rewards but can be swapped out if they talk to the press or leak.
      Want to motivate BP, name and shame the institutional investors, generational investors and trustafarians (generation living off trust funds) investors.
      Show up and expose the drill baby drill politicians and their oil coated cable pundits.
      Read back the weak oil laws they signed off on if they run for office again.
      It takes some research but can really make a congress critter be at a loss for words - makes a great youtube video too.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:How to really motivate them... by johnhp · · Score: 1

      Shit, don't bother with the Polish plumbers. For a job like this, we need the best there is. We need a certain Italian plumber.

    4. Re:How to really motivate them... by abigsmurf · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Yeah! Lets punish a group of people, 95% of which had absolutely nothing to do with the safty of oil rigs just to satisfy the screaming mob! They're rich, who cares about how innocent they are!

      If this keeps going, we can go down to the local BP petrol station with some ropes too!

    5. Re:How to really motivate them... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Shit, don't bother with the Polish plumbers.

      For a job like this, we need the best there is. We need a certain Italian plumber.

      But I don't think he can swim.

    6. Re:How to really motivate them... by blind+biker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Here's an idea for how to really motivate BP - and any other company with the potential to cause such massive havoc...

      For every day that the oil continues to gush, the top 10% of their employees, by total compensation, should be required to work for a day on the clean-up crews. Not simply going to meetings and coming up with plans - they are to get down and dirty scraping oil off rocks and washing birds. The kind of work that gets oil under your fingernails and in your hair, with the smell soaked so deeply into your skin that it takes weeks to get it out.

      After all, these guys have so much money in the bank that firing them won't hurt, and fining the company will just translate into higher oil prices. If they had some real skin in the game, I think we would have seen them take the problem a whole lot more seriously from day one.

      BP top execs are corporate psychopaths - that is, psychopaths that happened to be smart enough to manipulate their way into high-paying, high-repsonsibility (without the responsibility) positions. They don't care about you, your family, or just about anyone's lives'.One buck in their pockets is worth more than a human life, for that kind of people.

      Furthermore, psychopathy is NOT curable - all those fancy activities at correctional institutions, like training guide dogs for the blind, do NOT work with psychopaths (they do work with other criminals, though, and I am all for them, don't get me wrong). Having these corporate psychopaths clean up beaches and marine life will be pointless from an educational POV. But the real, greatest argument why I am against this idea is: these animals (mostly birds) have already tried cleaning themselves, by the time they are taken into cure by the various NGOs. Doing so, these birds have ingested copious amounts of crude oil, and typically die a few days, a week tops, after being cleaned. I look at this cleaning as a last mercy shown by humankind before they die. I do not want a corporate pig psychopath administering that "mercy" - it is simply revolting, and would be done utterly perfunctorily.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    7. Re:How to really motivate them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would that include the janitors, the shiftworkers, the engineers, who all showed up and did their jobs properly and safely? Because the people who were cutting corners and ordering the rank and file to ignore the warning signs are the executives. Blame them, not the joe schmoes who are actually doing their jobs.

    8. Re:How to really motivate them... by wizardforce · · Score: 1

      Would that include the janitors, the shiftworkers, the engineers, who all showed up and did their jobs properly and safely?

      yes. cleaning up an oil spill is a great motivator to do everything you possibly can to prevent having to do it again. If the higher ups are bone headed enough to do something stupid there should be a good reason for their subordinates to smack some sense into them in whichever way they can.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    9. Re:How to really motivate them... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Yeah! Lets punish a group of people, 95% of which had absolutely nothing to do with the safty of oil rigs just to satisfy the screaming mob! They're rich, who cares about how innocent they are!

      Really? You don't think the top 10% of the company has both the means to do something about shoddy business practices and has not directly benefited from them?

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    10. Re:How to really motivate them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      All the motivation in the world is not going to make any of these engineering procedures work any better. You can throw as much money at it as you want, but if it doesn't work then it doesn't work.

    11. Re:How to really motivate them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Parent is not a troll.

    12. Re:How to really motivate them... by khallow · · Score: 1

      Here's an idea for how to really motivate BP - and any other company with the potential to cause such massive havoc...

      Oh looky, internet rage on the internet.

      Here's the stakes for BP already. They're looking at up to 40 billion dollars of fines currently (that's a worst case 10 million barrel leak like some are hyping plus $4k per barrel fine for gross negligence). That probably would kill the company even though most of the company isn't based in the US. Plus there's possible jail time for a bunch of people involved. If that's not going to provide incentive for them to bust their butts, then sure, maybe subjecting tens of thousands of innocent people to some sort of kangaroo trial and absurd punishment might provide that missing motivation. It won't, of course, but it might.

      My view is that BP is already working hard to stop up this blowout. They've tried most of the stuff that's likely to work. My take is that the blowout won't stop until they get that sideshaft drilled in. Bear in mind that they started that sucker right away even as they tried all these approaches. We'll probably see the US government step in soon and continue to try this sort of thing. And once that sideshaft gets done, whoever is in charge will declare victory.

    13. Re:How to really motivate them... by daniel.b.douglas · · Score: 1

      It's a good idea, but unfortunately the combination of ex post facto and the 13th Amendment prevents forced labor for any worker who did not actively commit a crime. Perhaps you could get the CEO and some others on fraud, though.

    14. Re:How to really motivate them... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Yeah! Lets punish a group of people, 95% of which had absolutely nothing to do with the safty of oil rigs just to satisfy the screaming mob! They're rich, who cares about how innocent they are!

      Just to be clear, everyone who went to work for BP knowing that they were proven environmental devastators already is culpable for this crime, as is every single BP shareholder, from one share to tens of thousands. But the top management of BP is more culpable because the higher you are to the top, the more information you're privy to. Of course, we can't let Halliburton off the hook for using an untested formulation of concrete, either. People are focusing too much on BP and ignoring Halliburton, which if you will notice is party to just about everything bad in America.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    15. Re:How to really motivate them... by giorgist · · Score: 1

      PUT PEOPLE IN JAIL.
      Why are those that run corporations immune ?
      Get them some rear end action in Juliet.
      That should put a bit of fear into some of the big guys

      G

    16. Re:How to really motivate them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt that they are drilling slower than is possible just because, you know, they had no idea these relief wells were urgent.

      This disaster is almost certainly going to be more expensive for BP than following better safety procedures at all of their rigs would have been; it doesn't necessarily matter, however, that environmental disasters aren't in the best interest of a company, if there are perverse incentives for individual executives to take unacceptable risks. A single employee has a lot more upside and a lot less downside than the whole company does on any particular risky decision.

    17. Re:How to really motivate them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There IS one known cure for psychopathy, at least. It generally involves a coroner, though.

        Putting that aside, I can definitely agree with the poster on the mindset of oil execs, having seen firsthand the disdain and complete lack of compassion exhibited by similar folks at Atlantic Richfield during the mid '90s. I had the unique opportunity to listen in on a teleconference these execs were having with one of their HR people in Barrow; the poor lady there was positively apoplectic at the time regarding the environmental damage and the economic catastrophe the locals there were having as a result of what Arco was doing there (IIRC, her words were "we have people DYING out here! Do Something!")

      These asshats were quite happy to comment amongst themselves, and were actually laughing at her dilemma. Granted, I didn't have a full hold of the circumstances, I heard this conversation while waiting in an adjacent hall on approval status for a security ID, so it's possible that I may have missed something, but even so, the pathological insensitivity of these guys was appalling at best. It wasn't long thereafter I found employment someplace else, though the wages I am earning have never been even remotely close to what I made there.

      Poverty stricken as I am, though, I can at least face myself in the mirror, not so sure about these guys. Well, this is, I suspect, more the norm for this industry than not, amazing what a lack of conscience can accomplish, no?

    18. Re:How to really motivate them... by rhizome · · Score: 1

      People are focusing too much on BP and ignoring Halliburton, which if you will notice is party to just about everything bad in America.

      As much as I'd like to see Halliburton taken out to the woodshed and shot, they are BPs problem. BP's oil, BP's responsibility. I'm sure we'll see some hot potatoes passed around, blamewise, and everybody involved is going to satisfy their fiduciary responsibilities by avoiding culpability as much as possible, but this is BP's baby.

      --
      When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
    19. Re:How to really motivate them... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be surprised if 40% of the US were BP shareholders through pension plans and mutual funds.

    20. Re:How to really motivate them... by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      There IS one known cure for psychopathy, at least. It generally involves a coroner, though.

          Putting that aside, I can definitely agree with the poster on the mindset of oil execs, having seen firsthand the disdain and complete lack of compassion exhibited by similar folks at Atlantic Richfield during the mid '90s. I had the unique opportunity to listen in on a teleconference these execs were having with one of their HR people in Barrow; the poor lady there was positively apoplectic at the time regarding the environmental damage and the economic catastrophe the locals there were having as a result of what Arco was doing there (IIRC, her words were "we have people DYING out here! Do Something!")

      These asshats were quite happy to comment amongst themselves, and were actually laughing at her dilemma. Granted, I didn't have a full hold of the circumstances, I heard this conversation while waiting in an adjacent hall on approval status for a security ID, so it's possible that I may have missed something, but even so, the pathological insensitivity of these guys was appalling at best. It wasn't long thereafter I found employment someplace else, though the wages I am earning have never been even remotely close to what I made there.

      Poverty stricken as I am, though, I can at least face myself in the mirror, not so sure about these guys. Well, this is, I suspect, more the norm for this industry than not, amazing what a lack of conscience can accomplish, no?

      See, psychopaths don't have any issue sleeping at night or looking in the mirror, or looking anyone in the eyes. There's no conscience there. Nothing.

      Interesting account, by the way.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    21. Re:How to really motivate them... by owlstead · · Score: 1

      OK, let's let them clean rocks instead. If it doesn't cure them, it will alleviate my mind that those greedy bastards get what they deserve.

      I mean, they are responsible for one of the biggest if not the biggest oil spill in history. Of course, you can also count the 11 death against them, if you inclined to think that is the bigger issue (I certainly don't).

    22. Re:How to really motivate them... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be surprised if 40% of the US were BP shareholders through pension plans and mutual funds.

      Murder by proxy is still murder. When a group of people get together to plan someone's death we call it conspiracy to commit murder. Abdication of personal responsibility is how we got where we are today! The simple truth is that a certain number of people (perhaps a fractional number) have to die and/or be oppressed to support your lifestyle, and mine, and corporations are a way of abstracting away the responsibility so that you and I don't have to go personally enslave someone to build us an iPod, or personally pump oil out of the ground possibly spilling it all over the place, et cetera.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    23. Re:How to really motivate them... by zill · · Score: 1

      Parent is informative.

    24. Re:How to really motivate them... by PinkyGigglebrain · · Score: 1

      "psychopathy is NOT curable"

      Depends on what you consider "cured".

      I'm certain there are many militant environmentalists who would consider a bullet to their heads to be an effective "cure". Those execs should be thanking $DEITY that, while they have little regard for the lives of others, those others do.

    25. Re:How to really motivate them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that the risk BP has is subsidized while the returns are not. I will genuinely be surprised if they have a dip in profit margins, much less an actual quarterly loss. They are a company that is "too big to fail", where if they have any instability, you will see the US politicians cutting the company large checks, just like GM and AIG for national security reasons.

    26. Re:How to really motivate them... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      Stopping the spill? Sure. They're throwing lots of money at the problem, and stuff's still not working. Of course, they have other motivations to do that -- for one, presuming they can eventually stop it, they can also turn it into a viable drilling operation again. Also, every second that leak isn't plugged is more waste -- the same oil that's ruining the local ecosystem is also oil they can't sell, unless it's cleaned up, which costs a lot more than just pumping it up from the ocean.

      But what about cleaning up the coastline, now? What about doing proper fucking booming? And what about the sheer fucking carelessness that lead to the accident in the first place?

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    27. Re:How to really motivate them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You make a good point, how silly of me to assume they'd bother to care that much. Just shows that I am no psychologist, obviously. If I were still working there, I guess I would have the sleep issues that they have no trouble with, so it seems it's for the best I had the career change that I did. Thanks for that.

    28. Re:How to really motivate them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Furthermore, psychopathy is NOT curable.

      I am sure someone has a .45 pill they could take for it.

    29. Re:How to really motivate them... by toddestan · · Score: 1

      But I don't think he can swim.

      Frog suit!

    30. Re:How to really motivate them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're rich, who cares about how innocent they are!

      if it were really about punishing them for being rich, we would just fine them into poverty.
      The idea is to set an example that there are seriously unpleasant consequences for irresponsible behavior.

  28. Americans are suckers for BS military language... by fantomas · · Score: 5, Funny

    well you can sell the Americans anything if you give it macho BS military stylee language. They get all excited if you use words like "kill". Throw in a cowboy metaphor and you're away. Expect the next solution to be something like "predator total destruction high plains stealth option" or something similar ;-)

  29. Re:From Russia with Love by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, make them travel to Mars with no hope of return.

  30. No its their cars by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

    They all leak oil. What they need is to get some Japanese automotive engineers to show them how to really seal that thing up.

  31. Mud - blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They should simply pump down something like fitting foam glue plus (in a secondary pipe) some water to make sure it hardens quickly.

    But then, how do they pump down anything? Have they found a way for that that doesn't allow to pump up stuff in a similar way? Getting stuff down seems to be much harder than getting stuff up, considering that it gets up on it's own.

    1. Re:Mud - blah by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      No shit, Sherlock.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  32. Same players, same outcomes by zanderredux · · Score: 4, Informative

    No, really. If Rachel Maddow is right this has happened before and continues to happen in the same way. All same players, all same tactics, all same outcomes.

    Kinda WTF, but check this out:

    http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/c8sqn/rachel_maddow_finds_one_massive_wtf/

    1. Re:Same players, same outcomes by jayrtfm · · Score: 1

      Here is her story, with the broadcast from 31 years ago.
      Jerry Pournelle proposed to Reagan how we should prepare for these things.
      quote "In 1967 I proposed to Reagan that California create an oil spill recovery service, something like a fire department, to be financed by separation taxes from the oil industry. I later proposed it as a National Service, possibly a branch of the Coast Guard or Civil Defense. It would have a corps of professionals whose job was to learn all that was known about oil spill containment and cleanup, and others who would do research into what we don't but ought to know: what chemical detergents will aid in dispersing the oil with the least damage to the environment?
      ......The main lesson of the BP runaway gusher is that we must rebuild the Civil Defense organization. There are predictable potential disasters in every region, and it is clear that FEMA in particular and Washington in general is not competent to handle them. Yes, the oil disaster is a national disaster and would be were it in California or in the Gulf; but the organization of the resources of the region needs to be done in advance, and with local chains of communication and command. Yes, there needs to be research and development done before the disasters, but again, those who live in the areas will have thought more about it then someone in the old NASA building in Washington. FEMA is a disaster waiting to happen. Make that, FEMA is a disaster that has happened, is happening, and is waiting to happen again. We will always be disappointed in FEMA."

  33. There is one known method known to work by abigsmurf · · Score: 0, Troll

    Nuke the hole, bury with concrete. Tried and tested and known to work.

    How long is Obama going to sit by and let BP try lots of experimental procudures which could all make things worse when he's been sitting on a known solution all this time?

    1. Re:There is one known method known to work by maxume · · Score: 1

      Known to work 80% of the time, on above ground wells. And you and I have no idea if the geology surrounding this well is at all similar to the geology around the Russian wells.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:There is one known method known to work by abigsmurf · · Score: 1

      That's a better chance than any of the methods tried so far were given. Top Kill was 70% at best according to BP before they tried it.

    3. Re:There is one known method known to work by maxume · · Score: 1

      And how much risk is there that it will make things worse?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    4. Re:There is one known method known to work by JDevers · · Score: 1

      So you think that 80% successful at something completely different is better than 70% projected success rate on what we are actually talking about?

      I can beat my son 90% of the time at 5 card stud poker, the best poker players in the world win about 20-30% of their hands when playing at a full table. So, by your logic, I should move to Vegas so they will pay me to NOT play poker because I am so much better than anyone else at it.

  34. Just nuke the damn thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... and get over with it. What do you americans have all those mega-bombs for anyway? The irony alone that the "liberal, nice guy Obama" blows up some nuke for a "valid reason" would be worth the attempt.

    And right now it seems BP is only making it worse and not better anyway... so what is there to lose?

    After that fails, we probably should consider that even-cooler orbital ion cannon...

  35. Pissing contest. by stimpleton · · Score: 0

    Just as Cuba is still punished because they showed Kennedy up in front of his friends when his Bay of Pigs invasions got trounced, BP is paying for the Iran oil deal Ayatollah Khomeini reneged on with US oil companies in 1979. BP (*British* Petroleum) became a major player on the back of those reneged deals, when Iran took from the US and gave to the British.

    Now they are finding out that US administration with the backing of US oil corporates have a very very long memory. And with Iran back in the focus, it is time for them to pay.

    Pay back is a bitch.

    --

    In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
    1. Re:Pissing contest. by iserlohn · · Score: 2, Informative

      /faceplam

      The new BP is just a rebrand after the BP + AMOCO (ie. AMerican Oil COmpany) merger.

  36. The only amazing thing ... by Ihlosi · · Score: 2, Insightful
    It's amazing that BP can drill for oil with no provable solution to a catastrophic failure.

    ... is how naive you are.

    1. It's not just BP - the other oil companies are doing exactly the same thing. It's just that BP drew the short straw today.

    2. We do tons of things with no provable solution to a catastrophic failer. Do you want the short list or the long?

    1. Re:The only amazing thing ... by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "1. It's not just BP - the other oil companies are doing exactly the same thing. It's just that BP drew the short straw today."
      Oh shit, well as long as everyone else is doing it then I guess it's OK.

      "2. We do tons of things with no provable solution to a catastrophic failer. Do you want the short list or the long?"
      Take your long list. Now restrict it to things in which "catastrophic failure" also includes "catastrophic consequences". For example, the space shuttle disasters, catastrophic disaster resulted in the deaths of less than 10 people per shuttle. All of whom were volunteers with full knowledge of the risks. The risks they took were their own and the consequences were felt only by themselves. No one else died because they wanted to go into space. Catastrophic failure resulted in acceptable consequences.

      With this oil situation we're talking about catastrophic failure causing absurdly huge consequences. Make sure you don't confuse "catastrophic failure" with "less than perfect success record".

      --
      -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
    2. Re:The only amazing thing ... by igny · · Score: 2, Insightful

      things in which "catastrophic failure" also includes "catastrophic consequences"...

      It depends on the time scale. This particular catastrophe is nothing on the geological time scale. In fact no one will probably remember this spill 100 years from now.

      --
      In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
    3. Re:The only amazing thing ... by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 1

      >> no one will probably remember this spill 100 years from now

      There's a spill?

    4. Re:The only amazing thing ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Take your long list. Now restrict it to things in which "catastrophic failure" also includes "catastrophic consequences". For example, the space shuttle disasters, catastrophic disaster resulted in the deaths of less than 10 people per shuttle. All of whom were volunteers with full knowledge of the risks."

      People are perfectly able to find out the risks of petroleum exploration if they availed themselves of the information about what it actually takes to supply ~85 million barrels/day world-wide, ~20 million barrels/day of which goes to the US. Until recently, for most of these people their concern and understanding about where it all comes from ends at the tip of a gas pump and the price that they pay. You can't *move* 20 million barrels/day of anything without expecting accidents, let alone find and produce it from the ground in extremely technically challenging environments. The widespread lack of knowledge of the risks of petroleum exploration is on par with boarding a plane without realizing there is a small chance it could crash despite all the safety precautions taken. And anyone who thinks that BP or any other oil company would be complacent about an event like this happening is putting them in the situation of the pilot flying the plane. Obviously they don't want it to crash either. Nevertheless, crashes do happen, don't they? And sometimes it's "pilot error" too (i.e. they screwed up despite it being in their own self interest not to do so). Those realities don't stop people from boarding planes, because overall it is a safe industry. Likewise for the petroleum industry, but accidents WILL happen due to technical failures or human error. It's inevitable. The goal is to minimize those accidents, and holding BP to account for any mistakes made is the right thing to do, again, just like the accident analysis and litigation that happens after a plane crash.

      Two of the positive things that will come out of this disaster will be improved safety regulations and the education of people about what the risks really are. That won't make the risks disappear, however.

    5. Re:The only amazing thing ... by wanax · · Score: 1

      Indeed, because 100 years from now, the wetlands being destroyed today will most likely be under water due to global warming.... and who is it that funds much of the anti-global warming movement?

    6. Re:The only amazing thing ... by Eric+S.+Smith · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This particular catastrophe is nothing on the geological time scale.

      What a pointless truism that is. The worst atrocities in human history, combined, are "nothing on the geological time scale."

    7. Re:The only amazing thing ... by epiphani · · Score: 1

      You're assuming we fix it before the oil gets sucked into the gulf stream and pushed up the east coast.

      --
      .
    8. Re:The only amazing thing ... by True+Vox · · Score: 1

      In fact no one will probably remember this spill 100 years from now.

      Yeah, 'cuz nothing ever happened before.

      --
      "Gratuitous complexity is akin to chaos" - True Vox
    9. Re:The only amazing thing ... by sjames · · Score: 1

      1. It's not just BP - the other oil companies are doing exactly the same thing. It's just that BP drew the short straw today.

      If by drawing the short straw, you mean they suffered the consequences of completely ignoring all of the safety measures and knowingly proceeding with the BOP damaged to the point of non function, then yes.

    10. Re:The only amazing thing ... by slick7 · · Score: 1

      It's amazing that BP can drill for oil with no provable solution to a catastrophic failure.

      ... is how naive you are.

      1. It's not just BP - the other oil companies are doing exactly the same thing. It's just that BP drew the short straw today.

      2. We do tons of things with no provable solution to a catastrophic failure. Do you want the short list or the long?

      You're right, Iraq and Afghanistan for example. All for the control of oil.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    11. Re:The only amazing thing ... by slick7 · · Score: 1

      "2. We do tons of things with no provable solution to a catastrophic failure. Do you want the short list or the long?" Take your long list. Now restrict it to things in which "catastrophic failure" also includes "catastrophic consequences". For example, the space shuttle disasters, catastrophic disaster resulted in the deaths of less than 10 people per shuttle. All of whom were volunteers with full knowledge of the risks. The risks they took were their own and the consequences were felt only by themselves. No one else died because they wanted to go into space. Catastrophic failure resulted in acceptable consequences.

      The astronauts did not have an abort override option in relation to administrative decisions. Operational decisions, yes; policy decisions, no.
      It's the same with oil regulation. The oil companies BUY the decisions made in Washington and it's the American taxpayer who pays the bill. All profits go to the executive boards, stockholders and their political bought dogs.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    12. Re:The only amazing thing ... by slick7 · · Score: 1

      You're assuming we fix it before the oil gets sucked into the gulf stream and pushed up the east coast.

      Wait'll it gets to England. Then we will see how they deal with BP.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    13. Re:The only amazing thing ... by BaldingByMicrosoft · · Score: 1

      Geological time scale?

      My observation, at least here in the US: Once any crisis (or perceived crisis) becomes subdued, it ceases to be a factor of any kind after 6 to 9 months. After that point, the incident may exist historically but no one cares. If the incident is still causing an issue after 6 to 9 months it's most likely to be perceived as a "new" problem rather than a continuity.

    14. Re:The only amazing thing ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It's not just BP - the other oil companies are doing exactly the same thing."

      I'm not so sure of that. I heard of a report that BP by far had the most safety violations of any oil company. If I recall correctly, they had 168 safety violations while the second and third worst oil companies were tied at 8! (Even if I am wrong on the numbers, it was a HUGE disparity.)

      Also this can't be disputed...In recent history, One of BP's refineries in Texas had a big fire. The reason was lax attention to safety. Also the Alaska pipeline had a big oil spill that was caused by BP trying to cut the amount (and necessary) of preventative maintenance. There is evidence that the recent Gulf oil spill was also caused by BP cutting corners. In short, BP is just a very bad company.

    15. Re:The only amazing thing ... by edmicman · · Score: 1

      1000 years from now none of this generation will still be around anyway, so who the fuck cares? Methinks people will adapt to whatever climate change is present and life will go on....like it has all along. Where did this movement of keeping *everything* status quo come from?

    16. Re:The only amazing thing ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact no one will probably remember this spill 100 years from now.

      In 100,000 years it will probably show up as a band in some sedimentary rock in some seafloor-turned-desert. Archeologists of the day will wonder what the fuck that was all about (they will also be scratching their heads over the two tunnel boring machines under the English channel)

    17. Re:The only amazing thing ... by IdolizingStewie · · Score: 1

      This. Although the numbers you're looking for are even worse than you're thinking. Between June 2007 and February 2010, OSHA recorded 851 willful violations at refineries. 829 of those were at BP refineries. Sunoco came in second, with eight. Source

    18. Re:The only amazing thing ... by sbjornda · · Score: 1

      Take your long list. Now restrict it to things in which "catastrophic failure" also includes "catastrophic consequences".

      I'd be interested in your thoughts on Katrina compared to this oil spill. Or if you've already commented, perhaps a link? Thanks.

      --
      .nosig

    19. Re:The only amazing thing ... by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      Take your long list.

      Building cities in places where we really shouldn't, e.g. on major fault lines, near volcanoes, below the sea level, etc).
      Using dangerous chemicals (Bhopal and other disasters).
      Genetic engineering (we're still waiting for the disaster here, but since it deals with stuff that is self-replicating, there's a good chance of truly absurdly huge consequences).
      Most things nuclear, from reactor-powered satellites to discarded medical equipment (Goiania) to reactors going up in flames.
      Large dams.
      Dumping all kinds of crap (chemical weapons, etc) in the oceans.

  37. Top Kill by roman_mir · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    Here are the details.

  38. In the mean time by TranceThrust · · Score: 1

    are they pursuing the only thing sure to work, which is drilling at a tactically chosen spot of the same oil field to relieve or nullify the pressure at the leak?

    Or are they really going through all options sequentially, with the least costly and fastest solutions first.

    1. Re:In the mean time by vlm · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You have a false Dilema situation:

      are they pursuing the only thing sure to work, which is drilling at a tactically chosen spot of the same oil field to relieve or nullify the pressure at the leak?

      Correct action, wrong intention. The goal is to fill the well, from the bottom up, with heavy mud, just like when it was drilled. The "only" way to do that, which always works, is to drill the relief well. 100% odds of success. It just takes "about a quarter" to do. If you want to get all technical about pressures, the goal is to get the pressure due to the drilling mud to equal the down hole formation pressure... then theres no flow. (Once nothing is moving, you replace the heavy mud with heavy concrete, with predictable permanent results)

      Or are they really going through all options sequentially, with the least costly and fastest solutions first.

      Correct action, wrong intention. Its all PR. The stuff they're trying is basically PR with a slight chance of working and minimal odds of making the situation worse. I'm surprised they don't have the FIRST robotics schoolkids working on it for PR purposes, etc. For PR reasons you can't show the relief wells digging deeper for three months on TV every night, even if thats the only thing that'll work for certain. Also depending on random luck, three months is about the minimum time required. Unlike everything done so far, it'll work for certain, but it might take... six months due to problems, who knows.

      Some good life-advice is anyone whom tries to promise how fast they can dig a well, other than setting a finite lower time limit, is basically either being vague to the point of uselessness, talking about averages, or is a total B.S.er.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    2. Re:In the mean time by telomerewhythere · · Score: 1

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

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

  39. Should Not Stop! by b4upoo · · Score: 1

    For every barrel of mud pushed down that equals one less barrel of oil spewing out of the pipe. They need to keep pumping mud until another solution is in play. If it takes a full tanker of mud every day then so be it.

    1. Re: Should Not Stop! by vlm · · Score: 1

      For every barrel of mud pushed down that equals one less barrel of oil spewing out of the pipe.

      Are you a vegetarian? Its entirely possible to push so hard you pop the casing like an overstuffed bratwurst on the grill. That image is why I ask if you're a vegetarian, as you'd be unfamiliar with it. Actually if you're a vegetarian, maybe the old trick of stuffing dried beans into the crack of a rock, then soaking them until they split the rock might appeal to you, and is a partially correct analogy, but not as good as the overstuffed brat.

      I guess the best Slashdot-automotive analogy would be if the head gasket leaks oil because the pressure is too high for the damaged gasket, overfilling with oil to the point of hydraulic locking the pistons is likely to be the only thing you can do to make the situation even worse.

      The problem is we KNOW we have a weak casing and/or weak cement problem to the extent that its pouring out 15K barrels/day (or whatever, it does vary). One certain way to damage a casing and cement job is to pressurize it. One certain way to pressurize it is to pump stuff down there. Combine all of the above and I'm thrilled to hear they stopped before they burst that thing wide open.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  40. Nuclear option? by imsabbel · · Score: 1

    Maybe those russians should take a second look at it...

    --
    HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    1. Re:Nuclear option? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Funny

      Maybe those russians should take a second look at it...

      Yes maybe they could launch the operation from Cuba. Its quite close you know.

  41. Re:Americans are suckers for BS military language. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "predator total destruction high plains stealth option"

    Or.. You add an X to the end and it sounds Japanese.
    "predator total destruction high plains stealth option-X"

  42. Yeah, right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Nuking the hole. You really sound as if you knew what you are talking about. Proven by the Russians? It's at most rumor, and there are known records on Soviet dexterity in things nuclear (Chernobyl is just one among several).

    Go nuke your hole if you feel like that.

    1. Re:Yeah, right. by abigsmurf · · Score: 1

      Rumour? It's well documented the Russians did it. Several times too.

    2. Re:Yeah, right. by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The Russians have done it 5 times and it's worked 4 of those times. It was posted on slashdot a week or so ago, go read it. You're a moron for assuming it's a rumor without doing any checking.

      That said, OP is a dumbass too. The conditions in former soviet waters are possibly quite different from these waters and the nuke isn't an infallible solution with no ill effects. It's a nuclear bomb, there's obviously some dangers.

      However, what IS disturbing is that the nuke option is being dismissed out of hand. It has a track record of some real success, this indicates that's is not some crackpot theory that someone drempt up while high on meth. It's a valid option that deserves consideration.

      Every option has risks. Nukes, top kill, and anything else BP or anyone else will present. These options need to be considered and judged. But here's the issue, this is an ENGINEERING problem. We need ENGINEERS to stop this oil leak. It's being handled by politicians, lobbyists, and the business and accounting majors at BP. Not a real surprise that nothing is getting done.

      --
      -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
    3. Re:Yeah, right. by Knuckles · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not as deeply submerged, and just in strong rock.

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    4. Re:Yeah, right. by samurphy21 · · Score: 1

      The russians have used specialized nuclear explosions to seal gas field leaks. Oil fires, on land. Not underwater.

      I suspect it's still an option, and a quick google search shows that Obama has had his folks looking in to it since mid May to see if such an option would be viable under thousands of feet of water.

    5. Re:Yeah, right. by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      This isnt just a hole filled with oil, there's also a crapton of methane ice and other wonderfully combustible things down there. Nuking it might just make things worse by blowing the top off completely and letting it all out in one big splort.

      And that's without considering the ramifications of setting of a NUCLEAR GODDAMN BOMB right off of some of the most densely inhabited coasts on the continent.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    6. Re:Yeah, right. by nloop · · Score: 1

      Sure, "top kill" and "top hats" have risks. However, a caldera is not an associated risk, as it would be with a nuclear weapon. I dismiss cures with extinction as a side effect as well.

    7. Re:Yeah, right. by 7+digits · · Score: 1

      What kind of checking did YOU do ? Posted on slashdot, read from some blog, or seen on the interwebs is not fact checking.

    8. Re:Yeah, right. by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Perhaps we should start with some of our enormous conventional bombs before going nuclear?

      If all that's needed is an intense explosion to collapse the surrounding seafloor I see no reason something like a MOAB with no radiological repercussions couldn't work. Hell, anything's better than a 4" tube trying to suck it all up as it comes out.

      Why haven't we tried getting some of the enormous dredges used in the middle east at the moment to build private islands for the rich? We could have them suck up a boatload of silt from somewhere like the Mississippi delta and dump it in a concise pile on top of the spill. We could feasibly do this repeatedly until an island forms over the riser. If that's not enough to stop the oil, I don't know that anything would be.

      --
      If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
    9. Re:Yeah, right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "However, what IS disturbing is that the nuke option is being dismissed out of hand. It has a track record of some real success, this indicates that's is not some crackpot theory that someone drempt up while high on meth. It's a valid option that deserves consideration."

      It's being dismissed out of hand because upon the most superficial of considerations it's obviously NUTS. Leaving aside the radioactivity that would result (check out the questionable successes from operation Plowshare, one test from which introduced more radioactivity in the U.S. than any other nuclear test ), why would you resort to techniques that A) have a good chance of ruining the BOP (blowout preventer) and other gear on the sea floor that are currently constraining some of the flow, B) have been tried a mere 5 times with a 20% chance of failure in completely different geological conditions (not >1500m underwater, for instance), and C) would probably have an unknown effect on the gas hydrates that exist in the top few hundred metres of sediment around the well.

      Why wouldn't you exhaust the non-nuclear options first? There are plenty of those left even now. At a time when BP says "We don't know what to try next", maybe it might be worth considering, but I think most reasonable people would still wait for the relief well rather than blowing off a nuke and probably messing up the relief hole too (if a nuke is supposed to collapse the current hole, what happens to the relief hole being drilled nearby?). What then if you've wrecked the relief hole, the nuke doesn't work and/or it makes things worse? Just explode another one and keep hoping?

      The next option being considered is to cut off the riser sticking out the top of the broken BOP (even though that will temporarily increase the flow) and drop another BOP on top of it. That sounds pretty reasonable to me as a next step.

      The only thing driving any interest in a "nuclear option" is impatience and a lack of understanding of what is already being done. This lack of understanding is most clearly expressed in your implication that engineers are not the ones calling the shots. Of course the engineers are in charge of the operations. BP has basically signed a blank cheque saying "try everything while the relief well is drilled", and the engineers are diligently working on multiple options. You're confusing public relations with the actual work.

    10. Re:Yeah, right. by abigsmurf · · Score: 1

      A Nuke will eat up any oxygen for those materials to combust. One of the most successfull examples of a nuke being used was to put an uncontrolled gas fire that had been burning for 6 months

    11. Re:Yeah, right. by squiggleslash · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Russians have done it 5 times and it's worked 4 of those times.

      A better way of stating it would be: "The Soviet Union, a secretive dictatorship whose track record for telling the truth was even lower than BPs, used the Nuclear option five times. Of these, one time is known to have resulted in an even bigger environmental catastrophe than the original, while the exact results of the other remains largely unknown."

      If the Nuclear option was likely to work and unlikely to result in decades of radioactive oil pumping into the sea, I think the powers that be would be seriously considering it.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    12. Re:Yeah, right. by stonewallred · · Score: 1

      Because those bombs use a fuel/air mixture which is misted in the area micro-seconds before the charge that ignites them. sort of hard to spray a mist of fuel and air when you are waaaaaay under water.

    13. Re:Yeah, right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A Nuke will eat up any oxygen for those materials to combust. One of the most successfull examples of a nuke being used was to put an uncontrolled gas fire that had been burning for 6 months

      And, again, this is very different from the cases that the Russians used nukes for. According to news sources, the nuke method was being looked into. Don't know what the outcome was, but it's likely that we just have no idea whether it would work or not in this situation. Setting off a nuke in the gulf is probably a last resort if it's considered feasible at all.

    14. Re:Yeah, right. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      So far as I know, Soviets never nuked an underwater oil well. All documented cases were using nukes on land to seal leaking gas wells.

    15. Re:Yeah, right. by InfoJunkie777 · · Score: 1

      +2. Where are the mod points when you need 'em?

      --
      Don't explain computers to laymen. Simpler to explain sex to a virgin. -- Robert A. Heinlein
    16. Re:Yeah, right. by InfoJunkie777 · · Score: 1

      These are not 20 megaton "cobalt" planet busters. The Russians used very small bombs, just enough to do the job, around 20-30 kilotons. The Heroshima bomb was about 19 kilotons, for comparison. The bomb is detonated ABOVE the wellhead. The force shatters the surrounding rock and plugs the leak.

      --
      Don't explain computers to laymen. Simpler to explain sex to a virgin. -- Robert A. Heinlein
    17. Re:Yeah, right. by InfoJunkie777 · · Score: 1

      Sure, "top kill" and "top hats" have risks. However, a caldera is not an associated risk, as it would be with a nuclear weapon. I dismiss cures with extinction as a side effect as well.

      Are you serious? Do you know nothing of physics? You should if you are on Slashdot. It would take a 20 megaton hydrogen bomb to create a "caldera", and even if it did, with the thousands of atmospheres of pressure and icy cold temperatures a mile down, it would "freeze" the magma instantly.

      --
      Don't explain computers to laymen. Simpler to explain sex to a virgin. -- Robert A. Heinlein
    18. Re:Yeah, right. by InfoJunkie777 · · Score: 1

      In the earlier discussion on Slashdot a couple of weeks back the MOAB option was discussed (and dismissed) for very simple reason. The MOAB if a fuel bomb, and as such needs oxygen to work.

      --
      Don't explain computers to laymen. Simpler to explain sex to a virgin. -- Robert A. Heinlein
    19. Re:Yeah, right. by InfoJunkie777 · · Score: 1

      In fact, the one failure resulted in the situation being no worse than it was. As for the "powers that be", they know many voters would have issue with it. For all the wrong reasons. But there is no reason to tell anybody until it is tried. The results would only be seen by people with a few miles of the site. A big upwelling of water, like the old depth charges of WWII only MUCH bigger. During the 1960's the USA and other nations conducted underwater tests with HUGE bombs, to no ill effects. The radiation is absorbed.

      --
      Don't explain computers to laymen. Simpler to explain sex to a virgin. -- Robert A. Heinlein
    20. Re:Yeah, right. by MokuMokuRyoushi · · Score: 0

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that a nuke didn't consume the massive amounts of oxygen that conventional bombs do? In any case, this entire argument is pointless, unless you have viable proof that a detonation 5000ft under the frikkin' Gulf will have the same effect as a dry-land gas leak kill, which describes the scenario the Russians succeeded in.

      --
      Humans are terrible replicators of Godly things.
  43. I'm almost afraid to ask... by pedantic+bore · · Score: 1

    How much oil is down there? If we can't stop it, just how much oil is going to come out of that hole? Does anyone even know?

    --
    Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
    1. Re:I'm almost afraid to ask... by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      Probably around 10 billion barrels. Seriously. Undersea wells can produce unbelievable amounts of oil.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    2. Re:I'm almost afraid to ask... by Chysn · · Score: 1

      I've been trying to find an answer to this, too. Professor Satish Nagarajaiah, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Rice University, said on Thursday that there could be enough down there to leak for years. So this isn't really a wait-it-out thing.

      --
      --I'm so big, my sig has its own sig.
      -- See?
    3. Re:I'm almost afraid to ask... by vlm · · Score: 4, Informative

      Probably around 10 billion barrels. Seriously. Undersea wells can produce unbelievable amounts of oil.

      10 BBL would be the biggest entire-field discovery of the last half century, at least. I think no oil fields in the last quarter century have been found above single digit billions.

      Actual production from a professionally managed well, in a legendarily great field, that undergoes multiple enhancement and recovery operations, would be a world record setter at 100 MBL or so.

      Since this is a hybrid gas/oil well, and in a "eh" of a field, and nothing kills future production like overproduction today, I think a high guess for this well would be 5 MBL liquid oil.

      Assuming constant production (huge mistake), 5 MBL producible, and a reasonable leak rate of about 10 KBL/day, the well would stop on it's own sometime next summer. If you believe the idiots whom claim its leaking 200 KBL/day (more than any historical well has ever produced under any circumstances, as far as I know), it would have emptied out a couple weeks ago.

      However, wells actually produce in an exponential decay, more or less.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_depletion#Oil_well_production_decline

      So, the well will never quite go to zero, but once it drops to less than the battleship Arizona leak rate, I think we can stop worrying.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    4. Re:I'm almost afraid to ask... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      10 BBL would be the biggest entire-field discovery of the last half century, at least. I think no oil fields in the last quarter century have been found above single digit billions.

      Yeah, but no, but yeah but:
      Kashagan field (2000): 30 billion
      Zagheh field (2003): 7-9 billion
      Azadegan field (2004): 26 billion
      Sugar Loaf field (2007): 25-40 billion
      Tupi field (2007): 5-8 billion

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_oil_fields#Oil_fields_greater_than_1_billion_barrels

    5. Re:I'm almost afraid to ask... by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      From what I have heard, Macondo is pretty consistently estimated at 50 mbl producible, perhaps up to 100 mbl in total, which would not be recoverable and definitely not leaking out by itself without exhaustive enhancement measures. So at 10-20 kbl/d, this can go on for a while before we are down to Arizona leak amounts.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    6. Re:I'm almost afraid to ask... by vlm · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, but no, but yeah but:

      You have to realize that all those recent estimates are generally from folks whom financially benefit from enhanced estimates of reserve size. Its kind of a game on "theoildrum.com" to guess just how much they overestimate vs what is actually produced.

      Typical example from wikipedia quoting some initial reports from 2008 "The condition and size of the Carioca/Sugar Loaf field has yet to be clarified[1], however there is speculation that it could contain between 25 and 40 billion barrels["

      Two years later we get:

      http://oglobo.globo.com/pais/mat/2010/05/12/anp-anuncia-megacampo-de-petroleo-no-pre-sal-da-bacia-de-santos-916568146.asp

      Petrobras says its only 4.5 billion barrels.

      Similarly, one can read news.google articles watching Tupi estimated drop over the years from above 8 billion to now only about 5 billion.

      The oil biz is somewhat less transparent and open than most slashdotters are used to.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    7. Re:I'm almost afraid to ask... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >The oil biz is somewhat less transparent and open
      Living in Switzerland, I am acutely aware of that 1) , but you are mixing total resources and 2P figures; also the industry has gotten somewhat better at guesstimating after the 2005 Shell debacle.

      1) The industry for brass company name-plates is booming though ;)

  44. Reaganomics 101 by SpzToid · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Wait, I heard about this. It's called Reaganomics. But maybe the kids have a new name for it these days, what do I know?

    I am not an economist, not really; but I think it goes something like this: Smaller government is good, and the free sector can best self-regulate, and grow. As a result, great wealth is possible to accumulate, and it will naturally be dispersed across the community, and economy.

    And that is exactly what we have here. A very large, profitable, and dare I say efficient company, well except in safety perhaps. But they are very profitable for their shareholders, and the wealth grows and gets passed around.

    Oh dear, I hope this will not be misconstrued as an argument for wealth-distribution, when I really want is more regulation and accountability. And penalties imposed by the government, not penalties imposed by BP on the environment and everything pertaining to it. Big Polluters (BP) should PAY, and if they went under and the cost of energy rose, I see that as a good thing.

    Another name for Reaganomics was the 'trickle-down' theory. Of course that's a slight misnomer, because it is difficult to get that stuff back down there at all, but I digress.

    As a result of BP's growth and success over the years, now wealth is being transferred to a new, emerging sector of the economy, and thousands of smaller entrepeneurs engage in the clean up effort, lawsuits, etc. As a result of BP's largess, new smaller oil collection and recycling companies will grow; (nevermind they used to shrimp).

    Just put your trust in the markets. Free-market economics can overcome civilization, because its more powerful.

    Personally, if it means the price of oil is increased, I say OK, because then people will then use less.

    [some things I wrote in sarcasm folks]

    --
    You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
    1. Re:Reaganomics 101 by value_added · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wait, I heard about this. It's called Reaganomics. But maybe the kids have a new name for it these days, what do I know?

      LOL. The mere mention of Reagan is the equivalent of viagra for Conservatives.

    2. Re:Reaganomics 101 by misexistentialist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Government does end up fucking things up. It seemed like a good idea to come up with new regulations after the Exxon Valdez spill, so what did both parties of Congress do? Cap liability for oil spills at $75 million. Really only the free-market is strong enough to regulate a business with piles of money before which politicians swoon. Losing a platform, dumping your product in the ocean, paying the full cost of cleanup, and having difficulty with future leases is plenty of incentive for oil companies to regulate themselves if government didn't continually skew the market in corporations' favor.

    3. Re:Reaganomics 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems to me the 'big government' overseers did a bang up job along with everyone else. Government is not the solution, because government can be bought off by big business.

    4. Re:Reaganomics 101 by SpzToid · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and a little more than a year ago, Lehman Brothers collapsed, (etc.) and we just finished the regulation to prevent 'Too Big to Fail' again. Except it doesn't go far enough, and 'Too Big to Fail' CAN happen again.

      I am not an economist, but I understand they dislike uncertainty, along with the financial markets. But if Wall Streets lobbyists can keep skewing regulation like they do, the markets are inherently unstable, and uncertainty exists.

      Why do I feel like when we're assessing BP's cleanup efforts, well-paid lobbyists will have successfully lowered damage awards, and everyone not reaping the rewards of BP stock ownership, will have suffered more? Perhaps my fear is warranted.

      --
      You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
  45. call the cavalry :) by youn · · Score: 1

    I believe the next step is look for the 'PANIC' button and wait for the "super hero in your region" :)... well that's what seems to work in some movies :)

    --
    Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that :p
  46. Peak Oil by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    Don't worry, according to the Peak Oil theory, the oil should run out soon...

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    1. Re:Peak Oil by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 2, Informative

      According to Peak Oil, oil will possibly never run out - economically extractable oil runs out. You gotta be blind not seeing this happen right now. Why do you think we are drilling under such extreme conditions - deep water, arctic? The shallow, easily extractable wells are dry. There have been no giant fields explored for decades. Just a number for perspective: The Macondo field currently spilling into the Gulf contains an estimated 100 megabarrels - That satisfies world consumption for about 30 hours. All this effort drilling at the edge of technology, all these investments, all this infrastructure, for a day's worth of oil.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    2. Re:Peak Oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to Peak Oil, oil will possibly never run out - economically extractable oil runs out. You gotta be blind not seeing this happen right now. Why do you think we are drilling under such extreme conditions - deep water, arctic? The shallow, easily extractable wells are dry. There have been no giant fields explored for decades. Just a number for perspective: The Macondo field currently spilling into the Gulf contains an estimated 100 megabarrels - That satisfies world consumption for about 30 hours. All this effort drilling at the edge of technology, all these investments, all this infrastructure, for a day's worth of oil.

      Really? We have quite a lot of proven reserves, especially in Alaska that will go untapped because energy production has been highly politicized (increasing the risks of exploration and development expontentially).

      Other forms of energy start to become economically viable ($4.00/gal. is a figure I've seen floated) and our consumption will decrease long before we run out of proven reserves. Peak oil is absurd and defies Econ 101.

    3. Re:Peak Oil by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I sometimes wonder, and am thinking of writing an SF short story, on the concept that space exploration will be taken over by Big Oil looking for extraterrestrial hydrocarbons. Imagine mining comets or even Titan for hydrocarbons. The solar system is packed with them, and once prices get high enough, it might just be feasible to go in this direction. Even better, other than health and safety issues, no one gives a damn if you crap all over a comet, or even Titan.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:Peak Oil by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Other forms of energy start to become economically viable ($4.00/gal. is a figure I've seen floated) and our consumption will decrease long before we run out of proven reserves. Peak oil is absurd and defies Econ 101.

      Um, if consumption decreases that means that we would have hit peak oil. (yes, technically peak oil is about production, but I'm going to assume that we wouldn't overproduce)

  47. Doubling the cost by petes_PoV · · Score: 1
    It sounds like you're suggesting that for every deep-water oil rig that's built, the oil companies should build a spare "just in case" and have it start the drilling operation to get a lead in case there's a problem on the production platform. Given that in this case, the problem started when the production rig sank (and killed 11 workers), there doesn't appear to be any alternatives that having a 100% redundant rig standing idly by, for every one that's working.

    So the question becomes: how much extra on a gallon are you prepared to pay for this extra safety factor?

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    1. Re:Doubling the cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Norway is a major oil exporter.

      A gallon of fuel costs about $7 at the fuel station in Norway.

      Most people have cars with two litre engines or less that do not use much fuel. Car that uses a lot of fuel have high taxes.

      My wife, our son, and myself share a Toyota Yaris 1.4 litre. It is a nice car with enough space for the three of us plus visiting family members.

      Examples of car prices in Norway:

      US $79000 for a Chevrolet Captiva 2.0 LT VCDi 4WD Auto 7 seat 5 door (SUV) 2009 model.

      US $330920 for a Porsche Cayenne 4.8 V8 Turbo Tiptronic 5 door (SUV) 2011 model.

      US $29581 for a Toyota Yaris 1,33 Dual VVT-i 5 door 2010 model. We drive around in a 2009 model of this one.

      We do not have much of a need for anything larger here where we life in Dubai. The fuel is cheap, but we do not need any bigger car than we are used to from Norway.

    2. Re:Doubling the cost by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      It sounds like you're suggesting that for every deep-water oil rig that's built, the oil companies should build a spare "just in case" and have it start the drilling operation to get a lead in case there's a problem on the production platform.

      No, that's not what he said at all. He said this:

      The correct solution appears to be forcing oil companies to drill relief wells for existing exploitation

      So they drill the relief well down nearly to the deposit. Then they cap it, and move on to drilling the real well. If something goes wrong, they bring in a platform to open up the relief well and finish the drilling operation.

    3. Re:Doubling the cost by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      So the question becomes: how much extra on a gallon are you prepared to pay for this extra safety factor?

      I don't know.. how much extra a gallon are you willing to pay for cleanup efforts? How much extra are you willing to pay in taxes to support the disaster to the economies of New Orleans because of the environmental impact? How many peoples livelihoods are you willing to destroy so you can pay a little less at the pump?

      You speak as if the costs of this disaster and any future ones because of recklessness is just something we should all absorb and shrug at. There's more to life, economics and cost than simply gas prices.

      --
      AccountKiller
  48. Market Is Rigged Against Consumer Choice by KibibyteBrain · · Score: 1

    But consumer choice is necessarily impacted by price and availability. When oil prices get high, consumption does drop, its happened several times before, and consumers get used to the changes. Its just when energy is cheap and conveniently available everywhere, its naturally leads to greater consumption. That roadtrip for the weekend instead of just staying at home or running a home server instead of just using an external drive seem like nicer options in a cheap market.

    Energy IS cheap and available largely because lobbyists for the industry, often against popular opinion and the opinion of the consumers themselves, have rigged laws and regulations in their favor and against regulation and accountability. In a universe where this oil well didn't exist or the oil it produced was significantly more expensive because of safety measures, it is very likely consumers would have cared, at least much, as people would have just gotten used to such a world. The only parties that WOULD care are the oil companies who would see lower revenues and profits, and the government who would see less tax revenues from those profits. And so they work to rig the system to make consumers choose to consume more, not the other way around, which is why leaving the choice to consumers [alone] will never work.

    1. Re:Market Is Rigged Against Consumer Choice by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Also, in a universe where government regulation hadn't forced the oil company to explore for oil way out away from land where the water is a mile deep....

      Ooops. You didn't want to consider that, did you?

      'The oil companies rig the system to make consumers choose to consome more' ?? Really? What a ridiculous assertion.

    2. Re:Market Is Rigged Against Consumer Choice by siride · · Score: 1

      They would have had to go out there eventually to satisfy the demand for oil. Don't think they wouldn't have jumped at the chance either way to get access to untapped oil fields, even if they are in more dangerous areas.

    3. Re:Market Is Rigged Against Consumer Choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Ah, no, I don't want to consider that. Do you know why I don't want to consider that? Because it's a lie. Maybe you yourself aren't intentionally lying, you're just believing a lie that someone else is spreading. Heck, maybe even the person who started it even believed it was true when they made it up, even though they hadn't bothered to check. Have you seen a map of oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico? Here's a link to one. Obviously government regulation is what's keeping them a certain distance offshore, but it's not forcing them that far out. The reason they're drilling that far out is because they're following the oil, period! The locations closer to shore are already saturated with wells.

      Now please either find a successful argument against what I've said, or stop spreading this stupid untruth. Sure it satisfies some sort of need among certain people to blame everything on the tree-hugging liberal commies who are too stupid to know what's really good for them. Crazy right wing types seem to like to wallow in self-righteousness and shake their heads at whoever isn't in their clique. Trouble is, most of the time, they're just plain wrong, not to mention either extremely gullible or intentionally dishonest. Which of those are you, or, if you're not one of those, how can you possibly be right about this?

    4. Re:Market Is Rigged Against Consumer Choice by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      He's not talking about drilling closer in in the GOM. He's talking about California and the East Coast, where there are deposits close to shore that have been NIMBY'd out of accessibility.

    5. Re:Market Is Rigged Against Consumer Choice by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      He's talking about California and the East Coast, where there are deposits close to shore that have been NIMBY'd out of accessibility.

      ... and it's pretty clear at this point that the NIMBYism was well-founded. If only the gulf coast states had shown a little more NIMBYism, they wouldn't be in the soup now.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    6. Re:Market Is Rigged Against Consumer Choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Suuuure he was. Obviously this oil accident in the Gulf of Mexico is the fault of regulations on the location of oil platforms off the coast of California. Riiiight.

  49. BP != British by petes_PoV · · Score: 1

    Sounds like you've made the obvious error of believing that (what was once, but is no more) the company name had a meaning. Just like you can't get Chicken Tikka in a branch of Currys, or rent a radio from Radio Rentals. Forget it. BP is just as american as British Aerospace, Exxon, United Airlines and all the rest.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    1. Re:BP != British by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      BP is just as american as British Aerospace

      foreign ownership of BAE SYSTEMS is limited by law to 29.5%

    2. Re:BP != British by PPH · · Score: 1

      Its British managed. Ownership (i.e. shareholders) is a non-issue as very few 'US' corporations are US owned any more.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  50. flop kill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a surprise, Brits going around the world and making a mess.

  51. Evidence please by forand · · Score: 1

    I think the post above was referring to the fact that you and abigsmurf haven't actually provided evidence, you have made assertions. Do you have links which indicate that the Russians did this and succeeded? Other evidence that validates those claims outside of the USSR?

    1. Re:Evidence please by InfoJunkie777 · · Score: 1
      --
      Don't explain computers to laymen. Simpler to explain sex to a virgin. -- Robert A. Heinlein
  52. Re:From Russia with Love by rally2xs · · Score: 1

    What's worse about it? Just your irrational fear of all things nuclear?

  53. how about this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They tried putting an inverted teacup over the hole, but is was pushed away by the pressure. How about putting a big vacuumcleaner like contraption over it, that will
    a) suck itself down over the hole, and
    b) give an opportunity to suck up the oil into tankers.
    This way the pressure would be less of an issue, making it possible to do some actual work there.
    I think the Dutch have the machine for it, it's called a "sleephopperzuiger". (The inventions smoking pot is responsible for...)
    Then one could slowly fill up the whole thing with concrete, instead of trying to plug the hole.

  54. Maybe conventional explosives would work too by AttilaSz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It might also be possible to do it using a bomb or bombs with conventional explosives. The biggest current US conventional explosive bombs might be as effective as some smaller nukes. It's not implausible that they're as effective as the nukes Soviets used in the
    '60s and '70s oil leak bombings.

    That'd probably make the nuke-worried people a bit less worried. Although the thing to realize is that, really, the contamination from that nuclear explosion would still be orders of magnitude less than what the oil spill will cause if it's left untreated for much longer. So, if it calls for a nuke, then nuke it should be.

    Funny how there's a bunch of SF movies where we use nukes to avert a catastrophe, although it's almost exclusively of the "asteroid will hit Earth" variety. Well, here we have a different scenario on our hands, and it's real, and it needs to be solved soon.

    --
    Sig erased via substitution of an identical one.
    1. Re:Maybe conventional explosives would work too by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      The problem with using the MOAB is it is an air blast bomb which uses the shockwave it creates to do the damage. I doubt very seriously any of those have ever been detonated underwater, much less at the depths we are talking about here, so there is little data to go by on what the weapon would actually do in this situation, which of course would be a "bad thing" of epic proportions considering the kind of mess we'll have if it goes wrong. We have tested small scale atomics underwater during the 50s and 60s, going so far as to make atomic torpedoes so we at least have a better idea of what one will do at depth.

      The only other non nuke we have that might do the job is the MOP which is still in the testing phase so we don't even know what these will do on land, much less at the depths required here. There is of course the old Vietnam era Daisy Cutter but creating a massive fireball around all that oil and methane would again most likely be an epically "bad idea".

      So if all else fails and we decide to go with a "big bang" approach the safest bet would actually be the atomic, since we have so much data from all the tests we and the Russians did during the 50s and 60s. Considering the amount of devastation all that oil is gonna do if unchecked we may end up with little other choice. The only thing I have heard from BP that has any real guarantee of success is the relief well, which won't be done until August at the earliest.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    2. Re:Maybe conventional explosives would work too by MacWiz · · Score: 1

      So if all else fails...

      Didn't BP say that this was their final idea?

      "All else" has officially failed. Ironically, it seems like this is going to end up putting the anti-nuke crowd in direct opposition to the "save the planet" crowd. The division is already forming; the sea life is already dying.

      Whether or not the Russian success was overrated, we have nukes. Since all else has indeed failed, they are probably being considered. If successful, the government will have one more argument as to why we need to keep a ready supply. We (America) have no qualms about underground testing. A mile underwater seems rather safe by comparison, although mutation could potentially change the definition of jumbo shrimp.

      Okay, the jumbo shrimp was a joke, but the situation is not. If someone seriously thinks they have a better idea, instead of quibbling about it here:

      a) they need to get it to someone who can implement it,
      b) they need to convince Obama, like, yesterday, and
      c) they damn well better be right, or we're back to the nuclear option.

  55. Can't they already understand... by mx_mx_mx · · Score: 1

    Nuke it from orbit already!

    --
    Linux forever
  56. Guys, that "nuke it from orbit" remark was a joke. by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 2, Funny

    Really. It was just a joke! Guys, OK? Guys? Guys! Hey. Hey! HEY! Whaddya doing with that missile? GUYS!!!!

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  57. I say we blast off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and nuke the entire site from orbit.

    It's the only way to be sure.

  58. 70% probability of success by jmv · · Score: 1

    When I saw that figure, I was nearly sure it came out of some VP's ass and had nothing to do with engineering. I wouldn't be surprised if the engineers quoted "5%", but then management decided that if it was too low they'd be asked to work on something more credible. And of course if it was too high (e.g. 95%), then they'd look bad if it failed. 70% is about the highest probability that you're not surprised to see failing.

    1. Re:70% probability of success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're shitting on someone for maybe speculating on a number and turn around and speculate on one yourself? Unless you can back this up with some serious engineering experience on your own part all you're doing is blowing smoke up our asses. Furthermore, if you don't have any background relevant on these matters I'd still trust a CEOs guestiment over yours.

    2. Re:70% probability of success by jmv · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying I know what the odds where (I definitely don't). All I'm saying is that to me 70% is the kind of number you would make up when you think the odds are small and you don't want to admit it. Go read Richard Feynman's "What do you care what other people think" and what he commented about the Challenger disaster. When asked about the shuttle safety, the engineers would tend to quote numbers around 1% chance of failure, which happens to about right so far. OTOH, managers would tend to give numbers like 0.01% chance of failure.

  59. It's like an addict... by beaverdownunder · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...forgiving the deaths of their addict-friends due to a bad batch of heroin, since they won't do anything to jeopardise their own supply. Ban offshore drilling. Oil will cost more, but the cost of not doing so is far dearer.

  60. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why don't we just walk or ride our bikes so that our communities begin to be shaped in to real communities not disgusting lame sprawl?!

  61. Loop-dee-loop! Rachel Maddow explains... by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

    This has happened before. June, 1979 to be exact.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZjMP8YdNbg

    I don't know if this is evidence of one of the endless time-loops running all around and through us all the time which nobody seems to notice, or just a lot of retarded people running on automatic programming playing their roles, but this is nearly an exact replay of an event which happened thirty-one years ago.

    -FL

  62. Live BP under water oil spill video.. by ROMRIX · · Score: 1

    Live BP under water oil spill video link;

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

    1. Re:Live BP under water oil spill video.. by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Watch it now before it is banned in South Africa...

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    2. Re:Live BP under water oil spill video.. by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      Oh man, that is some kinky shit.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    3. Re:Live BP under water oil spill video.. by mxh83 · · Score: 1

      thanks

  63. The Mayans were right! by gearloos · · Score: 1

    I figure about Dec 2012 is the right amount of time it will take for this thing to kill off all the oceans. Is this the beginning of the end of the world? kidding but hey, think about it...

    --
    "Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
  64. 2 + 2 = 5. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quit being delusional and thinking 2 + 2 = 4. Sigh. You liberals!

  65. Why not continue pumping? by cnaumann · · Score: 2, Interesting

    One article said that the oil flow stopped while they were pumping in the mud. Why not continue the pumping operation with seawater to keep the pressure in the BOP as high as possible?

    1. Re:Why not continue pumping? by codepunk · · Score: 1

      Seawater would likely have no effect and or worsen the situation. Drilling mud is a high density fluid, the density is what creates most of the high pressures required to equalize the well.

      --


      Got Code?
    2. Re:Why not continue pumping? by cnaumann · · Score: 1

      I am not sure how the situation can be worsened. At this point, they need a temporary solution that will slow the venting of the oil into the ocean until the relief well(s) can be completed. The idea is not to try to 'equalize' the well. Pumping would be a dynamic fix. The pressure would only remain as long as pumping continued. They may find that the seawater forms viscous clathrates in what is left of the riser pipe further slowing the oil flow. If sea water won't work, then pump in clay (yes, tanker after tanker after tanker of it). Unless of course they were lying about stopping the oil flow with the top kill while pumping, in which case, never mind.

    3. Re:Why not continue pumping? by omglolbah · · Score: 1

      The "mud" is heavy compared to the pressure of oil and gas. Unfortunately you cant do the same with water as part of the reason the pumping of the "mud" works is that the weight of the mud works for you. Water doesnt have that weight and this leads to it not working as well or in some cases at all.

    4. Re:Why not continue pumping? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or at least just keep doing what they were doing (pumping in mud) until the next "solution" is ready?

    5. Re:Why not continue pumping? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cuz the Blow Out Preventer will Blow Out ?

  66. No, not really... by Type44Q · · Score: 1

    They've all been viable solutions so far with what was thought to be a real chance of success. Ultimately most of the solutions were impossible to test beforehand.

    http://http//wimp.com/oilspills/

    1. Re:No, not really... by Type44Q · · Score: 1
  67. now what? by weaponsfree · · Score: 1

    Nuclear wessels!

  68. And in other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And at the same time, we get word the US Gov *may* allow *some* dredging and artificial barrier island creation to protect wetlands and bayous...

    To that, I say states and local governments need to tell the US Federal Gov to go frack off, and "Dredge baby dredge"!!!

    Screw asking for permission.. ask for forgiveness later..

  69. Not Doubling the Cost by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It sounds like you're suggesting that for every deep-water oil rig that's built, the oil companies should build a spare "just in case" and have it start the drilling operation to get a lead in case there's a problem on the production platform.

    And what's wrong with that? It's not going to double the cost. There's lots of other costs. Also, biodiesel can be produced right now, profitably, as the USDOE projected at Sandia NREL in the 1980s. Or in other words, that fuel could have come from algae in the desert, but because of greed, it must be pumped from the bottom of the ocean instead. I reject the notion that offshore oil drilling is even necessary, and thus I have no problem with mandating that it be done sensibly.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  70. Solving problem in earnest by Max_W · · Score: 1

    I do not get it. Oil and natural gas are lighter than water and rise up to surface. Why not to build a giant steel cone and lower it on the oil well?

    Not a pathetic white box, which BP built by 2 welders, but a well engineered industrial device.

    Louisiana is being destroyed in real. Why the US government could not build this giant cone itself? It is also partly to blame as its inspectors were accepting bribes. So it is not only BP's fault.

    This cone would cost less that an aircraft carrier. They had to start welding it a month ago.

    1. Re:Solving problem in earnest by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Why the US government could not build this giant cone itself?

      Because there is basketball to be played, and talks with daughters to be delivered. Add in the photo-ops and there's no time left for solutions...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    2. Re:Solving problem in earnest by RGRistroph · · Score: 1

      The big box failed because methane is coming out as well as oil, and at that presure and temperature the methane makes an ice with the water, which clogs it up. The bigger a box or cone you make, the more of this will form, and the oil and ice will float and lift it off.

      You need a smaller box, not a bigger one, and possibly to heat it. You probably can't insulate it and let the hot oil keep it ice-free, because at that presure anything with air pockets like insulation has, is crushed flat and doesn't insulate any more.

    3. Re:Solving problem in earnest by zill · · Score: 1

      This cone would cost less that an aircraft carrier. They had to start welding it a month ago.

      But you see, with an aircraft carrier we can conquer 100 working wells, which is much better than fixing one of our broken wells.

    4. Re:Solving problem in earnest by Bitmanhome · · Score: 1

      ... the methane makes an ice with the water, which clogs it up.

      Isn't that exactly what we want? To clog up the pipe so the oil stops coming out? How is a methane ice clog worse than a rubber clog?

      ... the oil and ice will float and lift it off.

      If the box can resist being blasted off by the force of the oil coming out, it can resist a little bit of buoyancy.

      --
      Not that this wasn't entirely predictable.
  71. So BP is just window dressing until a relief well. by guidryp · · Score: 1

    It really looks like the other "Solutions" like the tophat, topkill etc, were just politics.

    Doing something (largely for the sake of appearenc) to quell the angry mob, while they tackle what actually works but will take time: Relief wells.

    So how many months until the relief wells are ready?

  72. Won't happen even if it is a viable solution by RevWaldo · · Score: 1

    The problem would be that if the United States - the self-appointed benchmark of responsible nuclear weapon policy - demonstrated a peaceful use for nuclear detonations, it would punch a major hole in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which supports non-proliferation of nuclear weapons AND the right to peacefully use nuclear technology. You'd have North Korea arguing it wants to use nuclear detonations for excavation, that sort of thing.

    .

    1. Re:Won't happen even if it is a viable solution by InfoJunkie777 · · Score: 1

      The problem would be that if the United States - the self-appointed benchmark of responsible nuclear weapon policy - demonstrated a peaceful use for nuclear detonations, it would punch a major hole in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which supports non-proliferation of nuclear weapons AND the right to peacefully use nuclear technology. You'd have North Korea arguing it wants to use nuclear detonations for excavation, that sort of thing.

      In short, "in a pig's eye". Using the bomb in this way IS a PEACEFUL use of nuclear energy. If necessary, the use would happen after a meeting with the IAEA, to make sure all safety conditions are met. As for North Korea, a) they don't have a working bomb yet. If they did they would have done a test to put a feather in their cap, and b) the whole world would cut them off. They are almost there already. That would put them over the edge.

      --
      Don't explain computers to laymen. Simpler to explain sex to a virgin. -- Robert A. Heinlein
  73. Re:Americans are suckers for BS military language. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As an American, can you tell me more about this plan you mention?

  74. It's Obama's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He said so himself...so it's all OK now.

  75. Informative? by bussdriver · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Electricity is NOT oil powered.

    ALL USA power corps get huge massive government welfare that has historically been many times larger than alternatives. It has not been a fair playing field, where alternatives must not only compete with the collection of free energy (created by nature over millions of years) but ALSO the government subsidies and they need much more R&D being literally 100+ years behind the conventional fuel R&D.

    Part of the problem is that it is difficult to monetize the additional costs of poor fuel choices and too many shallow and selfish Americans (which in the last few generations is practically our defining trait) do not care and elect people who easily fool them by thinly veiled tax games (and wars, and 3rd world exploitation) to keep costs down.

    GOVERNMENT reflects the populace. That is how it works. When you bash American government, you bash the American people who are totally responsible for it. I find that most miss this reality because its a product of masses of people and not doing what they personally want all the time -- eg; this is an example of the shallow minded lack of thought that goes on. The culture encourages this dysfunction which means it will spiral downward to some floor which will likely heavily be influenced by the effectiveness of the media to report to the people what is being done in their name.

    The MOB BOSS who makes vague orders and doesn't want to know how they are implemented but harshly judges those who do not deliver is a lot like how a representative democracy works! Public corp CEOs function similarly-- increase share price but don't get caught and don't tell us!

    CANADA requires a relief well be drilled AT THE SAME TIME. Their people still have a functioning government. I expected naive Americans to be upset when Obama didn't quietly clean up all their messes yesterday; he is not the naive one, the populace is. Furthermore, its like people thought he was a dictator superman (the super hero thing even became a cynical joke;) forgetting only the corrupt have "power" because they are going WITH the flow of the current system. A true reformer has little power and arguably can only go 1 step forward and 2 backward in our collective fubar.

    Welcome to reality. I'll think there is hope when I'm not modded down for speaking unpleasant truths.

    1. Re:Informative? by Khyber · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Electricity is NOT oil powered."

      Dead wrong. I can take you through two power plants in Memphis (non-TVA) that run off of refined oil products.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    2. Re:Informative? by Kagura · · Score: 0, Troll

      I'm hijacking this portion of the thread in order to say you should check out The Oil Drum, where a lot of subject-matter experts discuss the progress of fixing the BOP and other BOP-related issues.

      This is definitely a plug for this site, and I'm sure there will be others along shortly who agree the above site is wholly worthwhile.

    3. Re:Informative? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Government reflects the populace."

      Seems very analogous to, "She was asking for it", at least to me.

    4. Re:Informative? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      so what, the 1% of U.S. electricity that comes from refined oil products is insignificant. In the power generation industry where I used to work, we called those little chicken-shit oil burners "popcorn poppers".

    5. Re:Informative? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "CANADA requires a relief well be drilled AT THE SAME TIME."

      No, Canada does not. Canada is contemplating requiring that for Arctic Ocean wells only, because of the special conditions (i.e. ice). There are hundreds of wells drilled in the offshore of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland since the 1970s and none of them required simultaneous relief wells. In fact, there were two blowouts off Nova Scotia in the 1980s, one of which was contained on the rig after a few days (the blowout preventer was engaged and it worked), the other of which required drilling of a relief well. Neither caused significant environmental problems because the wells involved were gas wells.

      As far as I know there is no jurisdiction that requires simultaneous relief wells to be drilled during exploration in the offshore.

    6. Re:Informative? by bussdriver · · Score: 1

      It is not analogous to rape. I won't make any related commentary because the topic has too much emotion; hence your anon status in posting it.

      The main reason it is not the same is because the rapist is not HIRED by the victim and then told to accomplish something without regard to the consequences.

      How many times have you heard people pay lip service to "green" but be hypocrites in there own little ways? Take that and multiply it by the collective and you get what we have; its not a far jump conceptually to that of voting-- where your vote does count (in honest elections) but is a drop in the bucket compared to the results. It adds up and manifests into real results, good or bad.

    7. Re:Informative? by bussdriver · · Score: 1

      Oil to grid electricity negligible - we have bigger problems.

    8. Re:Informative? by haxney · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, you're right, but "I can show you two power plants" is not a good argument. It's fairly easy to take a look at the DOE list of US electricity sources to see that we get (as of 2009) 48.2% of our energy from coal, 1.1% from petroleum liquids and "petroleum coke" (whatever that is). Another 21.4% comes from natural gas, which I guess could be considered oil, but usually is in a separate category.

      It would definitely be accurate to say that most of our energy comes from fossil fuels or non-renewable resources, but we actually only get a small amount of our electricity from oil.

  76. why not keep top-kill going? by llZENll · · Score: 1

    what i dont understand is even if topkill doesn't work, which it didn't, why not keep it going until the next method is ready. wouldnt you rather have 19,000 barrels of mud coming out instead of oil? the next capping solution won't be ready for 5-7 days, thats 100,000 barrels of oil!

    1. Re:why not keep top-kill going? by Chase_Encode · · Score: 1

      This isn't dirt and water type mud. It is engineered material. While I don't think money is a huge concern for the cleanup, logistics play a huge factor. There is also the problem of just what the mud is doing when it is being shot down at this unstable "well head". The whole time you are doing it, it could be changing things for the worse. (Yes it could be worse) I think the best thing to keep doing while waiting on the relief wells and other forms of relieving the source is to focus on cleanup. The supertanker idea they used in the unreported arab big gulf spill seems to be viable. As in, the pieces are already present and only need to be moved. You have a means to load/unload the tankers in the gulf as well.

  77. A Giant Balloon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The pressure on the oil is incredibly high, so a solution that depends on rigid materials will fail. What's required is a giant balloon, which will expand to hold more and more oil until a "relief well" is drilled. Now, a balloon would have tremendous problems making it 5,000 feet below the surface without filling with salt water, so it must have an automatic seal and release able to function multiple times. A balloon will also experience tremendous difficulties expanding at 5,000 feet below the surface because of the pressure. It should also have a vacuum pump at the surface to equalize the pressure, allow the balloon to inflate, and encourage the oil to travel into it. The balloon can be transported to recover some of the oil maybe through electrolysis.

  78. Dump a million tons of rock on it by theolein · · Score: 1

    1. Dig up a mountain
    2. Carry rocks and sand to coast and load up on ships
    3. Dump all that on the leak
    4. No profit, only a closed leak.

    1. Re:Dump a million tons of rock on it by InfoJunkie777 · · Score: 1

      Too cost intensive and would take too much time. Nuclear option as the Russians have tried accomplishes this in a fraction of the time and money.

      --
      Don't explain computers to laymen. Simpler to explain sex to a virgin. -- Robert A. Heinlein
  79. Get some real cowboys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Alberta we lasso our oil spills and keep them well contained in the fort.

    http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&q=tar%20sands%20tailing%20ponds&tbs=isch:1

  80. Pull a net over it and dump bricks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dump the bricks over a net that's spanned across the hole, also I saw that grass attaches to oil. So, put grass on top of the drifting oil to collect it easily.

  81. Did it do anything? by kabloom · · Score: 1

    Did "top kill" at least slow the leak?

  82. Next step ... by PPH · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... was supposed to be a 'junk shot' where they jamb the BOP with plastic and rubber to keep the mud from squirting out. So when is BP going to whip out its junk and shove it in the hole?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  83. Turns out this happened 30 years ago too... by tnmc · · Score: 1

    Here's what happened then: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHmhxpQEGPo

    Everything going on now is essentially theatre.

  84. Duct tape by lsolano · · Score: 1

    Did they try duct tape already?

  85. False Dichotomy by catchblue22 · · Score: 1

    You aren't going to have to shut off your heating and electrical devices to reduce your consumption of energy. It will take years to happen, and it will begin with you making accumulating changes to what you buy and how you use energy. Eventually when your current car wears out, you will buy a new one. Instead of buying a Tahoe, you will buy the most efficient car that suits your needs. Eventually you will save up enough money to insulate your home more effectively. When your washing machine wears out you will choose to buy one with an extremely fast spin cycle, so that the dryer requires less energy. Perhaps when you sell your house next, you will choose to buy a home closer to were you work, perhaps something smaller, and maybe even a condo. And voila, you have reduced your energy consumption by 50% over ten to twenty years.

    --
    This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
  86. Presidential Leadership by DeanFox · · Score: 1


    I'm reminded of President John F. Kennedy - Man On the Moon Address almost 50 years ago. I'm still waiting for a President to do a "stop our dependency on oil" speech. Not unlike what we did with the atomic bomb.

    An all out National effort bringing together the brightest minds our great country has to offer. Lock them away with no limits on budget or cost. Perfect either Solar, Hydrogen, wind, all of the above or whatever and solve this country's energy "crisis" that we've been in my entire life. We put a man on the moon, we built an Atomic Bomb from what was just theory. We can figure out and implement a clean 100% renewable abundant energy source.

    Wait a minute. Why am I telling ya'll this... I'm going to cut/paste this in a message to the White House. ...I wonder how far along we'd already be in this endeavor had President Gore taken office.

    -[d]-

  87. re: consumer responsibility by King_TJ · · Score: 0, Troll

    I don't really agree.... What I mean is, we the consumers simply have energy needs for the things we use in daily life. The only logical course of action is to go with whichever options are readily available to use and at the lowest cost. I don't think I "owe" the nation, the world, or anyone else some sort of obligation to ignore the standards currently in use, and pay FAR more to use an alternative.

    It's not that we have a "desire to consume oil". We have a desire to retain a certain standard of living. Without oil, truck, rail and air deliveries of goods come to a halt. Transportation as we know it stops. That alone is a critical blow ... not even factoring in things like people's need for climate control in their dwellings.

    And "carbon credits" and all this other "Green initiative" stuff? Mark my words.... it's a lot of "feel good" nonsense for the general public to eat up, and a big profit center for others. It won't amount to a hill of beans at addressing any real issues. A lot of people who are unemployed or underemployed right now are salivating at the prospects of finding high paying new jobs in one of these govt. mandated "Green" industries. But it's artificially sensible.... (EG. We have a construction company in town called Alberici. A while back, they made local news headlines everywhere when they put up a big wind turbine and started bragging out their environmentally efficient new building. The "Green" advocates hailed it as a great move that more businesses needed to follow, etc. In reality? They mainly did it to score a big tax credit and some free P.R. The thing was so expensive to implement and returns relatively little payback on electricity savings - it's not really practical for purely what it DOES for them. Someone recently interviewed their management, asking if they were considering putting up a second one, and they sort of laughed, and said "No plans right now.") If it wasn't for govt. making tax credits or paying subsidies to keep these things afloat, they simply wouldn't make any economic sense to do.

  88. There was no Hardball. by mburns · · Score: 1

    Chris Mathews dropped his hardball this week when he let a petroleum academic explain that worries about the casing were restraining the use of the mud and pumps. The obvious point is that the casing is deficient by design if it can not tolerate a top kill operation.

    --
    Michael J. Burns
  89. While we're on the topic of bashing BP... by zill · · Score: 1
  90. Re:Americans are suckers for BS military language. by zill · · Score: 1

    "predator total destruction high plains stealth option-X"

    Excuse me, sir. Whatever you're selling there I'd like a dozen, please.

  91. Re: consumer responsibility by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    It's not that we have a "desire to consume oil". We have a desire to retain a certain standard of living. Without oil, truck, rail and air deliveries of goods come to a halt. Transportation as we know it stops.

    Are the only two options 1) to continue as we are and 2) go back to horse-drawn buggies?

    Thought not.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  92. Bar room petroleum engineer much? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    We're looking for solutions that'll work in practice under a great depth of water, not ones that work in theory under a great amount of alcohol.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  93. Megaman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Junk Shot" sounds like a megaman boss weapon anyway.

  94. Here's an alternative... by junglebeast · · Score: 1

    Instead of trying to plug it why don't you just send thousands of boats to start harvesting the leaking oil.

    If they send enough boats then they should be able to clean faster than it leaks, right? Hence cleaning up the spill, and simultaneously getting useful oil. At the very least, it will limit the amount of oil that pollutes the environment in comparison to standing around like a bunch of idiots scratching our heads.

    Action, people!

  95. Legos... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, Legos are the answer.

  96. BP fears admitting that they aren't up to this by robokop · · Score: 1

    the problem is that there are quite a few dutch firms who know how to handle deep sea operations like this, but BP doesn't want to admit that they aren't able to handle the problem their selves

    --
    -- Robokop
  97. You mean Operation Mexican Sombrero? by BrookHarty · · Score: 1

    You mean Operation Mexican Sombrero?

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

  98. Reminds me of Serenity... by hallux.sinister · · Score: 1

    "You know, in certain older civilized cultures, when men failed as entirely as you have, they would throw themselves on their swords..." - "The Operative"

  99. How do we motivate government? by MikeFM · · Score: 1

    The really disgusting thing IMO is that major governments haven't done much more than hold blame game hearings. This is really a pretty major problem and we haven't brought the full power of even the US to bear on the problem. We can send a man to the moon but not cap a damn well? There isn't a scientist or engineer in the entire country with an idea of how to fix this? Instead of pointing fingers and posturing we should be pulling in all possible suggestions, evaluating them in order of safety and likelihood to work, and trying them one by one. While one is being tried be getting the next effort ready.

    And for gawd sakes when we fix it then invest R&D in undersea construction and living. That is what basic research is good for - coming up with results to problems you didn't know you'd have.

    --
    At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
  100. Is anyone actually surprised by this result? by stonewolf · · Score: 1

    If you look at what has happened so far you will notice one thing. Up until they tried top kill BP has not take a single action that would put the well out of production. Every thing they have tried has had the goal of putting that well back in to production. When the last one failed they proposed an approach that requires them to cut the top of the control structure, an act that has a possibility of *increasing* the rate that oil is leaking. So, first they attempt a top kill and a junk shot that, of course, fails. Now, they have "no choice" but to try this risky technique. This risky technique which is designed to put the well back into production. And, oh yeah, it might still leak. But, they'll be getting the oil so what do they care? They have never been focused on stopping the leak. They have always been focused on getting the well back in production.

    Have you noticed how many complaints there have been from the folks on the gulf about the lack skimmers operating? Where are they? They all seem to be under contract to BP. CNN reported yesterday that a whole fleet were sitting doing nothing until an official of homeland security tracked them down and forced them to start skimming. Why is that? The reason is simple. Every barrel of oil they skim up is evidence that can be used against BP in court. Why did they lie about the size of the spill in the first place? Because anything they say about the size of the leak is an admission that could be used against them in court. Why did I see a BP representative, again on CNN, state that the pipe was 5 inches in diameter when it is 22 inches in diameter? The list goes on and on an on...

    Why, because BP is worried about leaving evidence that can be used in court. They are not worried about cleaning up the spill or even limiting the damage. They are interested in reducing the amount of evidence that can be used against them in court and getting the well back into operation. Killing the place that produces 80% of the seafood consumed in the US does not matter to them killing the ecology of the entire gulf does not mater to them. When the oil starts to wash up on their private beaches in the UK and Europe, you can bet there will be plenty of skimmers working. There will be no shortage of booms to block the oil. They care no more for us than their ancestors cared about the people in the the Americas, Asia, or Africa.

    Who are these people? The people running BP are the same British Aristocracy that raped India, introduced opium to China, started slavery in North America, and created the "troubles" in Ireland. These are the same people who we Americans revolted against. They are the same kind of people that the French were smart enough to feed to Dr. Guillotine's machine. These are people who for hundreds of generations have believed that they had the right to enslave other people and use them any way they choose. Are they hereditary sociopaths? Or, are they just raised to believe in their own superiority? I do not know. I do know that any aristocracy is institutionalized injustice.

    Now, through what is recognized as a huge mistake in the 14th amendment these aristocrats are able to hide behind the facade of a a corporation to hide from justice. Corporations were never intended to have the right to due process, or the right to freedom of speech, or the protection of the 4th and 5th amendments. Those are *human* rights. They are the rights of natural persons. Corporations are not supposed to have those rights. People have them. People can be held responsible for criminal actions by sending them to jail, or even (I live in Texas) by execution. But, no matter what a corporation does they can only be forced to pay a fine. You can't imprison a corporation. You can't execute a corporation. And, corporations have enormous amounts of money to spend on their own defence. Huge amounts of money to spend on lobbying. But, a corporation can not make a decision. People who run corporations make the decisions. If they decide to commit a crime their corporation pays a fine

  101. Solutions needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just don't see any solutions being posted.
    All I read here and on other forums is "Obama bad", "BP bad", "consumers bad", "let's go green", etc ad nauseum.
    C'mon tech guys, you're supposed to be smart!

  102. Reality Check by jmactacular · · Score: 1

    "Existing alternatives to oil"? I think many people underestimate the energy density, EROEI, portability, reliability, and current applications of fossil fuels, and overestimate the ability of known alternatives to take their place. Energy aside, paint and plastics alone cover the very fabric of our way of life. Make no mistake, we still need SEVERAL miracles to even begin to transition to another source. We live every day on discoveries that a hundred years ago would seem like miracles. So they are possible, but right now, we're nowhere close on this.

  103. Dredge It by jmactacular · · Score: 1

    If Dubai can dredge up enough earth to create artificial islands, why we can't we simply bury the leak?

  104. Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

  105. Just Wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are no guarantees that the relief well(s) won't fail in a similar manner as the original.

  106. You know, there IS only one way to be sure... by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    nuke it from orbit, its the only way to be sure...