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."

65 of 768 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.
    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.

    11. 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.
    12. 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.

    13. 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.

    14. 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.
    15. 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.

    16. 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;
    17. 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.

    18. 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.

    19. 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.

    20. 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
    21. 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.'"
    22. 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).

    23. 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.

    24. 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.

    25. 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.
    26. 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

    27. 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.
    28. 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.

    29. 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

  2. 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.

  3. 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..

  4. 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.)

  5. 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!
  6. 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
  7. 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?

  8. 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.

  9. 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 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.

  10. 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

  11. 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 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."

  12. Top Kill by roman_mir · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    Here are the details.

  13. 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.
  14. 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 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
    2. 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
    3. 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.
  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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.
  19. 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!
  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: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.

  23. 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.

  24. 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
  25. 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.

  26. 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.

  27. 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.
  28. 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.'"
  29. 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.