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."

Comments

Re:long history of cutting corners

[DarkOx]

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.

Re:Amazing

[phantomfive]

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.