Slashdot Mirror


Quantifying, and Dealing With, the Deepwater Spill

Gooseygoose writes with a link to this analysis by Boston University professor Cutler Cleveland. "Some reports in the media attempt to downplay the significance of the release of oil from the Deepwater Horizon accident by arguing that natural oil seeps release large volumes of oil to the ocean, so why worry? Let's look at the numbers." Read on for a few more stories on the topic of the Deepwater Horizon spill. theodp writes with some information on the remote-controlled efforts to stanch the oil's flow: "The work Tito Collasius does sounds a little like science fiction: Men on ships flicking joysticks that control robots the size of trucks as they rove miles beneath the sea in near-freezing depths no man could hope to reach. But BP's spill efforts rest in the hands of underwater remote-operated vehicle (ROV) pilots, who 'fly' the ROVs from command centers aboard ships, joysticks in hand and large banks of screens in front of them offering a view of the challenges they confront in the waters below. ROVs are typically used for commercial (as in the oil industry), oceanographic (science research and exploration), and military (mine reconnaissance and recovery) missions. If you're interested in joining Tito, training's available." Even if BP were to effect a perfect block for the oil, though, there's still quite a bit of it swirling in the Gulf — you've probably seen some gut-wrenching pictures of the affected wildlife. Reader grrlscientist writes "Some people claim that we should euthanize all oiled birds immediately upon recovering them. But I argue it is our ethical responsibility to protect, clean, and save these birds, even after they've been oiled, just as we should preserve and clean their habitats."

343 comments

  1. Re:oildrank by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you'll find out soon enough

  2. Don't try and blow it up by hack++slash · · Score: 0

    it may never burn out, like this fire that has been burning for 35+ years: The Door to Hell

    --
    To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
    1. Re:Don't try and blow it up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no. Nuclear bombs will fix the leak. Don't worry. We will use advanced Soviet technology.

    2. Re:Don't try and blow it up by vlueboy · · Score: 2, Informative

      it may never burn out, like this fire that has been burning for 35+ years: The Door to Hell

      We also have the Centralia mine fire, going since 1961 in Pennsylvania, US (39 years.)

      With the possibility of more of this stuff happening (see the Guatemalan sinkholes trying to swallow buildings into huge underground caverns), I'm beginning to see a problem. If something happens in your town but I can't leave relocate for financial reasons, like the bad economy plaging us and how hard it is to find cheap housing or sell/buy another house, there could be a "calculated risk but I must live here anyway" trend as our environment breaks down all around.

    3. Re:Don't try and blow it up by vlueboy · · Score: 1

      Apologies on the sucky grammar on my parent post. I also couldn't hyperlink properly to slashdot's sinkhole story --or whatever they're calling the process that eats the limestone ground from underneath poorly chosen sites.

    4. Re:Don't try and blow it up by camperdave · · Score: 2, Informative

      From what I understood the difference is that the limestone eating away process is a chemical thing. Water is dissolving the limestone. The Guatemala thing is more of a physical process, water is washing away the volcanic ash on which the city is built.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    5. Re:Don't try and blow it up by rfuilrez · · Score: 2, Informative

      2010 - 1961 = 49 years there buddy.

    6. Re:Don't try and blow it up by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

      Not that I recommend blowing it up, mind you, but isn't there a lot of water in the Gulf of Mexico which will serve to starve it of oxygen? (and steal heat, and such).

      I was under the impression the risks of trying to blow it up with an explosion were more along the lines of "it's still leaking a bunch, and the hole is much messier now and even harder to cap."

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    7. Re:Don't try and blow it up by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Informative

      Don't try and blow it up it may never burn out, like this fire that has been burning for 35+ years: The Door to Hell

      Hint #1: Oil/NG needs oxygen to burn.
      Hint #2: There is a serious lack of free oxygen 5,000 ft underwater.

      I'm pretty sure we don't have to worry about an underwater wellhead catching fire and never burning out.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    8. Re:Don't try and blow it up by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is slashdot; science and logic have no place here!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    9. Re:Don't try and blow it up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, Hollywood science trumps real science on slashdot.

    10. Re:Don't try and blow it up by ultranova · · Score: 1

      We also have the Centralia mine fire, going since 1961 in Pennsylvania, US (39 years.)

      I see your 39 years and rise to 6000.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    11. Re:Don't try and blow it up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's not your buddy, guy.

    12. Re:Don't try and blow it up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You misidentified the typo. According to wikipedia, it was 1971.

    13. Re:Don't try and blow it up by rfuilrez · · Score: 1

      And according to the article he linked, it was 1961.
       

      No one knows exactly how it started, but a coal vein has been burning under the Pennsylvania mining town of Centralia since 1961.

  3. All natural by Veggiesama · · Score: 5, Funny

    See? The oil spill is all natural. Nothing to see here, folks. The catastrophe was all in your minds. You can go back to driving SUVs, voting Republican, and burning rubber tires for fun again.

    1. Re:All natural by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 0

      See? The oil spill is all natural...

      What's the problem? It is! This stuff is leaking out of the EARTH, with no factory processing, it's just, you know, leaking... All Natural (TM) oil. Just the Earth "doing it's thing".

      --
      "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    2. Re:All natural by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I first heard this line of reasoning on Fox News and my first reaction was "scale, people." What's funny is that our local Fox affiliate keeps sending reporters up to the beaches of Santa Barbara where there's a fairly large natural oil seep as if to say, "See? It's no big deal..."

    3. Re: All natural by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      What's the problem? It is! This stuff is leaking out of the EARTH, with no factory processing, it's just, you know, leaking... All Natural (TM) oil. Just the Earth "doing it's thing".

      Maybe you should click the "look at the numbers" link near the top of the article.

      Also, I'm starting to hear estimates that the actual rate of leakage may be over twice the worse-case line on the plot at that link.

      The actual amount leaked will be argued in court for decades, since one class of penalty is based on that amount. BP has a strong economic incentive to make people think there's less of it than there actually is.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    4. Re: All natural by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      It doesn't really matter. BP is protected by law that their liability is capped at I believe $75 million (though that might not be right, its hard to find an actual copy of the bill), yeah, they are thinking about retroactively eliminating it, but really, other than PR blows, BP can easily pay for that $75 million out of their $16 billion of profits last year.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    5. Re: All natural by The+Hatchet · · Score: 1

      twice the figure given? Thats BPs "we are sorry for lying, here is the real estimate" number, which is still not that great. Some experts were saying between 50k and 100k barrels a day. Worst case scenario there is really, really bad. Plus, you don't exactly see giant plumes of oil covering parts of the gulf naturally, that leaking is likely slow and spread over great areas, causing no negative impacts, not a fricken volcano of black death.

      --
      Where is the mod rating for "scary"? Also, ...
    6. Re:All natural by sumdumass · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The reasons we are probably seeing things like this is to undo or mitigate the damage to the coastal tourism that is already being seen in the gulf area as a reaction to the spill. This will go more common as more and more industries away from the spill are hit with less and less business from the consumers on the beaches.

      This will hit hard around election time if something can't be done to curb the expected negative growth in the economy caused by this. Expect the idea to get really popular in the next couple months.

    7. Re:All natural by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not THAT hard to understand if anyone tries to present it. Quick, everyone in the world drip one drop of oil wherever they may be. Tiny problem, no big deal.

      Now, drip 6 billion drops of oil where you're standing right now (about 300,000 Liters) and see how much trouble it is!

    8. Re: All natural by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what if they are forced to pay $50 billion?

    9. Re: All natural by Darkness404 · · Score: 0, Troll

      If they are forced to pay $50 billion, they got screwed by the government.

      You can't change the rules while the game is in progress. No matter how much we like to hate BP, you have to realize they were just playing the game as it was presented by the US government. I think we can all agree that the liability caps were a stupid, stupid idea by now and if we retroactively enforce them, we essentially give the government to take down whatever business they don't really like.

      Should BP pay for the spill? Absolutely, but we missed our chance in 1990, it is simply unfair to change the rules of a game in progress.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    10. Re: All natural by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Boo hoo. Let me know when its any more unfair than having your livelihood wrecked because some BP fuckheads couldn't keep control of their oil wells. When you shit in the sandbox you should face some extraordinary rules. It isn't a game when you're fucking up my world. If BP ever played by 'fair' rules instead of bribing... I mean, lobbying politicians, drilling and ignoring safety standards, etc we could judge them by fair rules. But they didn't. They broke the rules, they hit below the belt, they rigged the odds and they fucked up. So screw the marquis of queensbury rules, the gloves come off now.

    11. Re: All natural by Simon80 · · Score: 1

      This isn't a game in progress, it's modern politics, and thousands of barrels of oil a day gushing into the Gulf of Mexico.

    12. Re: All natural by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The game is not the US government the game is a corrupted version the Lobbyist US Government, a government of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations (well at least the corporate executives, the investors quite often get it in the neck at golden parachute time). Of course the lobbyists can get kicked out on any issue or all together, the public just has to demonstrate the collective will to do so.

      Criminal negligence should never be allowed, prosecution for the crimes committed by BP, Halliburton and Transocean should be pursued. The executives responsible for those decisions should have their assets seized and spend the rest of their lives in jail. Can't find a way to do it, well, simply claim that some components of the oil are drugs and the companies involved are illegally distributing and dealing it (so seized under drug dealer laws).

      A for proof of their criminal negligence, well hey, you would have to be blind, deaf and dumb not to be aware of the evidence of it or a Republican politician to be able to shamelessly publicly lie about what is blatantly obvious or a Fox News presenter/reporter for whom the truth is nothing but a tool by which to extort advertising dollars and lies are what they really sell.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    13. Re:All natural by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps if the apostrophe you put into a possessive pronoun could leak out, your post would make sense.

    14. Re: All natural by Mr2001 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think we can all agree that the liability caps were a stupid, stupid idea by now and if we retroactively enforce them, we essentially give the government to take down whatever business they don't really like. [...] it is simply unfair to change the rules of a game in progress.

      If Congress can retroactively extend the length of copyrights that were granted half a century ago, then apparently changing the rules of a game in progress is A-OK.

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    15. Re: All natural by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      Taking the gloves off is a bad idea: you'll end up breaking your fingers. Much more sensible to put on illegal gloves with a horseshoe in them.

    16. Re:All natural by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, drip 6 billion drops of oil where you're standing right now (about 300,000 Liters) and see how much trouble it is!

      and then do this again every 2 to 2.5 hours for two months+. (or until such time as a big enough cork is invented)

      !

    17. Re: All natural by x2A · · Score: 1

      The correctness of anothers actions is not a prerequisit for the correctness of ones own.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    18. Re: All natural by x2A · · Score: 1

      "The game is not the US government the game is a corrupted version the Lobbyist US Government, a government of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations"

      All the more reason not to encourage giving them the ability to change and apply laws retroactively.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    19. Re:All natural by ultranova · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What's the problem? It is! This stuff is leaking out of the EARTH, with no factory processing, it's just, you know, leaking... All Natural (TM) oil. Just the Earth "doing it's thing".

      The periodic extinction of dominant megafauna (that's currently us) is also natural and just the Earth "doing it's thing".

      Just saying.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    20. Re: All natural by ultranova · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If they are forced to pay $50 billion, they got screwed by the government.

      And if they aren't, real human beings get screwed over by them.

      You can't change the rules while the game is in progress.

      Yes, you can. And in fact they regularly are, in more complex games, such as D&D. Humans are imperfect and the rules they make sometimes have holes which let some players screw other players.

      This is especially true of games where a huge disparity of power exists between players, such as the game of BP vs. real human beings.

      No matter how much we like to hate BP, you have to realize they were just playing the game as it was presented by the US government. I think we can all agree that the liability caps were a stupid, stupid idea by now and if we retroactively enforce them, we essentially give the government to take down whatever business they don't really like.

      And that's a great idea. Businesses aren't holy cows, they are the workhorses of economy; if one acts all uppity, why shouldn't it be put down and shipped to the glue factory?

      In fact I say we start the slaughter right now. I, for one, am tired of carrying horses on my back.

      Should BP pay for the spill? Absolutely, but we missed our chance in 1990, it is simply unfair to change the rules of a game in progress.

      Whenever there's a story about some company doing something technically legal but horribly unfair, we get a hundred posts defending their right to do so, saying that the "world is not fair; deal with it". The second someone dares to suggest dealing with it by treating a company the same way, we get cries of "wah! unfair!".

      Either fairness is important or it isn't. Either you can do anything you can get away with, or you can't. You can't have it both ways depending on whichever suits you best at the moment. Corporate America, which way do you want it?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    21. Re: All natural by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The $75 million cap only applies if there is no negligence, misconduct, or violation of law.

    22. Re:All natural by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this the earth version of letting the smoke out?

    23. Re:All natural by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Deepwater Horizon site releases 3 to 12 times the oil per day compared to that released by natural seeps across the entire Gulf of Mexico.

      This ignores the time scale, as the natural leakage keeps happening until we suck it all up. A release at 10 times the rate of natural leakage is not significant if it happens for one second. A release at 10 times the rate of natural leakage is significant if it lasts for ten years. At what point does the amount and rate become significant?

    24. Re: All natural by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Ex-post-facto law was also used on the political prisoner David Hicks.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    25. Re:All natural by FTWinston · · Score: 4, Insightful

      seeing how [Obama's] superior executive response has been to let BP fumble around forever?

      That's because BP are the ones with the greatest expertise here. Frankly, Obama would be acting very irresponsibly if he kicked them out of the cleanup altogether and just made them foot the bill. And with so much at stake, I really wouldn't want the president to act irresponsibly for the sake of making himself look better in the short term.

    26. Re: All natural by jbengt · · Score: 4, Informative

      BP's individual company liability for civil damages is limited to $75 million because the oil companies contribute to a fund that is to pay the rest. Who knows what happens if the liability fund is depleted before all the liabilities are met?

      Also, liability for breaking laws, rules, and regulations are not limited. They are breaking a lot of laws, and could be fined a lot, including up to $4,300 per barrel spilled (that could be a couple of $billion) the killing of wildlife (that could cost at least a $billion), and more.

      IANAL, YMMV, etc.

    27. Re: All natural by MrKaos · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When you shit in the sandbox you should face some extraordinary rules.

      Lets be realistic here, soon this will become a world wide catastrophe taking it beyond Just America as oil starts to get into the international currents and finds itself all over the world. Yeah it's a game, with more pawns than kings and guess what you and I are. Once it's there BP has won the game.

      Why? Because realistically no one here cares as long as you can drive and get your groceries. Slowly it will become a blip on the world media and it just doesn't affect you. After a while it will be the whole 'residents lives were destroyed and thats really bad but it's not me' and 'Gee the government really ought to do sumthing about it' kind of apathy will arise and our complacent little lives will once again be complete. Then it will become;

      Gee what about that oil spill - yeah terrible, tsk tsk.

      And ask yourself when the last time you felt strongly about something you actually wrote a letter to your pollycritter saying how you wanted the matter treated or regulations increased or laws or criminal charges pressed instead of just feeling angry and shouting at the TV before you call this flamebait.

      We asked for this shit because we just love it when the PR crew goes down on us and makes us feel like it's all right, it'll be alright, see, just an image change away and some funky 'we've learned our lesson now' ads from BP, maybe a name change or a buy out and we will all throw our money at them again. Heaps cheaper than doing it right.

      Here's a fun thing to think about, it's not just global warming but every biological support system that sustains life on this planet is in decline.

      There I said it, and we will all go on singing and dancing with full bellys until the next disaster.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    28. Re: All natural by DMiax · · Score: 1

      Yes, you can. And in fact they regularly are, in more complex games, such as D&D. Humans are imperfect and the rules they make sometimes have holes which let some players screw other players.

      Humans are not imperfect: that additional feat and skill is better than any other race advantage. Dwarves can move one square less when pushed, big deal.

    29. Re: All natural by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "So screw the marquis of queensbury rules, the gloves come off now."

      Only now? Is that like the "humanitarians" these days, appropriating the word while they only support the side they want? Face it, you're angry because you're powerless to stop this leak, and incompetent that you let it happen, so the best you can do is act like a child and lash out in anger.

      In any case, with or without the rules, you lose anyways.

      BP is a multibillion dollar company. They'll do like a lot of companies, sued by labor unions, buyers, investors, etc.--they'll close down, and come back as a new company by selling their assets to the same investors under a new moniker.

      This has little to do with them being fair, or big, or whatever--it has to do with them being geek. They'll kick your ass on the legislative side, and while you might get a small sense of smug satisfaction getting a payout pooled over the years, the same will be back making millions. And even if you get the ones who fucked up here (like those gunning for the CEO, as if he actually fucked up that particular well), they'll be another asswipe to step in and kick your ass, because that's the way they roll, and that's who incompetent and petty you are.

      It's people like you who forget the push and pull of these things; it's neither here or there. YOU only paid attention to the below the belt shit, the bad play, AFTER it affected you. You really didn't give a SHIT about it before much.

      See Armstrong. See GM (oh, wait, that was a bailout). See the airline industry.

      btw, boy, livelihoods are wrecked all the time. You just woke up that you got f*cked over and this impacts you and only now the gloves are coming off? Boo hoo. You're probably some shit who drives an SUV or a large pickup, or lives in a city where his food is trucked in. You're like a person talking about renewables, yet when I visit your home, you don't have a solar panel, wind turbine in site. The point is, the whole area benefited from infrastructure and the energy/oil/natural gas sector down there. They were happy reaping in the benefits, much like the housing industry liked the deregulation, until something "bad" happened and the bad practices came to light in their ignorant minds; they were part of the problem, and now it's easier to blame someone else than to look at their own actions or apparent impotence.

    30. Re:All natural by sumdumass · · Score: 0

      I really wouldn't want the president to act irresponsibly for the sake of making himself look better in the short term.

      So you don't think all the years of the US tapping into undersea telecommunications cables, or all the deep water search and recovery of Soviet Missile and military tech during the cold war, or the regulatory existence of applicable agencies and any equipment or insight that could be better served here?

      TO sum his position up in a crude third grade expression, he who delt it smells it. I don't think he is attempting to act anything outside his own interest. If he attempted something and it failed just like BP's fumbling has to date, the failure would be on him and he is attempting to avoid that. I think he is completely clueless- more so then Bush or the governor of Louisiana during Katrina. Saying I'm mad is not a commendable action or swift effect on the crisis.

    31. Re:All natural by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's the Earth version of explosive diarrhea.

    32. Re:All natural by FTWinston · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm with you to an extent on this point, but I really don't think that there's anything much more that he COULD do, unfortunately. After the initial failure/error, this would be a major disaster whoever was handling it.

      Deep sea expertise is one thing, but this isn't just a deep sea issue. This is also an issue with an extremely high-pressure oil well gushing out through a fair bit of broken machinery. Ignoring the dynamics of that would be a dangerous mistake, and unfortunately, when it comes to practical experience dealing with ruptured oil wells, the experts are likely mostly in private industry.

    33. Re: All natural by greg_barton · · Score: 1

      You can't change the rules while the game is in progress.

      That's probably the single most stupid statement I've ever seen on slashdot.

      You can change the rules of the game while it's being played if one of the rules is "you can change the rules during play." So right there your assertion is easily contradicted.

      But, there's just one thing: life isn't a fucking game.

      So get over it.

    34. Re:All natural by jandersen · · Score: 2, Informative

      The oil spill is all natural

      - just like strychnine and arsenic. Enjoy.

    35. Re:All natural by MoeDumb · · Score: 0

      Appoint Slick Willie the Oil Slick czar.
      Problem solved.

      --
      Mod Me Up. You'll make a grown man cry.
    36. Re: All natural by nopainogain · · Score: 1

      Wait until the Corexit 9500 pollutes the whole damn food chain! Try to remember back to your parents talking about Acid Rain in the 70s because of energy production runoff hitting the water cycle.. wait until the entire food supply north and east of the gulf of mexico is drinking rain laced with Corexit and Louisiana crude.. Obama approved corexit for use despite hundreds of scientific docs proving it is a: less effective as a dispersant of oil than many less harmful solvents b: highly toxic to hundreds of microorganisms and filterfeeders that are eaten by animals we in turn eat and (i love this part) was developed by some of his cronies in ILLINOIS. guess this is Bush's fault too eh?

    37. Re:All natural by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is worse, the government would likely have to spend MONTHS getting engineers back up to speed on the situation, picking up the pieces, trying to put together data (from BP Engineers, some who might not be so cooperative), figure out what happened before, and what to do next... and because they might not have engineers skilled in this kind of deep water drilling, possibly making a bad leak even worse.

      Worse, they would likely have to hire BP back on as a contractor to fix the solution, at inflated rates.

    38. Re: All natural by stackdump · · Score: 1

      you actually wrote a letter to your pollycritter

      Where did you pick-up this word? I tried to goggle it and got 2 results.

    39. Re: All natural by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Where did you pick-up this word? I tried to goggle it and got 2 results.

      Dammit, I thought I was being original, it was spur of the moment type thing.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  4. I sure if they say it enough... by 3seas · · Score: 1

    ...Those people of the effected gulf states will begin to believe it...

    Maybe the media can even convince themselves they errored telling everyone its the worse ecological disaster in US history.

    Lots of oil and gas are still leaking into the gulf, and the 6000 barrels being captured is not enough especially when you add it to the supposed natural leakage.....

    1. Re:I sure if they say it enough... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lots of oil and gas are still leaking into the gulf, and the 6000 barrels being captured is not enough especially when you add it to the supposed natural leakage.....

      Well whatever amount they've managing to recover through the cap is what it is. They may be able to capture some more but they've got to be careful trying to do so. They're supposedly working on supplementing their draw by using the mud injection lines to take additional oil out of the BOP which will increase their capture rate somewhat. If that's the best they can do until the relief wells are completed then we'll just have to live with it.

      It is almost a mile underwater you know and does complicate things greatly.

      What do you expect BP to do to control the leak beyond what they're already doing? Comb the world for a little boy who can wish the leak into the cornfield?

    2. Re: I sure if they say it enough... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1, Troll

      ...Those people of the effected gulf states will begin to believe it...

      BP and some of our corporate-owned politicians are doing everything they can to keep people from believing there's any problem. BP has reportedly bought $50,000,000 of media outlets for maintaining their image. Also, reportedly, local police are turning photographers away from places where there's coated wildlife to be seen, and saying that they're doing it at BP's behest. (Since when did your local cops work for a corporation?)

      Governor Haley Barber is skipping meetings about the problem and telling the media, "Come on in, the water's fine", comparing it to the light film of gasoline you sometimes see behind a motorboat when you get into the water to ski.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    3. Re: I sure if they say it enough... by Darkness404 · · Score: 0, Troll

      all of our politicians are corporate owned. Its just a few of them -cough- democrats -cough- are owned by "green" businesses who want BP, a competitor, out of business and so they are raising more of a panic than others.

      And why does it surprise you that cops are working for corporations? The majority of them are uneducated, ignorant, abusive thugs. They want their tax increases to get more money and higher pay increases. If they can get some corporations behind the tax increases, they have a higher chance of passing.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    4. Re:I sure if they say it enough... by Sulphur · · Score: 2, Funny

      Build a jig that would attach to the pipe below the flange. Push a tapered brass finger into the open end of the pipe with hydraulics. If the taper is right, it would not require huge pressure.
      Call it "Dutch Boy."

    5. Re:I sure if they say it enough... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Informative

      OK, all you armchair generals and Monday morning drilling engineers:

      Before you post your wonderfully insightful method for stopping the spill, read up on the several thousand other suggestions here.

      The rest of you just read the various threads anyway. More signal to noise than anything I've seen so far. Even think of donating to help the servers keep afloat.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    6. Re:I sure if they say it enough... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Actually, it wouldn't be that hard to do something like that. I'm not sure what the pressure is on the pipe that's busted, or the exact outside diameter of it but it wouldn't be that hard to design a compression fitting in two or three pieces that could be automatically or semi autonomously assembled on the sea floor.

    7. Re:I sure if they say it enough... by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      Going for the i.d. (also well known) would allow dealing with out-of-round pipe, and we know that the flange is well mounted.

      btw thanks.

    8. Re:I sure if they say it enough... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      The only difficulty I would foresee in using the i.d. is that you have to fight the outward flow to put it in place. If doing it externally, you could hing the cap leaving it "open" while placing the collar (for lack of a better term, feral?) around the pipe, tighten it then rotate the cap over with some sort of gate that will shut or slow the pressure enough to allow another feed pipe to be connected.

      I do have a theory on going for the i.d. that could compensate for the outward flow. It's basically an idea that would use the pressure of the well to tighten the cap by using wedges (about 6 of them) ringed in a circle sized to fit inside the pipe but only restrict the opening by 5% or so initially. Make them long enough that a hinged flap running with length of the wedge can be released using the force of the flow to move it across the diameter of the pipe and place pressure on the wedge on the opposite side of the pipe causing it to grip tighter to the walls. From there, a threaded pipe could be added with all the necessary safety equipment so that as it is tightened down, it opens the closed flaps inside the pipe, retaining pressure on the wedged fitting. The oil should be under control again.

    9. Re:I sure if they say it enough... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your attitude will change after a you stuff your face with all you can eat bubba gump's dispersant washed oil cooked crab.
      My attitude will change when the Constitution is restored, and these filthy oath breakers and their treasonous termites are jailed, this is what a real General swears an oath to do.

      Why should we waste time where moronic greed insanity rules over physics and logic?

      cap means expensive leaking sprinkler head
      "Has stemmed the flow" means gushing uncontrollably with a skinny milkshake straw poked in
      stopped isn't in the vocabulary because they don't want to plug the hole
      22" spike isn't in the dictionary because they don't want to plug the hole
      precision diamond saw means jagged f 'd up undressed cut
      instead of unbolting the flange, a need to cut
      5000 = 500,000
      Facts are lies
      No straight story

      I'll give you one that ain't on f 'ing "theoildrum dot com"
      Next big gulf storm is going to pollute people inland, then they get sick, then more lawsuits, more lies, more bs than you can shake a stick at.
      Where actually if the people were evacuated they won't have "chronic health problems" and "fried brains." If the powers that be allow that storm to hit with no evacuation it's premeditated domestic terrorism. Stick that in your arrogant drum

      It's time for a deadline to be set. Cap that hole by x or face life in prison.

    10. Re:I sure if they say it enough... by rotorbudd · · Score: 1

      Damn, you just had to tell the /. crowd about TOD

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it, but artillery is addressed to " Whom It May concern"
    11. Re:I sure if they say it enough... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Yeah because the oil company which has for many years prided itself on having the greenest image in the industry "don't want to plug the hole" while watching their share price plummet, people picket in front of their stations, and the world queuing up to sue them.

      Maybe it's time to replace your tinfoil hat with a giant sheet of lead because it's clearly not working for you.

      The only thing worse than armchair generals is an Anonymous Coward pretending to be an expert.

    12. Re:I sure if they say it enough... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Sorry - actually I found out about it here a couple of days ago. I assuaged my conscious by donating to their server fry fund. But it is a good resource, especially now.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    13. Re: I sure if they say it enough... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Governor Haley Barber is skipping meetings about the problem and telling the media, "Come on in, the water's fine", comparing it to the light film of gasoline you sometimes see behind a motorboat when you get into the water to ski.

      This is meant to be a recommendation? For water-skiing, or for the politician? Or just for going somewhere else?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  5. Re:oildrank by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    drink more!

  6. BP executive "hoodies" by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 0, Troll

    Unfortunately, the BP execs seem to be replicating the behavior of so the called "hoodies" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoodies ) from England.

    Tough luck for the folks in the Gulf . . .

    And tough shit for any stockholders in BP . . .

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:BP executive "hoodies" by slick7 · · Score: 1

      Tough luck for the folks in the Gulf . . .

      And tough shit for any stockholders in BP . . .

      Tough luck for the seafood industry. The price of seafood will go through the roof, where it is available.
      This is also incentive for Japan to increase whale and dolphin hunting quotas. Since America doesn't give a damn about the oceans, why should they.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    2. Re:BP executive "hoodies" by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Sucks to own a Red Lobster franchise, I guess. But those folks have been making their loot through the unsustainabe strip mining of the ocean for years now. It's hard to weep for them very long...

  7. Yeah, right. by AnonymousClown · · Score: 0, Troll

    I also think there is tremendous value in showing people the true costs of our oil dependence, so hopefully, society will begin realize that some risks are simply too great to support in our endless quest to satisfy this dependence.

    People value their big cars, big homes, energy guzzling electronics and expect other people to solve the problem or they just don't give a shit. As far as some people are concerned, fuck the birds! We need to make way for "progress"! Or God put us here to do what we want!

    People are cruel, shallow, and small minded.

    All a misanthrope needs to do is sit back with a beer and watch humanity destroy themselves with their shallowness and stupidity.

    --
    RIP America

    July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

    1. Re:Yeah, right. by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People are cruel, shallow, and small minded.

      All of us are some of the time.

      All a misanthrope needs to do is sit back with a beer and watch humanity destroy themselves with their shallowness and stupidity.

      Stupidity often burns me out too, but if we just sit back and do nothing we will run out of beer (and food, and clean air, etc.) and suffer greatly long before the end. So heave a sigh, shed a bitter tear, and roll up your sleeves for another tortuous round of cleanup and rebuild.

    2. Re:Yeah, right. by hoover · · Score: 1

      Before you blame all of humanity for these things and begin to believe humans are inherently flawed, please read "Ishmael" by Dan Quinn to help cure your misanthropy ;-)

      --
      Ever wondered whats wrong with the world? http://www.ishmael.org/
    3. Re:Yeah, right. by Rufty · · Score: 1

      We'll run out of beer? Homebrew.

      --
      Red to red, black to black. Switch it on, but stand well back.
    4. Re:Yeah, right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stupidity often burns me out too, but if we just sit back and do nothing we will run out of beer

      Man, this is seriously a great way to argue for the creation and maintenance of a sustainable civilization. Especially since there are some speculations that one of the reasons for founding civilization (agriculture and city living, as opposed to a nomadic hunter-gatherer lifestyle) was to to secure beer production.

      It's a metaphor for all the great things civilization affords us, but taken literally it could be useful for recruiting the average person to the cause!

    5. Re:Yeah, right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We'll run out of beer? Homebrew.

      Yes you can homebrew, but can you produce all the tools, ingredients, and other materials required for it without depending on the stupid masses? I think that was the GP's point, it's all but impossible to be completely self sufficient (and by that I mean producing everything you use or consume so as not to be dependent on a larger community) if you want more than a Neolithic lifestyle.

  8. Heh, by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Reader grrlscientist writes...it is our ethical responsibility to protect, clean and save these birds, even after they've been oiled, just as we should preserve and clean their habitats

    I love it. The BP executives should themselves be forced to help clean birds and other wildlife. It's the grown-up equivalent of writing "I will not pollute the ocean" ten million times on the blackboard.

    1. Re:Heh, by caseih · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But of course we all share the blame for this disaster. The root cause, after all, is our collective demand that BP drill for oil and sell it to us. Of course it's likely there were specific things that specific individuals did or did not do that precipitated this disaster, and yes they will have pay for their errors. But I worry about vilifying BP too much. It is almost as if we're trying to assuage our own consciences by mistakenly thinking that if we can just get BP to take the blame then everything will be alright and we can keep on living the consumption lifestyle.

    2. Re:Heh, by Darkness404 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, the root cause was that the government decided to put liability caps in the 1990s on oil drilling thus allowing BP to take a gamble and not have to worry about any real liability. There are safe ways to drill, the other oil platforms that aren't gushing barrels of oil left and right into the ocean are proof of that.

      We can place the root of the blame on our congress for failing to allow for the free market to have prevented this.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    3. Re:Heh, by camperdave · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't remember ever asking BP to drill for oil. I don't remember ever asking anyone to drill in an unsafe manner. No, BP has to take the blame for this themselves. They tried to take a short-cut and failed. There are plenty of other oil rigs that are chugging away just fine.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    4. Re:Heh, by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 1

      Maybe after watching all the birds they cleaned die from ingested oil, they'll feel some pang of guilt for all the lives and livelihoods they destroyed.

      Maybe... but probably not. Probably would suggest they're just pining for the fjords.

    5. Re:Heh, by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

      You know what? The execs should volunteer. Heck, you know what else? Obama should go there and help with the cleanup - and not just for a quick PR stunt, either, but invest a little in it, do it for a whole day - or even two. People would really respect the guy for it.

      (There's talk that people are seeing the Prez as powerless and ineffective, full of hot air over the issue, but I'm not sure whether that's broad-spectrum or mostly just conservative windbags. Either way, it would shut most of them up pretty fast.)

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    6. Re:Heh, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If you ever took a ride in a car or airplane then you share a part in this. You need to grow a pair and take responsibility for your actions before you can expect BP execs to.

    7. Re:Heh, by MadUndergrad · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Screw that. I've told anyone who will listen that we need to get off oil and tried to do so myself. I resent being lumped in with all the "drill baby drill" yahoos as part of the problem. Some of us are at least trying to be part of the solution.

    8. Re:Heh, by Idbar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Probably after watching all these losses, they will just raise the price per gallon so they can quickly recover from their economic damage. Wait were you talking about guilt for the birds or the oil? Ah... the birds... yeah... I don't think so.

    9. Re:Heh, by fyoder · · Score: 2

      I wonder if Obama has too much integrity for his own good. As President, he's got more important things to do with his time than volunteer to clean birds, yet you're right, politically that would go a long way. Likewise, one resident of the area I heard on radio was convinced that he wasn't doing anything because there weren't a lot of military and coast guard ships out there. Sure, there wouldn't be much for them to do since BP is the entity dealing with the problem, but it would create the appearance of government involvement in a solution, that is to say, it would look like he was doing something. On the one hand I respect him for his playing it straight, but on the other, if he wants to do good and do good for a second term, there's something to be said for making a good impression.

      --
      Loose lips lose spit.
    10. Re:Heh, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...everything will be alright and we can keep on living the consumption lifestyle.

      A 1% increase in the price of oil would make very little difference to us as consumers - but if the money were spent on improved safety on oil wells, it would make an enormous difference there. This spill didn't happen just because people were drilling for oil - it happened because they shaved the safety margins too tight.

    11. Re:Heh, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't remember ever asking BP to drill for oil.

      You did every time you filled up at the pump.

    12. Re:Heh, by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 4, Informative

      For the umpteenth time, only economic liability is capped to 75 million dollars. And that is only if BP cannot be found to be at fault for the spill. Even if it is found to be completely faultless though (rabid dolphins sabotaging the BOP, for example), BP is responsible for every cost associated with the clean-up.

      We can place the root of the blame on our congress for failing to allow for the free market to have prevented this.

      What? "failing to allow for the free market to have prevented this"? Ohhhh.... I get it. Even if the government regulation is a net positive, it's all because it's actually the free market at work. So if it's good, it's the free market working, and if it's bad, it's the government interfering. Got it.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    13. Re:Heh, by AGMW · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For the umpteenth time, only economic liability is capped to 75 million dollars. And that is only if BP and/or Halliburton and/or Transocean cannot be found to be at fault for the spill.

      Fixed that for you ...

      ... and whilst we're at it, let's have a quick look at the time a US company (Union Carbide) screwed the pooch on foreign soil (Bhopal) and perhaps use that as a yardstick for what the US deems a reasonable cleanup. From the linked page ...

      "Some 25 years after the gas leak, 390 tons of toxic chemicals abandoned at the UCIL plant continue to leak and pollute the groundwater in the region and affect thousands of Bhopal residents who depend on it ..."

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    14. Re:Heh, by Vahokif · · Score: 1

      So you're not using plastic or electricity or public transport?

      Understand, i think BP totally fucked up, but on the other hand, they're supplying for society's demand, and this kind of shit happens in oil drilling all the time. Hopefully this accident will encourage a large-scale effort to stop using this non-renewable and toxic energy source.

    15. Re:Heh, by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Yeah, all the losers who say crap like that are AC.

    16. Re:Heh, by abigsmurf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "I stick my fingers in my ears and go 'lalalalala' when people talk about the envoironmental impact and risks involved in oil drilling so I'm blameless!"

    17. Re:Heh, by Afty0r · · Score: 0, Troll

      I don't remember ever asking BP to drill for oil.

      You've never bought petrol? Or a product with plastic in it?

      I don't remember ever asking anyone to drill in an unsafe manner.

      You never bought one of those products because it was cheaper than a competitor?

      Methinks you need to think about it a little more...

    18. Re:Heh, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...BP is responsible for every cost associated with the clean-up.

      Unless the clean-up not only removes every trace of oil from the gulf, but also does it instantly (so no bird has its feathers clogged for more than a millisecond or two), then this isn't paying for the full consequences. First, they should pay for the cleanup. Second, they should pay for any damages that occurred despite the cleanup - breeding programs for any bird populations that were damaged, etc.

    19. Re:Heh, by wisdom_brewing · · Score: 1

      Completely agreed with you on that... Natural seepage of a much greater scale occurs but this is SO localised and theres no-one to blame but BP... I have a friend that works there (European shipping division, nothing to do with exploration) and he couldnt give less of a fuck... Let alone being well informed on it (I follow the stock and developments much closer than he does).

    20. Re:Heh, by wisdom_brewing · · Score: 1

      True that, collective blame is the fitting reply, but you cant expect people to say - Oh my god, this is my fault...

      I just really hope there are no retro-active law changes, there have been too many in "democratic" nations of late - Really worries me. BP is to blame, but thered be no need and/or ability to drill this well if the price of oil (due to demand/cartels(OPEC)/etc...) was high enough to warrant the huge outlay required to develop this type of well...

    21. Re:Heh, by wisdom_brewing · · Score: 1, Insightful

      How about I re-iterate

      If you ever took a ride in a car or airplane then you share a part in this. You need to grow a pair and take responsibility for your actions before you can expect BP execs to.

      Everyone shares responsibility to some extent BP is the main culprit no doubt...

    22. Re:Heh, by wisdom_brewing · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Completely agreed but MadUndergrad states hes making an effort... If everyone shared the effort it would lower demand substantially, if theres enough demand, economically feasible solutions will find their way to market

    23. Re:Heh, by Rocketship+Underpant · · Score: 1

      Oh, "only" economic liability. Whew.

      --
      He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
    24. Re:Heh, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't remember ever asking BP to drill for oil. I don't remember ever asking anyone to drill in an unsafe manner. No, BP has to take the blame for this themselves. They tried to take a short-cut and failed. There are plenty of other oil rigs that are chugging away just fine.

      'Plenty of other oil rigs' are operating in exactly the same manner as BP's. You might want to start panicking now or, at least, take a look around your house and out to your driveway and consider that you did ask BP to drill for oil.

    25. Re:Heh, by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Making a good impression" would sort of imply Obama would have to retroactively cease being the single politician who has received the largest financial contributions from BP, though, wouldn't you think??

    26. Re:Heh, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I don't remember ever asking BP to drill for oil."

      Yes, you did. Have you every drove a car or flown on an airplane? Have you ever walked across an asphalt-paved street or cement sidewalk? Have you ever bought out-of-season vegetables or fruit that has been transported to your local grocery store? Oh, oh, I know, have you ever used a computer? If so, then you've asked petroleum companies including BP to drill for oil.

      You are right that nobody asked BP or anyone else to drill in an unsafe manner, and they should be held to account for that if it turns out they were doing so. However, even if every oil company in the world is drilling in an extraordinarily safe manner, accidents will still happen. This is a risky business. Close calls happen all the time. There is enough safety equipment that the vast majority of potential disasters are averted (e.g., the blowout preventer engages like it is supposed to), but sometimes it happens. That has always been the case world-wide, and it will continue to be. Worse, it isn't getting technically any easier to find the oil that is left -- it is getting more and more challenging. Why do you think BP is drilling here at such extreme depths and expense? If this well were on land it probably would have been capped ages ago. But it's increasingly difficult to find oil in the easy places like that. People have long been in denial about the real situation and what is ultimately driving it: us as consumers.

      There is no formulation of the oil drilling process that will not result in oil-related accidents unless drilling is stopped completely, and everybody capable of posting here is almost certainly relying in one way or another on the availability of oil. The only way to prevent accidents like this in the future is through a two-fold plan: 1) in the short term improve safety practices even more than they have already, and 2) in the long term reduce demand / find alternatives. We're going to have to do the second one eventually, so we should get on with it. Maybe we can't be individually blamed for the safety lapses. We sure as heck CAN share the blame for driving companies to drill in such difficult and risky locations. We make that demand every time we put gas in our car or use plastics.

    27. Re:Heh, by jbengt · · Score: 1

      Except in the rare instance where there might be reasonable options other than travelling in a petroleum fueled vehicle, and you choose to buy your fuel from a BP station instead, driving a car or riding in an airplane is not the same as asking BP to drill for oil.

    28. Re:Heh, by Mspangler · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "I don't remember ever asking BP to drill for oil."
      Actually you did, unless you live a life without using oil, plastics, non-organic food, paper, a good many medicines, and no metals or lumber. Oil is everywhere.

      "I don't remember ever asking anyone to drill in an unsafe manner."

      Now that statement is entirely reasonable.

    29. Re:Heh, by stephenn1001 · · Score: 1

      I wonder how it will compare with the Exxon Valdez when it goes to trial?

      But the prosecution is going to have to find something to "blame" this on other than a drunk...

    30. Re:Heh, by fyoder · · Score: 1

      "Making a good impression" would sort of imply Obama would have to retroactively cease being the single politician who has received the largest financial contributions from BP, though, wouldn't you think??

      Given how critical Obama has been of BP, they might want to ask for a refund and give the money to Rand Paul instead. Paul understands that sometimes, you know, accidents just happen, and in blaming business Obama is being decidedly un-American. At very least BP should send Paul a fruit basket.

      --
      Loose lips lose spit.
    31. Re:Heh, by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Given enough energy and elements easily obtained without mining, petroleum products can be created. So no one using oil requested any drilling or any recovery of any such fossil fuels. They just requested the products currently made from oil. Sure, it may be cheaper to drill for it, and it may have been how it was first learned that it was so useful. But there is no "need" to continue down that path, other than the lack of cheap energy.

      I hereby request that the oil products I use be generated from other sources. Not that it will help, but "asking" requires affirmative action, and I had never asked for them to drill, and I just then publicly asked they they don't drill anymore. How's that working for me? Oh, "asking" doesn't make them drill or not drill? Then "asking" in your case bears no resemblance to any dictionary definition of the word.

    32. Re:Heh, by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you ever took a ride in a car or airplane then you share a part in this.

      If you are going to state it like that, you might as well say that if you've ever left your house or had a visitor, or connected with any external utilities, or done any business with anyone anywhere for any reason, then you are the problem.

      You can't walk down to the grocery store and walk back and ignore that everything in that store burned diesel or gasoline to get there. You can't receive visitors who drove or even took the bus to your house without taking responsibility for the oil. You can't have electricity without taking responsibility for the oil used to generate electricity (go ahead, tell me how it's mostly coal, then tell me how much oil/diesel is used, and note that it's non-zero, so even if you pay for "renewable" energy, there's a chance your actual power was provided by oil). And even if you take issue with that, what percentage of those who drive to work to provide your energy used oil products to get to work? So, if you are going to try to guilt someone, you might as well go all the way and make it quite clear how absurd your guilt is.

      Everyone shares responsibility to some extent BP is the main culprit no doubt...

      You might as well say it that way, rather than the whole "if you drive, take responsibility" when it's really "if you live, take responsibility."

      Which, again is completely absurd, no matter how hard I tried, short of buying a piece of land and erecting a fence to keep everyone in from going out, and everyone out from going in (oh no, flashbacks of The Village), I'd be contributing to oil usage. Unless that's what you are advocating, then it's a biased and useless assertion to say "if you drive, then ..." when it's really "if you live, then ..."

      You need to grow a pair and take responsibility for your actions before you can expect BP execs to.

      Well then, lets just revoke all laws about safety and such for oil, after all, if we aren't allowed to hold the people that caused the problem responsible, then we might as well go all the way. While on that, we should abolish all laws, because how can you convict a murderer if you broke the law by speeding?

      Oh wait, the rest of us that are sane realize that you can hold someone responsible even if you are a customer of theirs.

    33. Re:Heh, by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Actually you did, unless you live a life without using oil, plastics, non-organic food, paper, a good many medicines, and no metals or lumber. Oil is everywhere.

      I am not responsible for the choices other people make in producing or transporting their products. Oil may be everywhere, but BP ain't the only game in town. In fact, I don't know the last time I even saw a BP station, probably in the 1980s when they were bought out.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    34. Re:Heh, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [Citation needed]

      I don't think BP was even his largest oil company contributor.

    35. Re:Heh, by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      Bullshit.

      Yeah, "accidents happen", but since BP knew 11 months ago that something wasn't working properly, it's completely inexcusable that they didn't fix it.

      If it was a completely unforseen accident that nobody saw coming and that they didn't have a reasonable way to detect, then I would accept they could have an excuse. But in this case they knew perfectly well it was screwed up, and still chose to ignore the problem.

    36. Re:Heh, by ncstockguy · · Score: 1

      Au contraire. If you drive a gas burning car, you are asking BP to drill for oil. If you have not weaned yourself from the global fossil fuel grid you are asking BP to drill for oil.
      Most of us are oilaholics and probably will end our addiction only when we are forced to, economically.

    37. Re:Heh, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually you did, unless you live a life without using oil, plastics, non-organic food, paper, a good many medicines, and no metals or lumber. Oil is everywhere.

      I am not responsible for the choices other people make in producing or transporting their products. Oil may be everywhere, but BP ain't the only game in town. In fact, I don't know the last time I even saw a BP station, probably in the 1980s when they were bought out.

      That depends on where you are. There are quite a few that I've seen in a few different states in the Midwest (specifically Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, Wisconsin) in the last two decades. Of course, I've intentionally chosen not to give BP any business since this whole debacle began.

    38. Re:Heh, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, that doesn't fly. I bought my car about 12 years ago. The option to have an electric car didn't exist, and hybrids were nonexistant or notoriously bad for not working in winter. Also, they cost as much as a small house.

      I would have LOVED to have gotten a non-gas based car. I could not, because auto companies have been dragging their feet on alterantive energy vehicles. Should one have existed when I required a car, I would have gotten one.

      So no, I do not deserve the blame. If an alternative is nonexistant due to auto companies, then the auto companies are to blame, not myself. And if the various rumours over the years is true, the oil companies for pushing the car companies to continue developing gas-based cars.

      As for the immediate, electric cars are still piss-poor in winter up here, and hybids are still ludicrously expensive. Again, I'd love to get rid of this car and upgrade, but I tend to require... y'know... food and shelter.

      And besides... the people who should be punished... BP execs... won't be. Hell, they'll be getting a big, fat bonus for their latest capping effort!

    39. Re:Heh, by shiftless · · Score: 1

      yeah and if you've ever typed on a plastic keyboard, then you too are to blame. how about we quit with the blame game and start looking for solutions. we have no other choice but to use oil, so the question is how do we use it safely? clearly, the status quo is unacceptable.

    40. Re:Heh, by wisdom_brewing · · Score: 1

      Well... Yeh... My most simplistic view is the worst possible thing a person can do from an environmentalist perspective is have a child as EVERYTHING a person does has an effect...

      I still blame BP, as I made very clear...

  9. The Usual Suspects by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Slashdotters are better than the general public at understanding that this BP rupture's quantity of spewing oil is very serious and damaging, even where it isn't obvious on Gulf Coast beaches.

    So you should look at who is downplaying it. And then remember next time they tell you something how seriously low their credibility is. That they cannot be trusted. Their usual lying isn't usually as obvious as it is here.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:The Usual Suspects by slick7 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So you should look at who is downplaying it. And then remember next time they tell you something how seriously low their credibility is. That they cannot be trusted. Their usual lying isn't usually as obvious as it is here.

      Let's start with all the D.C. politicians who conveniently remain quiet. Why? I hear more clamoring from the governors of the states being affected than from the voter elected senators and representatives. Why?
      How many of the voter elected politicians are on the oil industry payroll? Why? What happened to safety administrator who abruptly "retired" when this whole fiasco blew up (no pun intended). How many oil executives and oil lobby politicians switch roles when things get dicey?
      If there ever was a call to separate Business and State, this is it.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    2. Re:The Usual Suspects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For insight TOD is pretty good because there is less initial snark for every new topic that comes up. TheOilDrum commenters always seem so dead serious about technical topics.

    3. Re:The Usual Suspects by Phroggy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But I'm not sure how helpful it is to actually quantify it. The amount of oil spewing into the Gulf doesn't really have any impact on the efforts to stop it; it simply must be stopped at all costs and BP is doing everything they can to try to make that happen. If the leak were twice as big, or half as big, the appropriate response would be precisely the same.

      So next we have the issue of cleanup of beaches. The amount of oil reaching the beaches is good to know, but not necessarily directly correlated with the amount of oil gushing out of the well - there's a lot of coastline, and the amount of oil hitting each spot will vary.

      As for the amount of oil that remains in the gulf itself, it seems to me there's not a whole lot we can do about that at this point. So while there's certainly value in understanding the nature and scope of the problem, in purely practical terms I don't really see how it matters.

      When you say "you should look at who is downplaying it," do you mean people who are saying this isn't really that big a deal, and it's not really that much oil? Or do you mean people who are saying the exact amount of oil isn't relevant to the task at hand? If the former, I agree with you, but if you mean the latter, you may want to reconsider.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    4. Re:The Usual Suspects by girlintraining · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If there ever was a call to separate Business and State, this is it.

      I'm undoing a lot of mod points to say this, but separation caused this mess: A lack of regulatory oversight and trusting that the private industry was putting in adequate safeguards. Business and State need to be working in a partnership -- it's a necessity. There was a disconnect; The people making the laws and doing the regulatory oversight didn't have the training or knowledge to know what measures would be effective (and what was just window-dressing). What we need to look at right now is how that relationship can be structured to best serve the public interest, rather than private interests as it has until now.

      I would start by putting people who design and work with these systems in front of Congress and coming up with effective measures the government can take to prevent private interests from causing this amount of damage again.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    5. Re:The Usual Suspects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's really very easy. If the outcome of this fiasco is the utter destruction of BP, then, and only then will all other oil companies be absolutely certain that their safety measures are top notch. You can regulate, you can pontificate, but at the end of the day, the profit motive wins. So if you aren't willing to mess with the bottom line, and I mean in a serious way, then you don't have any power of corporations. Since we've seen fit to remove any semblance of responsibility from the people that operate them.

    6. Re:The Usual Suspects by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

      Some of us figured that formula out years ago. That's why I believe next to nothing which comes out of the media today.

      If you're right, does it still mean you're cynical?

      -FL

    7. Re:The Usual Suspects by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm undoing a lot of mod points to say this, but separation caused this mess: A lack of regulatory oversight and trusting that the private industry was putting in adequate safeguards. Business and State need to be working in a partnership -- it's a necessity. There was a disconnect; The people making the laws and doing the regulatory oversight didn't have the training or knowledge to know what measures would be effective (and what was just window-dressing).

      I think the two of you are saying the same thing in the opposite way. There were lots of experts working on the regulations. Unfortunately, they were all experts working for businesses. They knew they were putting in loop holes. Government and business worked together to screw the people in a manner that looked like they were working together for the betterment of everyone.

      What we need to look at right now is how that relationship can be structured to best serve the public interest, rather than private interests as it has until now.

      See, there was an involvement between the two. They just worked really hard to make it look like they were being helpful while harming the people. Whether it's the banks, the oil companies, or the automotive cartel shooting themselves (and the American people) in the foot in the long term to try to get next quarter's profits up, they work really hard to pretend to be helpful while giving the expert advice and guidance to make some of the worst legislation possible.

    8. Re:The Usual Suspects by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      The amount of oil flowing from the rupture is important to know in stopping it, in most of the techniques used.

      The "top kill" technique countered the spew pressure with a greater pressure of mud pumped in against it, but not enough extra pressure to burst the damaged pipes. The pressure of the spew is exactly proportional to the flow rate, and the flow rate is exactly proportional to the volume over time.

      So when BP performed the top kill, BP knew the spew pressure, therefore the volume.

      Other techniques also know the flow rate, like the various collection domes they've been trying.

      It's not true that BP doesn't know the volume. What is true is that the public knowing the volume makes it harder for BP to pretend it's less.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    9. Re:The Usual Suspects by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      A lack of regulatory oversight and trusting that the private industry was putting in adequate safeguards. Business and State need to be working in a partnership -- it's a necessity.

      No, you have this exactly backwards. State needs to be continually working to keep business in check. This disaster and the lackluster response to it was brought to us by business and government working together. It is NOT what we want. The state is supposed to work for the people, and control business. The powers-that-be knew that BP didn't have enough booming, for example (and that's just one minor example.) Forcing the pre-drilling of relief wells would be one thing the state could have done to mitigate this problem, for example. If that raises the price of oil, so be it, but since oil companies seem to post record profits every time prices go up, suggesting that they are entirely artificial, there is clearly some sort of government intervention that could occur there. Or more to the point, some that could cease.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:The Usual Suspects by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      You and I have clashed in the past. But I agree with your post 100%. Especially the insight that wells must have relief wells drilled beforehand. And that only government in competition with business can make that happen.

      Good to agree :).

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    11. Re:The Usual Suspects by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      The governors of the states affected didn't do anything but collude with oil/gas corps before the catastrophe. Now they're shifting blame off themselves by blaming someone else. Even when they're right to blame someone else, that doesn't mean their spin is at all accurate, because it's designed to falsely avoid getting any blame on themselves.

      Note that the governors in question, of all 5 Gulf Coast states, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida, are all Republicans who were in power when Bush/Cheney (both oilmen) were running the country. They made money under Cheney's energy policy, and pushed back the inevitable consequences of catastrophe, just like they did in the financial system. And now they will take as much "Big Government" as they can get, after working to shrink government to small enough that they could "drown it in a bathtub". That is how they roll.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    12. Re:The Usual Suspects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "But I'm not sure how helpful it is to actually quantify it." You're right, it's not helpful at all. There are other people actually trying to solve the problem so you can go back to reading comic books now.

    13. Re:The Usual Suspects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is not true at all.

      If it were leaking 100 million gallons per second, the world would rally together to try to stop it.

      Any response is directly related to the severity.

    14. Re:The Usual Suspects by Xyrus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As for the amount of oil that remains in the gulf itself, it seems to me there's not a whole lot we can do about that at this point. So while there's certainly value in understanding the nature and scope of the problem, in purely practical terms I don't really see how it matters.

      One gulf hurricane in the area will demonstrate pretty effectively why it matters. A hurricane is capable of churning up deep water which means not only would an area need to worry about the oil at the surface but also any of those deeper oil plumes below the surface as well. There's a difference between weathering a hurricane and needing to evacuate due to toxic contamination.

      Given that it is expected that this year will be a hyper-active hurricane season it is very important to know the extent of the spill so hurricane prone areas are prepared deal with not only the normal hurricane threats but also the new HAZMAT threat posed by a category WD-40 hurricane.

      --
      ~X~
    15. Re:The Usual Suspects by jbengt · · Score: 1

      So when BP performed the top kill, BP knew the spew pressure, therefore the volume.

      Of course, it should be a no-brainer to measure the flow directly. If instruments exist unbroken within the piping or are brought down and inserted into the flow by the robots, they should be used. This would be the most straightforward and reliable way to estimate flow rates.

      Otherwise, while it's true that BP, and others, can make reasonably good estimates of the flow rate, the calculations would not be as straightforward as you say.

      Only for very low flows of highly viscous fluids in small pipes without fittings and no free discharge would the flow rate be proportional to the pressure. For high flow rates, large dimensions, low viscosity, and high densities (relatively speaking) the rate of flow is roughly proportional to the square root of the pressure difference. But the constant of proportionality depends on a lot of things, like pipe size, roughness, flow rate, presence of fittings, etc., and is not necessarily constant over a given range of parameters

      Also, the pressure at stagnation, when there was no flow because of the pumping of the fluid, is not the same as the pressure drop when there is flow. For one thing, the pressure at the base of the well can vary with flow rate because of resistance to flow within the oil reservoir. For another, you need to know the size, length, condition, fittings, geometry of discharge, and other parameters of the piping in order to model its' curve of flow vs pressure. With actual systems of unknown configurations, you would generally measure at least two points to reasonably reconstruct the curve of flow vs pressure. Typically, pressure at no flow and both pressure and flow at another condition would be used in order to establish how the piping is modulating the flow. Pressure at stagnation would not be enough unless the other parameters are well known, (which might have been the case before the collapse of the rig, but would not necessarily be after). Even then, it's not exact, because of all the unknowns that might affect the flow.

      Beware, also, that even the best estimations or measurements are made uncertain because of the mix of methane in the petroleum that bubbles out and creates an unstable two-phase flow of uncertain proportions.

    16. Re:The Usual Suspects by kencurry · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ...Or do you mean people who are saying the exact amount of oil isn't relevant to the task at hand? If the former, I agree with you, but if you mean the latter, you may want to reconsider.

      Here's the thing. We want the answer. We don't have to justify why. BP is responsible to us, and we want the fucking answer.

      If they had hit my child in a car, and I asked 'how fast you were going,' and their answer was "what does it matter let's just call the ambulance" I would destroy them right then and there. period. Irrational or not. I deserve the answer and I don't need to justify why.

      --
      sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
    17. Re:The Usual Suspects by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Apparently other oil companies are not nearly as cavalier. BP seems to have a singular reputation not shared by its peers.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    18. Re:The Usual Suspects by Cacadril · · Score: 1

      They knew the flow, I am pretty sure. However, just knowing the pressure drop is not enough. You also need to know the cross section area of the narrowest passage, where most of that pressure drop happens. It seems to me like they pretend that they don't know the internal geometry of the BOP, in particular they appear to ignore the position of the blind shear rams that failed to cut the drill string. But they may be right in the end: they may be unsure about the amount of wear taken by the edges of the shear rams. I guess the flow through the narrowest passage along the path is 10-20 meter per second, and it contains sand and grit. The cross section of the passage is rather small (20,000 barrel per day = 36.8 liter per second = 36.8 square cm times 10 m/s). The gap between the rams is likely larger, but partially obstructed by the drill pipe (which is partially severed and so also has a partially unknown geometry) and possibly by pieces of cement and small pebbles. Enough to introduce a high percentage uncertainty in the calculation of the flow from the pressure drop and the geometry.

      Another source of uncertainty is the composition of the flow. The well produces a mixture of water, oil, and supercritical gas. The ratio of oil in the total flow also needs to be measured. I guess they just don't want to tell what they know.

      On the other hand, they say they pumped up to 80 barrels of mud per minute. Still they were not able to overwhelm the flow. This should indicate that the BOP and riser was letting out a similar amount of fluid (or more). Mud has higher viscosity than oil (I presume; they choose the kind of mud that suits the operation). On the other hand, the pressure below the BOP should become larger when they pump in the mud, but not much larger, just about as much larger as the flow-dependent pressure drops further down the well at the then-current rate of flow, and then some. Given the reported numbers for the reservoir pressure and the pressure below the BOP, and estimating the density of the fluid, there appears not to be room for more than about 1000psi of velocity-dependent pressure drops below the BOP. That is about 1/6 of the pressure drop in the BOP/riser.

      80 barrels per minute = 115,200 barrels per day.

      --
      There is no substitute for common sense. Especially, no body of rules will do.
    19. Re:The Usual Suspects by greg_barton · · Score: 1

      But I'm not sure how helpful it is to actually quantify it.

      So you choose willful ignorance?

      Have fun with that.

  10. The Exon Valdez by b4upoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Take a look at the site of the Exon spill in Alaska. Although it has been about 30 years the beaches are still a total wreck and the area still can not be fished.
                  Coral reefs may be the worst injuries as they kill easily and may take hundreds of years to rekindle. It is obvious that financially damaged parties will continue to be damaged for decades.
                  And the large view is even worse. Human population is exploding and we are now absolutely confronted with the fact that oil driven technologies are a horror story. And we are jumping to adopt newer technologies with no way to estimate the great harm that they may generate. After all, only the lunatic fringe believed that oil driven advances were aproblem until the 1970 era.

    1. Re: The Exon Valdez by Brett+Buck · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      And the large view is even worse. Human population is exploding and we are now absolutely confronted with the fact that oil driven technologies are a horror story. And we are jumping to adopt newer technologies with no way to estimate the great harm that they may generate. After all, only the lunatic fringe believed that oil driven advances were aproblem until the 1970 era.

      My God, maybe we should just all kill ourselves now! And never try anything new on the off chance that it might prove harmful in some way in the future. Who gives a crap if half the world's population starves to death while we determine a perfectly safe energy technology?

               

    2. Re: The Exon Valdez by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's one big difference:

      The Valdez was carrying heavy crude. What's leaking in the Gulf is called "light sweet" crude. It's a mess, but it doesn't hang around nearly as long.

    3. Re: The Exon Valdez by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      The PolyagmousRanchMom, told me that the PolygamousRanchBrotherInLaw knows how to stop that oil well.

      Ok, he is a Phd in nuclear chemistry, and works for ExxonMobil. And earns his bread through patents. So this solution to the problem we will see . . . when ExxonMobil has their next accident . . .

      The PolygamousRanchSister said . . . stay tuned . . .

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    4. Re: The Exon Valdez by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

      The heavy fraction does stick around.

      Some fishing has recovered at Valdez; others haven't. There is no exposed oil, but there is buried oil. Burial slows degradation.

      A good lesson can come from natural seeps. Life isn't adapted to intense releases of oil concentrated in a given location. It is adapted to oil coming into an ecosystem in small quantities. Hence, the oil will be devastating to the Mississippi River Delta, and to a lesser extent, regions adjacent (if winds and currents hit it just right, it could cause some problems in the Keys as well). But at the same time, the talk of heavy oil slicks covering the US east coast, or even more extreme, turning all of the world's oceans to poison (yes, I've heard people make that claim) are pure hyperbole.

      If the Mississippi River Delta responds in the same way that the BOC responded to Ixtoc 1, it could be largely back to normal in two years. But there are definitely differences this time (namely, the depth, the extensive use of dispersants, and the low-oxygen waters of the delta). How that will change the picture, who knows. I suspect they'll slow the recovery.

    5. Re: The Exon Valdez by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, NOT stop everything until it's all perfect but how about not being cheap fucks and skimping on safety?!

      So far we've heard that BP was pushing for a faster and faster schedule, using only two plugs instead of three, forgoing a final check on the cement, and (think this might have been Transocean) ignoring CLEAR FUCKING EVIDENCE that the seal of the BOP was damaged (clear as in chunks of in the hands of workers that they brought to the manager).

      Oh, and stuff like the BOP had low batteries and one of the redundant systems was shot.

      And fuck MMS for being a bunch of corporate whores and letting BP FILL OUT THE INSPECTION REPORTS. WHAT. THE. FUCK. IS WRONG WITH THESE ASSHOLES?

      That's the problem and THAT is what makes me so furious. Maybe we need more regulation. Maybe we don't. It's kinda hard to tell when it appears that absolutely NONE of it was followed.

      I can only wish that some asses get nailed to the wall over this.

    6. Re: The Exon Valdez by rrohbeck · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We're past Peak Oil, so oil use will drop as oil becomes more expensive. In a few more decades large scale oil use will be a thing of the past.
      Until then ever more difficult, risky and expensive oil production methods will be used, so this will not be the last major accident.

    7. Re: The Exon Valdez by adolf · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's been a lot closer to 20 years since the Valdez spill, which happened in early 1989.

      I otherwise have nothing of value to add to this discussion. :)

    8. Re: The Exon Valdez by thePig · · Score: 1

      Also, the fact that top kill failed while their oil siphoning mechanism was perfected seems rather dubious.
      I understand that BP was taking a lot of flak, and they might be wary of pulling such a trick, but still my cynical side is not disallowing that possibility.

      --
      rajmohan_h@yahoo.com
    9. Re: The Exon Valdez by MadUndergrad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Regulation doesn't work so well when the people at the top are actively opposed to effective regulation. You don't think all that "drown the government in a bathtub" talk was just for show, do you? This is the "ad absurdem" part of the small government movement.

    10. Re: The Exon Valdez by BoberFett · · Score: 1

      You think small government is the problem here? How many trillions of dollars does the US govt spend each year? You're saying that isn't big enough?

      The problem isn't size. It's priorities.

    11. Re: The Exon Valdez by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 1

      Ayup. That's the big one.

      The government is the problem! Vote for me!

      Anndd then they prove just that. Ugh. Where's a beer when you need one?

      Eternal vigilance is required for many things.

    12. Re: The Exon Valdez by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MMS - Whats wrong ? Maybe this
      http://www.ogj.com/index/article-display/7119094075/articles/oil-gas-journal/general-interest-2/government/2010/05/doi_-report_finds.html

      BP and Haliburkon now have an official out - called contributory negligence.
      There is a systemic oversight problem, and oil companies can afford to buy the best officials - or promise them either way, they will retire better off.

      Now the question is how many OTHER BOP's have problems, and will there be a deep random audit to demonstrate the risk of being caught is a possibility.

      Meanwhile Canada and Mexico will start asking for 'dual' systems, which is going to make new drilling a whole lot more expensive = less profit.

    13. Re: The Exon Valdez by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the perjury. The Oil Industry testified in front of congress. I don't remember exactly who said what, but my impression is that they said they could handle a major spill, and the lack of oil booms to contain the oil indicates that they were most certainly not ready for this kind of spill, even if the spill itself weren't their fault. So, I say take everyone that said anything to Congress that implied readiness and throw them in jail for perjury and conspiracy to commit a felony.

    14. Re: The Exon Valdez by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [citations needed]

      (not trolling, just curious and would like to read up more)

    15. Re: The Exon Valdez by Zumbs · · Score: 1

      Maybe we need more regulation. Maybe we don't. It's kinda hard to tell when it appears that absolutely NONE of it was followed.

      That sounds an awful lot like an argument for more regulation, particularly regulation involving regular safety inspections by inspectors on government payrolls.

      --
      The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
    16. Re: The Exon Valdez by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 4, Informative

      Certainly. I'll try my best.

      Info on two plugs instead of three, damage to BOP seal, pushing for work to be completed sooner, and partial control loss of BOP: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6490348n&tag=related;photovideo
      Key findings from that are here: http://www.hillmanfoundation.org/blog/fcp-embeds

      Dead battery and other problems with BOP: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/j/d/jdf15/2010/05/oil-spill-stunner-bop-had-dead.php

      Skipping test of cement linings: http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/05/costly_time-consuming_test_of.html

      MMS letting BP fill out inspection reports: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/25/eveningnews/main6518694.shtml

      Did I miss anything?

    17. Re: The Exon Valdez by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 1

      ...or it could be an argument for conscripting anyone to work in Iraq for willfully not doing their job.

      Or going Vlad the Impaler on them.

      Or arresting them right fucking now, no bail, assets seized, and they can start raking beaches with a ball&chain.

      Or we could go China on this and execute the idiots who let this happen and assholes who choose to skimp out on safety.

      I guess that last one is pretty much the same as the Vlad the Impaler option. There's a lot of things this whole fuckup allows us to make persuasive arguments about.

    18. Re: The Exon Valdez by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 1

      Yeah but since BP filled out their own inspections saying everything was peachy, doesn't that mean they're in trouble for not properly inspecting?

      I was trying to make a funny but now I'm curious if that line of thought would fly....

    19. Re: The Exon Valdez by maxume · · Score: 1

      The oil is coming out of the pipe at several thousand psi. For the top kill to work, they had to pump the mud down against that flow. It was a shot in the dark.

      If they seal the well once they have finished drilling the relief well, be sure to issue a mea culpa on your cynicism.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    20. Re: The Exon Valdez by mrlibertarian · · Score: 1

      Too little inspection, accidents happen. Too much inspection, and you get "analysis paralysis". Every company has an incentive to find the right balance between these two extremes. The market rewards companies who find the right balance, and punishes companies who fail (e.g. BP).

      Now, you expect me to believe the government will magically be able to find a better balance between the two extremes (even though they have no real financial incentive to do so), simply because the head guy "supports effective regulation"? Sorry, but a single company's failure does not prove the government can allocate resources any better.

      What I will believe, however, is that you can find a government bureaucrat who will go to the "too much inspection" extreme and give us "analysis paralysis". In other words, there will be so much red tape that few projects will ever be started, and therefore, there will be few major accidents. I'm sure that some will say he's doing a great job because so few accidents have happened under his watch, but does that really mean he's allocating resources correctly? Unlike a private company, there are aren't any profits and losses we can use to objectively measure his performance. And that's the general problem with government regulation.

    21. Re: The Exon Valdez by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the market's penalties do nothing to help the economies of the region, nor the wildlife. What the market does is strip away value, eventually (depending on the size of the company) interfering with its capacity to clean up its mess. The markets do a great job of penalizing an errant company like BP, it does nothing at all for the wildlife, the fisheries, the tourism and in simpler terms, the way of life of the region.

      The market is no more an answer to the problem than government is. It will hurt BP, no doubt, but that's cold comfort to the people whose lives are being so heavily impacted by the spill.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    22. Re: The Exon Valdez by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      It may be an issue that we don't yet have the technology... in which case that's an argument for caution, or possibly even for not doing drilling at those depths. Disregarding the severe risk that a give action can pose to the environment, economics and way of life of an adjacent area, just because the action produces a valuable commodity that everyone needs more of doesn't seem a very good argument to me. But as much as the oil industry seems determined to cast this incident in that light, I'm not convinced.

      Thus far, the evidence doesn't suggest a lack of adequate technology or understanding of the risks. It appears to have been incompetence or a nearly malicious (and possibly criminal) disregard for safety practices. That being the case, it does suggest that one can drill for oil at great depths with reasonable expectation of success and safety, providing one follows important precautions.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    23. Re: The Exon Valdez by Cacadril · · Score: 1

      And hold no f**king trials. (Environment) terrorists don't deserve trials. (Paraphrasing Rumsfeld)

      --
      There is no substitute for common sense. Especially, no body of rules will do.
    24. Re: The Exon Valdez by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazing stuff. thanks

    25. Re: The Exon Valdez by GlenRaphael · · Score: 1

      The Valdez spill was right next to the shore, so the *concentration* of oil was extremely high. Even though there's more oil being spilled now, the fact that it's being spilled a hundred miles offshore means the oil has weeks to spread out and evaporate and degrade by natural processes before it hits any coastline. That is very different. The concentration of oil is lower (both in and on water) and the degree to which it comes to land somewhat "pre-digested" is higher, both of those are by orders of magnitude. In short, Valdez may not be the best comparison point.

      --
      I play Nerd-Folk!
    26. Re: The Exon Valdez by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as I know, the "turning the world's oceans to poison" scenario was presented if there was a huge blow-out i.e. part of the dome over the pressurised oil blew out. There was concern that if the "Russian solution"--a nuke-- was used, this would be a likely outcome.

  11. Blowout preventer failsafes by olsmeister · · Score: 1

    Rather than relying on electrical or mechanical activation of the blowout preventer (which failed to occur), why can't they be made so that they activate automatically with the loss of an electrical signal?

    I guess you might get some unwanted activations, but it might have saved their bacon with something like this.

    1. Re:Blowout preventer failsafes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is no bigger engineering challenge than building a rig that drills miles deep to begin with. What do you think the purpose of having it electronically (remotely) controlled is?

    2. Re:Blowout preventer failsafes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      why can't they be made so that they activate automatically with the loss of an electrical signal?

      They can and are, and this one was. Additionally, some can be remotely triggered by, in essence, sonar pings at a certain frequency. I've read conflicting reports on whether this particular BOP had that capability. None of this really matters, because the crew on the rig hit the button to trigger the ram shears while they still had contact to the BOP and they didn't activate, at least not completely.

    3. Re:Blowout preventer failsafes by sumdumass · · Score: 3, Informative

      My understanding is that a rubber bushing essential to the operation of the BOP was damaged a few days before during a test of it (or something related) and this damage contributed to the massive failure of the BOP.

    4. Re:Blowout preventer failsafes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Backup had been modified. And One of the batteries was dead. Maybe they should start with not installing know bad equipment.

    5. Re:Blowout preventer failsafes by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      There are failsafes and they may have activated. Remember that not even the ROVs could activate the BOP. The hydraulics are broken or stuck.
      What they should have is a shaped charge of explosives that can pinch the well bore shut. No hydraulics, just a very primitive electric ignition system needed.

    6. Re: Blowout preventer failsafes by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that a rubber bushing essential to the operation of the BOP was damaged a few days before during a test of it (or something related) and this damage contributed to the massive failure of the BOP.

      So remember boys & girls, safe drilling is like safe sex: use an undamaged rubber.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    7. Re:Blowout preventer failsafes by amorsen · · Score: 1

      What they should have is a shaped charge of explosives that can pinch the well bore shut. No hydraulics, just a very primitive electric ignition system needed.

      The existing system would have been able to deal with the problem if it had been broken in just one way instead of having multiple known failures.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    8. Re:Blowout preventer failsafes by Hatta · · Score: 1

      That's why the system should have multiple fall back BOPs. AND they should be required to drill a relief well at the same time as the main well, so that if something like this happens, it doesn't take 3 months to stop it. Anything less is negligence.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    9. Re:Blowout preventer failsafes by amorsen · · Score: 1

      That's why the system should have multiple fall back BOPs. AND they should be required to drill a relief well at the same time as the main well, so that if something like this happens, it doesn't take 3 months to stop it.

      Sure, you can require that. However, all this wouldn't have happened if BP had simply required the existing system to be working. If you add extra requirements and the drilling companies ignore the state those new safety devices are in, they will fail too. The human factor is the main problem in this system, and it is difficult to come up with a technical fix for that.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    10. Re:Blowout preventer failsafes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "My understanding is that a rubber bushing essential to the operation of the BOP was damaged a few days before during a test of it (or something related)"

      That's been the report, yes. It's still an open question whether the amount of rubber worn off that part of the BOP (the annular seal) was actually unusual/worrisome or not. Some amount of wear is expected. If they close the rubber seal around the drill pipe too tightly and then yank the pipe up or down it will wear the rubber, but it's an incredibly tough machine. Events like that are probably inevitable, and it is routine to gently close the annular seal around the drill pipe and move it while keeping things pressurized below. It wouldn't surprise me if it was built to take a lot of abuse and still work afterwards. Also, there are half a dozen different, redundant valves and seals in a BOP "stack". Wear/damage to one does not make it non-functional.

      "and this damage contributed to the massive failure of the BOP."

      It is an entirely open question. For example, even if the seal in question was completely trashed and non-functional, it would still leave the multiple ram-type valves intact.

      It's entirely possible that the seriousness of this damage has been exaggerated by the media because they don't understand how these things are supposed to work. Was the amount of rubber coming up from the annular BOP genuine cause for concern? I'm just not sure.

    11. Re:Blowout preventer failsafes by randyleepublic · · Score: 0

      The damage to the annular meant that the pressure tests were invalid. The invalid pressure tests meant that when they decided to pull the mud out, they had now idea what was going to happen. As it turned out, the actual pressure was so much higher than what the invalid test said it was, that when they pulled the mud out, the whole thing exploded. You know the rest.

      --
      Social Credit would solve everything...
  12. Sticks around for decades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently there are still many places which are full of oil from the Exxon Valdez disaster even 20 years after it happened. The cleanup was mostly superficial and there's a lot of oil in the ground. The ecosystem hasn't recovered yet, although it isn't dead either.

    The Deepwater Horizon spill will also leave a lot of areas poisoned for many decades to come, and it will probably be worse in quality and quantity because there's more oil and it happened in a more habitated area.

    1. Re:Sticks around for decades by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      But the Valdez was carrying very heavy oil. The gulf oil spill now is lighter oil.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    2. Re:Sticks around for decades by slick7 · · Score: 1

      Try a century or more.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
  13. Re:Silver Lining? by greentshirt · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Mod parent naïve. By the way, how come it's been a long, long time since I received any mod points? Does the system stop giving them out once a user has been sufficiently contaminated by, err exposed to, slashdot?

  14. It's no surprise there's muck to rake up by hoytak · · Score: 2, Insightful

    See, for example: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/green/detail?entry_id=64864 or http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/06/02/2010-06-02_the_hidden_death_in_the_gulf.html

    I am sure BP is doing everything it can to stop the oil gushing out, despite what all the (sometimes idiotic, very amusing) armchair engineers are saying is the "obvious" thing to do.

    However, it seems the real battle that will have the greatest impact on the future of this is over who controls the media now, and that's where BP needs to get its hands tied.

    --
    Does having a witty signature really indicate normality?
    1. Re: It's no surprise there's muck to rake up by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      I am sure BP is doing everything it can to stop the oil gushing out, despite what all the (sometimes idiotic, very amusing) armchair engineers are saying is the "obvious" thing to do.

      However, it seems the real battle that will have the greatest impact on the future of this is over who controls the media now, and that's where BP needs to get its hands tied.

      BP does have a big incentive to get the leak stopped, since some damage awards will be proportional to the amount of oil leaked.

      Of course, they have the same incentive to make potential jurors think there's less leak than their actually is, and this intervention may be cheaper than intervention at the well head.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re: It's no surprise there's muck to rake up by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      In most cases I agree with you. But BP has built itself on being the "greenest" oil company. Even their logo change was part of this, and it was the company's biggest pride. As the greenest oil company in the world slowly has managed to cause the biggest environmental disaster in history and the share price takes a face plant into an oily puddle, trust me the intervention at the well head IS their biggest priority.

      BP pays $10bn dividends per year. The cost of the cleanup can be managed, but the destruction of a reputation the company has spent more than 10 years building is going to be the real challenge.

  15. The Shaka Plan by ShakaUVM · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That's why we need the Shaka Plan for Energy:
    1) Replace all coal power plants with nuclear
    2) Replace all gasoline imports with coal gassification

    Cost-neutral on the price of electricity, price of gasoline at the pump will go down, the influential senators from coal states are happy, and no more funding terrorism in the middle east.

    1. Re:The Shaka Plan by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      "Cost-neutral on the price of electricity, price of gasoline at the pump will go down, the influential senators from coal states are happy, and no more funding terrorism in the middle east."

      I've seen worse plans. It's definitely realistic about politics. #3 and #4 are good points, but [citation needed] on points #1 and #2.

    2. Re:The Shaka Plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) Replace all coal power plants with nuclear

      While I will not raise any ideological arguments here, the sheer cost of this would be mindblowing. As in, nobody has that kind of money, not even the government.

    3. Re:The Shaka Plan by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 1

      It's more likely that the United States will continue their Middle-Eastern encroachment with attempts at culture transformation, nation-building, and the acquiring of resources. Iraqis and other Arabs will not protest the wholesale theft of their oil while they are watching Arabian Idol, being so engorged on McDonalds and KFC that they can barely get out of their suffahs.

      It'll be a "win-win" situation -- Muslim culture becomes more modern and liberal as women and homosexuals gradually gain rights. The CIA can take over the lucrative Afghani opium trade, the United States and allies will reap the obvious benefits of having more oil, and the military will have a strategic entrenchment next to the big commie countries in case the global economic battles get ugly.

      But why all that trouble when we could just do what you said? Because there are a lot of people with handsome salaries, windfalls, and bribes that are directly proportional to the success of the American military industrial complex.

    4. Re:The Shaka Plan by Black+Gold+Alchemist · · Score: 1

      Very good idea. But we should not use coal gasification. It is a toxic disaster. Instead we should use nuclear to liquids technology. In essence, we combine captured or otherwise recycled CO2 with nuclear hydrogen, to produce the same kind of gas that a coal to liquids plant produces. Except we have a zero emissions plant instead of a coal plant.

      --
      Responsibility is an addiction
      Virtue is a temptation
      Community is a cartel
    5. Re:The Shaka Plan by toastar · · Score: 1

      1) Replace all coal power plants with nuclear

      While I will not raise any ideological arguments here, the sheer cost of this would be mindblowing. As in, nobody has that kind of money, not even the government.

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

    6. Re:The Shaka Plan by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      It's not toxic anymore than burning coal for electricity is. With proper scrubbing technologies, you can reduce emissions to all but CO2. Stuff like thorium, mercury, and other heavy metals can be recaptured and resold to other industries that need them.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    7. Re:The Shaka Plan by Black+Gold+Alchemist · · Score: 1

      That's true. But without carbon capture, you get 2X CO2 over gasoline. With carbon capture you get a slight CO2 decrease. I shoulda put "toxic and global warming disaster" instead of just toxic disaster.

      --
      Responsibility is an addiction
      Virtue is a temptation
      Community is a cartel
    8. Re:The Shaka Plan by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      That's why we need the Shaka Plan for Energy:
      1) Replace all coal power plants with nuclear
      2) Replace all gasoline imports with coal gassification

      3) Replace all the Army's rifles with assegais
      4) Conquer southern Africa
      5) ???
      6) ... ah, hell, you know the rest.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    9. Re:The Shaka Plan by dominious · · Score: 1

      1) Replace all coal power plants with nuclear

      I enjoy how everyone thinks nuclear energy now, but I wonder what is everyone going to say after the first nuclear energy accident...

    10. Re:The Shaka Plan by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>I enjoy how everyone thinks nuclear energy now, but I wonder what is everyone going to say after the first nuclear energy accident...

      I love how people are willing to write off the thousands of people that die every year from coal power because they're not concentrated in one big accident. As well as the CO2 emissions, radiation emissions (from coal, not nuclear plants), and so forth.

      Statistics are a bitch.

    11. Re:The Shaka Plan by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>While I will not raise any ideological arguments here, the sheer cost of this would be mindblowing.

      That's why you have to look at levelized cost, which includes the cost of building a plant in the energy rate. Nuclear (10 year levelized) is affordable:

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

    12. Re:The Shaka Plan by dominious · · Score: 1

      yeah, tell that to the mutants

  16. Raises the Question Where Does Oil Come From? by Ron+Bennett · · Score: 0, Troll

    Large-scale natural oil seeps, and more significantly, the extreme depths of many large oil reservoirs (upwards of three miles *below the ocean floor*) makes some, including myself, wonder where does all that oil really come from?

    Sure, some oil is likely from long dead organisms, but how does one explain the vast amounts of oil that exists? Seems like there's far more oil than can be accounted for by dead organisms alone. And, more curious, is the large amounts of oil located so deep below the ocean floor ... How does one explain that?

    Ron

    1. Re:Raises the Question Where Does Oil Come From? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I c wut u did thar.

    2. Re:Raises the Question Where Does Oil Come From? by goodmanj · · Score: 4, Insightful

      from long dead organisms

      You answered your own question. If you don't believe the answer the geologists give you, feel free to read up on petroleum geology, and do some basic back-of-the-envelope calculations yourself.

      There are four ways to answer a question. From best to worst:

      1) Figure it out yourself
      2) Trust the experts
      3) Proclaim it an unanswerable mystery
      4) Make up something

      You're one rung off the bottom. Climb on up!

    3. Re:Raises the Question Where Does Oil Come From? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you may underestimate the sheer volume of organisms that live and die during a multi-million year period...

    4. Re:Raises the Question Where Does Oil Come From? by tnok85 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Isn't it obvious? The Gulf of Mexico is the site of an ancient volcano (roughly 75 million years old) where billions of organisms were deposited from spacecraft strongly resembling DC-8's, then nuked from orbit.

    5. Re:Raises the Question Where Does Oil Come From? by Eryq · · Score: 4, Informative

      Millions of years of dead plant and animal life, plus shifting tectonic plates (and ever-changing coastlines), can give rise to vast undersea reservoirs of oil. Even the oil industry geologists know it: how do you think they find these reservoirs?

      But we all see what you're trying to do there. Hmm, maybe oil isn't from dead plant life after all! Maybe it occurs naturally in the Earth's crust, where God put it! Gosh, maybe there's a practically infinite supply! Maybe it's even naturally renewed! Why, that would mean that all this talk about needing to find alternate energy sources is just a load of hooey! Ha ha, those environmentalist whackos sure are stupid, just like Rush said!"

      It's a story being advanced by people who either (1) have a vested interest in the continued profits of oil companies, (2) refuse to believe that the earth is more than 6000 years old, or (3) have a political axe to grind against environmentalists.

      And at this point, I've pretty much lost my patience with all of those camps.

      --
      I'm a bloodsucking fiend! Look at my outfit!
    6. Re:Raises the Question Where Does Oil Come From? by Scrameustache · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Seems like there's far more oil than can be accounted for by dead organisms alone.

      The total global biomass has been estimated to be 2000 billion tonnes with 1600 billion of those tonnes in forests.[13][14]

      Net primary production is the rate at which biomass is generated in a given area, mainly due to photosynthesis. Some global producers of biomass in order of productivity rates are

              * swamps and marshes: 2,500 g/m/yr of biomass[15]
              * tropical rain forests: 2,000 g/m/yr of biomass[16]
              * algal beds and reefs: 2000 g/m/yr of biomass[15]
              * river estuaries: 1,800 g/m/yr of biomass[15]
              * temperate forests: 1,250 g/m/yr of biomass[15]
              * cultivated lands: 650 g/m/yr of biomass[15][17]
              * deserts: 3 g/m/yr of biomass[17]
              * open ocean: 125 g/m/yr of biomass[15][17]
              * tundras: 140 g/m/yr[15][17]

      (Multiply by millions of years...)

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    7. Re:Raises the Question Where Does Oil Come From? by DogFacedJo · · Score: 1

      Not certain what you intend by 'dead organisms', but all what is needed is biomass, e.g. swampy areas. As plates shift, some are driven under others resulting in carbon deposits easily being buried as deeply as we see. At one point it was likely very close to, if not on the surface. Bogs can be very large, and very deep... consider, well, the wetlands that are currently threatened, for example.

      I'm not partial to the theories that there is arbitrary oil and coal to be found, provided we dig deep enough. If you are centrally located on a plate, and have deep enough to hit the granite or basalt, respectively - it would be shocking to hit anything else while digging until it is too hot to support the structures in oil and coal. Please contradict me, there are some oddball cases in the middle of plates and I would love to hear about more of them, and about them.

      Quite frankly, a non-biological origin for deep oil is the only one folks bother argue, if I remember correctly. I suspect this is because coal contains lots of fossils, thus it is pretty hard to argue samples are non-biological.

      Meh, not my specialty, feel free to enlighten me, etc...

    8. Re:Raises the Question Where Does Oil Come From? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I recall an article linked to on here a while ago where some of the results from the research done at our deepest shaft into the earth's crust showed that the conditions and compounds present lead to the spontaneous formations of hydrocarbons, so oil gas and coal might actually be a natural substance seeping up from the deep crust.

    9. Re:Raises the Question Where Does Oil Come From? by werdnapk · · Score: 1

      Umm, hello? The oil was put there by God. How else do you explain it being there with the Earth being only 6000 years old?

    10. Re:Raises the Question Where Does Oil Come From? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God. The Matrix? Or are you waiting for some theory about organic processes that don't involve life working away furiously in the earth's crust which doesn't have allot going on organic and only has the heat from earth as an energy source, creating all this oil? I'm going to place my bet on the system with tons of organic processes, and a large external energy source, the sun. I'm betting on the dead organisms.

      Just to give you some perspective:
      Civilization has been around for 10,000 years. Modern humans have been around for 100,000 years. Dinos were around for 100,000,000 plural years, which is the period of life from which most theorize this oil came from. And how long have we been using oil, like a couple hundred years? I think it is easy to under estimate how long those millions of years are compared to everything else we deal with in life.

    11. Re:Raises the Question Where Does Oil Come From? by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 1

      I used to attend a private Presbyterian school, and one of my "science" teachers claimed that oil is shot out in high volume every time any sort of organic matter (plankton,dead whales, etc) touches thermal vents.

      Obviously a load of horse shit, but so is the earth being 6k years old.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    12. Re:Raises the Question Where Does Oil Come From? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Given millions of years, there are a LOT of organisms around. They came to be buried the same way everything else does over time. If we have to dig up a town a few thousand years old, why not a millions of years old pool?

    13. Re:Raises the Question Where Does Oil Come From? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      There is some debate about oil, but coal is so clearly associated with ancient plant life I don't think anyone could really argue its origin is anything else.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    14. Re:Raises the Question Where Does Oil Come From? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      There have been scientific theories floating around for decades now that support to some degree, an idea that oil can be made naturally without the long process currently ascribed to it. And all this is done without the mentioning of a GOD or 6000 year earth history.

      Get off your high horse, not everything suggesting that a process isn't (m)billions of years old as currently understood is some attempt to put god in your life. Not all of these people have a problem with environmentalist (outside of saying they are wrong about the time required to create oil), and not all of them work for oil interests. Of course you will find people pushing gods or claiming the earth is only 6000 years old saying see, it's possible, Of course you will see people making statements that environmentalists or whoever else claiming oil is finite are wrong just as you will find people making statements that the earth is older then 6000 years. And mostly, of course you will find people connected to oil companies making these statements. This is because people who study oil and geology relating to oil, tend to work in oil related industries. It's not guilt by association and maybe you should look past your shallow reservations before passing a judgment. This is science, not a religion.

    15. Re:Raises the Question Where Does Oil Come From? by mbradmoody · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ah, the a-biogenic theory of hydrocarbons raises its ugly head again. Chief proponent was Professor Thomas Gold (Cornell but r.i.p.). Pretty much discredited but check out research of Dr. Roger Anderson of LDEO and Larry Cathles at Cornell. they got a DOE grant to drill offshore at EI 330 Field to explore for deeper "plumbing" that might be recharging that 1 billion BOE deposit. No joy however.

    16. Re:Raises the Question Where Does Oil Come From? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quick! get the Auditors out to the Gulf! those poor animals are covered in BODY THETANS!

    17. Re:Raises the Question Where Does Oil Come From? by dbIII · · Score: 2, Informative

      How does one explain that

      The earth is very old and we are going through millions of years worth of dead organic matter in coal and oil. There is/was a huge amount of it but the easiest stuff to get is the oil. The deep stuff is there due to plate movement, it was probably a swamp on the shore of a continent once.

    18. Re:Raises the Question Where Does Oil Come From? by dbIII · · Score: 1
      I suggest also looking up Lysenkoism - that's where that utter bullshit comes from.
      Consider for a moment why geologists call the stuff "fossil fuel" and why nobody at the technical end of the oil, gas or coal industries would have any time for your bullshit.
      It's just a hopeful fantasy and you are denigrating those of us that work in oil, gas and coal exploration industry by pretending we share your fantasy.

      This is science, not a religion.

      It is neither, merely bullshit spread by idiots that don't want to care about reality and like to pretend that nothing ever changes anywhere.

    19. Re:Raises the Question Where Does Oil Come From? by sumdumass · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you should do a simple Google search before making such claims.

      That post is not directed at you, but I'm not going to relink everything that can easily be found with a search engine in less then 5 minutes.

      And yes, Geologists call it fossil fuel because at one point in time, it was thought to only have come from fossils. But just like everything else involved with science, our knowledge expands and we move on. Sometimes it takes longer and some times it does not. As for Lysenkoism, I think you will find in most of the links provided on that page, that isn't a problem. Although I will admit I linked to some religious video because it mentions making oil in a lab in 30 minutes or less at several different places and proved references.

      It is neither, merely bullshit spread by idiots that don't want to care about reality and like to pretend that nothing ever changes anywhere.

      Well, no. It's more like religion. Even you have failed to see past your prejudices and heart held beliefs to the actual science being performed or discussed. And no, I'm not saying it's fact that it's happening, I'm saying that people are using scientific theories legitimately and achieving results in a scientific context without any evil motivation that was presented in the parent post. These people and their work should not be over looked because you dislike what some third party has latched onto and attempted to say with it.

    20. Re:Raises the Question Where Does Oil Come From? by Ron+Bennett · · Score: 1

      Mod help, please. My post above has gone from 4 to 0.

      Ron

    21. Re:Raises the Question Where Does Oil Come From? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like you've made a little off-by-1 error there.

    22. Re:Raises the Question Where Does Oil Come From? by eric-x · · Score: 1

      And yours is in what catagory?

    23. Re:Raises the Question Where Does Oil Come From? by maeka · · Score: 1

      It is because of our understanding of how deposits of complex-chain hydrocarbons are formed that we bloody know where to look for them.

      This whole abiogenesis bullshit is no more valid science than the statement that "I believe there is a pink elephant orbiting Neptune, disprove me." Until the abiogenesis "proponents" (such and few as they are) produce a model capable of being tested (through drilling and subsequent discovery of deposits not predicted by current understanding) they are not science - they are mental masturbaters exploring interesting concepts.

      Their work should be overlooked until that point in time they collect some evidence.

    24. Re:Raises the Question Where Does Oil Come From? by akeeneye · · Score: 1

      Yep, I've got a very Conservative (read "staunch Republican") friend who's all about "do what it takes to keep up my standard of living, including vast personal wealth, and let's not worry about this environmental nonsense". In fact, he outright blames environmentalists for causing this disaster. He claims that if there weren't these environmental regulations that we have, the oil companies could be drilling on land or near offshore, hence our environmental horrors are all government's fault, too much regulation. Similarly of course, the financial crash was *caused* by the SEC and government regulation. Basically regulation that might cause some sort of degradation in his lifestyle, even if minor, he hates. But generally he's OK with regulation that *directly* helps him, like drug safety laws, although I'm sure he thinks these are too extreme and probably cut into corporate profits and "innovation" and therefore are undesirable in that way. Recently my area banned phosphate detergents because it was causing hell with algae blooms downstream from the sewer plant. He went on and on about the evil of the regulation when it merely affected the brand of dishwashing detergent he had to buy at Costco. He fussed that it wouldn't wash his dishes as well as the polluting stuff. Not that he'd tried it of course. The ban was just ipso facto evil to him, simply because it *was* a government regulation, environment be damned. I don't know how many people in the population are like this. But the "Conservative" camp, which is huge, seems to be full of them. His kind makes me want to vomit.

      --
      The man who dies rich dies disgraced. -- Andrew Carnegie
    25. Re:Raises the Question Where Does Oil Come From? by sumdumass · · Score: 0

      It is because of our understanding of how deposits of complex-chain hydrocarbons are formed that we bloody know where to look for them.

      Please explain something to me. Has anything in science been thought to of happened one way then found out to have happened another or even have more then one possibilities? I'll give you a hint of one, it involves Nicolaus Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, and Galileo Galilei. Perhaps we should look in another direction if that's to difficult to follow. In the 18th century, leaches were all the rave of the then modern medical science because they removed the mysterious bad blood from the body. Leaches are still used in medical science today but in a completely different capacity. Here is another, probably closer to the point I'm making.

      In case you are still missing the point, science is continuously evolving and even though something is understood to function or operate in one way, it does not mean that it cannot function or operate in another. Saying this is how it is and it has lead to the discovery of all these oil fields so nothing else can be right is little more then the earth is the center of the universe BS. The entire idea of looking in other areas is to find other way to find the crap. It's not in any way an attempt to say the previous way isn't possible, it's only to say this may be possible too.

      This whole abiogenesis bullshit is no more valid science than the statement that "I believe there is a pink elephant orbiting Neptune, disprove me." Until the abiogenesis "proponents" (such and few as they are) produce a model capable of being tested (through drilling and subsequent discovery of deposits not predicted by current understanding) they are not science - they are mental masturbaters exploring interesting concepts.

      Abiogenesis? How did we get from there being more then one way to skin a cat to life generating from non-life? And no, I wouldn't say that the support for abiogenesis is few at all. In fact, it's the prevailing scientific theory for life as we know it. Of course I agree with you, until we can test and provide a model capable of being tested, it's not a proven fact or anything, it's just an assumption or theory being explored. But the great thing about science is that theories can be falsified which would account for the pink elephant your seeing.

      Speaking of mental masturbation, Please don't denigrate anyone because of your own short comings or premature conclusions. What makes science great is that it's not an un-bendable religion- please don't treat it that way.

    26. Re:Raises the Question Where Does Oil Come From? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Nicolaus Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, and Galileo Galilei

      That one really wasn't even contraversial until Galileo insulted the Pope, and even then it was a close to even vote with the Cardinals.
      You really can easily tell conspiracy theorists and confidence tricksters when they invoke the ghost of Galileo.
      What really annoys me is we have nuts like you that think they are helping the oil industry by spreading some stupid fantasy - I'm in the oil industry and you are giving me, the geophysicists and geologists I work with a bad name with this bullshit. Fuck off and "help out" another industry.

    27. Re:Raises the Question Where Does Oil Come From? by sumdumass · · Score: 0

      I just don't know about you. You completely missed the point and instead inserted your own personal prejudices while insisting on taking everything out of context. The point wasn't that it was controversial or that I was promoting it, the point is that our understanding changes and adapts as more information becomes available. Nothing in science today is so set in stone that it's impossible to be different tomorrow or the next day. Your refusal to admit that or even allow it takes science into the real of religion for you.

      And no, I am not promoting anything other then the idea that science is looking into it and they aren't using the "evil motives" that was initially claimed.

      and I bet if you really are in the oil industry, it was probably you who sat in charge of the BP oil well leaking. Someone probably warned you that shit was wrong and you ignored them because he was wearing a necklace with a cross on it or something. If you really want help for an industry, or even to let it alone, then I suggest you take your own advice. I seriously cannot believe you are anything but a runt laborer as you have from time and time again proven that you are incapable of grasping a concept or idea without perverting it to something completely different to suit your own agenda. If you had any kind of authority other then telling another person to pass you a tool so you can do your job, this would have blown up in your face a long time ago. Closing your eyes and wishing something makes it no more true then going onto the internet anonymously and claiming it's true. You are nothing but a troll who is probably inspired by a reflection of their own inability to advance in career or social position or gain respect from peers around them. It's sad when people like you exist, but the reality is that you have to take a look at yourself before commenting on others. Perhaps you already did this and don't like what you see so the internet allows you to have a fantasy world in which things are different. Sad, really, Well more like pathetic but I assume you already looked in the mirror and saw that.

    28. Re:Raises the Question Where Does Oil Come From? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I suggest that if deliberately spreading lies on the internet results in such anger you should take up a different hobby for the sake of your blood pressure.

    29. Re:Raises the Question Where Does Oil Come From? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Lol.. Says the troll. You wish you got my blood pressure up. What was a deliberate lie being spread? Hm?? You see troll, once again, you are making statements that you can't back up and you are once again in a position of looking like an ignorant fuck who is making shit up and spreading lies if you attempt to show anything.

      I used to be against abortion. Now I'm sorry I help that position- it may have talked your mom out of having one.

  17. bad article, bad! by X0563511 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Just what is a "joy stick" and why would sailors be twiddling them?

    --
    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...
  18. Re: Silver Lining? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Maybe this is the final push we need to actually invest money as a notion in alternative energy?

    Or not... if the right wing gets involved.

    Don't confuse the "rich wing" with the "right wing". The vast majority of Republican politicians just want to rule for the benefit of the rich. The whole social-conservative / southern strategy / religious right association is just a mechanism to get people to vote against their own best interests. If you admit you want to rule for the rich, you've got a big problem in a Republic with universal suffrage, since the rich are by definition a tiny fraction of the public. But politicians know that if you can make someone's knee jerk, you can make their hand twitch in a voting booth. So the Republican party cynically adopted positions that appeal to those groups, and occasionally throws them a bone to keep their support.

    But in the run-up to the 2006 elections, the leaders of various socially conservative movements were complaining aloud that they were bringing a lot of votes to the table and not getting much in return... the only surprise is that it took them 26 years to notice.

    Of course, by now that has been going on so long that the insane are starting to run the asylum. It's a pretty sure bet that Haley Barber is just shilling for the energy companies, but it's hard to tell whether the likes of Sarah Palin and Barbara Bachman are just trying to make people's knees jerk, or if they've actually drunk the Kool-Aide. Palin is so consistently behind Big Money issues that I suspect she's mostly just shilling, but you never know... As they say, you can't parody this stuff.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  19. No it doesn't Ron, stop distracting from the issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    stop being a dumbass

  20. Animal ethics? by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1, Flamebait
    TFA (the last link) makes some reasonable points about why a blanket euthanization policy for all birds could be extreme. But then it goes too far and wants to save everything. From the conclusion:

    Because all people use oil or oil-related products in some form, I maintain that it is both ethical and responsible to try to save as many oiled birds and other wildlife as we can. [...] I think that each life is intrinsically valuable and that each animal is deserving of care and protection. In a world where life is not always respected and valued, I think that saving the life of even one bird sends an important message.

    Awww... you want to save the animals? Every life is sacred! Well, you can start by saving the life of the tapeworm that took up residence in your body, or perhaps that mosquito that just bit you and gave you malaria. What? You see a breeding ground for those disease-ridden mosquitoes and want to dump the water? Don't kill the larvae! Or what about the rats that infest your house and could potentially bring disease, particularly if they are allowed to multiple and run rampant in urban areas? You might think that trapping them humanely and releasing them is doing a good deed, but be sure you release them in a habitat where they can find enough food, or you're just contributing to their prolonged starvation as they die a horrible death. Better safe than sorry -- leave food out for them and keep them in your home.

    Oh wait -- I bet TFA is just talking about cute animals that aren't annoying, disease-ridden, or parasitic to humans.

    I'm against unnecessary cruelty to animals, but it simply doesn't make sense to try to save every possible bird here, from either a monetary or moral perspective. Those which can be relatively easily treated, sure. But the humane thing to do for birds who are unlikely to recover and who would be completely stressed out by prolonged contact with humans is to euthanize them. Just like the humane thing to do for many pets (and even humans) with a likely terminal condition is to stop forcing treatment on them and let them die.

    1. Re:Animal ethics? by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      One problem is that a significant percentage (can't remember the number) of birds die even after cleaning because they ingested oil or oily food.

    2. Re:Animal ethics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > but it simply doesn't make sense to try to save every
      > possible bird here,

      What harm is there in trying?

      > from either a monetary or moral perspective.

      Oh, right, you're really just worried about the cost. Of course. But hey, if you add "or moral" in there, it makes it seem like you really thought this out and that you're not really just a greedy miser. You should (do?) work for BP, it's great thinking like yours that got them where they are now.

    3. Re:Animal ethics? by Duradin · · Score: 1

      Some might be slightly resistant to ingested oil but not enough so to survive it without some help. Save enough of these and then someone can patent BP-Ready(tm)(r)(patent pending) animals, though they'd have to make sure Monsanto wasn't up to it already.

    4. Re:Animal ethics? by AGMW · · Score: 1

      > but it simply doesn't make sense to try to save every > possible bird here,

      What harm is there in trying?

      > from either a monetary or moral perspective.

      Oh, right, you're really just worried about the cost. Of course. But hey, if you add "or moral" in there, it makes it seem like you really thought this out and that you're not really just a greedy miser. You should (do?) work for BP, it's great thinking like yours that got them where they are now.

      Woah there bubba!

      If the birds die anyway (ingested oil, yada yada yada) then all you've done by cleaning (the outside!) is prolong their suffering -> moral perspective.

      I kinda agree that some cleaning of animals is warranted, but the loopy (armchair) environmentalist shout of clean them all often helps more to salve your needs than the half-dead creatures you're intending to help. What is needed is some calm rather than the local villagers rampaging about with pitch forks and flaming torches looking to kill the monster!

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    5. Re:Animal ethics? by Rockoon · · Score: 1
      I am reminded of a Futurama episode:

      Birdbot of Ice-Catraz

      In this episode, the whacko environmentalists wanted to save the penguins at any expense from an environmental disaster (a dark-matter spill)

      Later it is found out that the dark-matter greatly increases the reproduction rate of the penguin species, so to save them, those same whacko environmentalists pulled out rifles and announced that hunting season was open.

      What harm is there in trying?

      We don't know. We don't know what good will come from trying, either.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    6. Re:Animal ethics? by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      What harm is there in trying?

      As a response already said to you, the "harm" is that you might be prolonging suffering in birds who don't actually have a reasonable chance at survival. Did you read the rest of my post? Are you the kind of pet owner who would keep his pet alive at all costs, including costly operations where the animal suffers a lot, just so you can say, "But I tried everything"? Sometimes euthanasia is a rational and humane (i.e., moral) choice.

      Oh, right, you're really just worried about the cost. Of course. But hey, if you add "or moral" in there, it makes it seem like you really thought this out and that you're not really just a greedy miser.

      Well, those issues are never separable in the real world. In the real world, all of our actions have consequences. All of our choices may result in the deaths of people and animals.

      Do you choose to drive a car? Forget about the environmental issues for a second. If you choose to drive, that choice could result in an accident that might kill someone (or, more likely, some animal). It's much more unlikely that walking to work or the store or whatever could result in someone's (or some animal's) death. Yet, people choose all the time to drive because it's convenient or it allows them to take a better job or to live someone nicer, etc. It's a choice, one that probably has both economic and moral consequences, but people rarely think about such things because the chance of them causing a fatal accident seems to be below their "moral threshold."

      What we need to decide here is the appropriate "moral threshold" to deal with the birds. Like TFA, I agree that euthanasia for all of them is extreme (as I clearly stated in my previous post). But at some point in trying to save more birds, you'll end up both spending an outrageous amount of time, money, and effort that could be better allocated, and also be causing unnecessary pain and suffering for animals. Is that really that contentious to say?

      You should (do?) work for BP, it's great thinking like yours that got them where they are now.

      And to think, I'm the one modded "flamebait" here for pointing out both rational elements of TFA's argument (which I agree with) and irrational ones, which I admittedly made a little fun of. You're get modded "insightful" for being deliberately mean.

  21. Sarah Palin knows the reason for the spill....phew by droopus · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Well, Sarah has figured out the real reason for the Gulf oil spill, and that reason is those of us who actually care about the environment.

    No really, she's serious. We just need to let the oil companies drill unrestricted pretty much wherever and whenever they want, sans restictions and we wouldn't have these problems. Thank God we have a genius like Sarah to tell us unwashed slobs what the truth is.

    That unrestricted oil drilling is safe, clean and green!

    --
    "The pie shall be cut in half and each man shall receive.....death. I'll eat the pie."
  22. Absolutely correct by fermion · · Score: 1
    Given time nature will readjust and reach a new equilibrium. Things like this happen occasionally in nature, and the earth has yet to be critically damaged. The nuclear industry often cites the example of an area where a natural nuclear disaster occurred. The earth has been hit with meteors and survived. It is not the earth or the creatures we are protected. It is us.

    Even with no damage, Florida tourism is suffering. There is no real reason why we should care that people are going to lose their jobs, as long as gas is cheap, so that is not an issue. The fishermen have no more or less right to the fish in the gulf than the oil people have to the oil, and the fish might like time to breed, so if all the fisherpeople no longer have work, that is nothing to worry about. Everyone is whining about the loss of oysters, but of course those oysters and artificially placed, not part of the natural process, so that is not an issue.

    Sure some people will whine that they have been doing this for generations, and that they have a right to take from nature and others don't, but that solves nothing. It would be nice i the government might have some regulation so that all interests could share these resources, but we live in a free market economy. In such a state, those interest that are most desired by the public, in this case oil, take precedence over other interests. Unless we accept a socialist state in which resources are divided equally by the state, that is the poor with one fishing boat gets the same access to the gulf as the rich with a billion dollar rig, thes situation will remain what it is.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  23. Re:Silver Lining? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Karma isn't the only determining factor in doling out mod points. How often you post is also considered. A regular poster with good karma will receive points more often than a sporadic poster with the same relative karma. Makes sense to me.

  24. Even if it was natural... by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

    ...there would be at least as much reason to worry. There just wouldn't be any way to stop it.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    1. Re:Even if it was natural... by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Its already happening naturally.. off the coast of California .. something like 10,000 barrels a day.. been going on for years and years

      Nobody gives a shit about that. This time its an accident involving Evil Big Oil so we just have to do something, right?

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  25. Feeds from the ROVs by Auto_Lykos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    BP has been providing live feeds of all the ROV missions to the wellhead for the last few days. For those who are curious, here's a pretty decent site hosting all the feeds from the ROVs. Pretty fascinating to watch all the work going on around the BOP, occasionally you can follow a few of the ROVs as they wander off to find old pipelines or prepare the Q4000 direct connection. In a tragic way it almost feels like watching the Titanic discovery all over again.

  26. Re:Silver Lining? by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 4, Funny

    Believe it or not, I actually used to receive lots of mod points back in the day when I meta-modded(correctly) everyday, made every post a high-scoring one, and didn't post anything offensive.

    Then CmdrTaco posted something like "testing, testing" in the seemingly redundant beta.slashdot.org introductory discussion. When I saw that he was already modded "troll", I followed suit and modded him troll for laughs. For mysterious reasons, the discussion no longer exists.

    I never got mod points after that.

  27. Gulf of Mexico .. Dead! ... Humanity Next ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NCAR simulation paints the simple truth. This spill will shut off the thermohaline circulation.

    Bravo NP PLC! In your love to be the hand maiden of the British Govermnet, who Obama Pissed On at IPCC Copenhagen, your handy work will usher in the next Glaciation. An all because an American Nigger pissed on you white boys.

    And with it, your own, not to mention the extension of Homo Sapains.

    Bravo BP PLC, Bravo!

    Seems that since you, BP PLC were so hell bent on suiside, that you would have opted for a much less costly solution to end yourselves, like for instance, curry pudding with cyanide.

    Come on, the BP PLC CEO can buy a 38 special and ammo on the street with a little cocaine left-overs and kill himself in less than 30 senonds.

    That would be Justice rendered.

  28. so NIMBYs by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    you won't have nuclear reactors with modern technology. france and japan have been relying on reactors for decades. but not in your backyard, no. you know, electric cars, less air pollution, no more funding of geopolitical nightmares, etc.

    so instead you'll have thousands of acres of your shoreline turned into a befouled environmental calamity, you'll fund wahhabi madrasas in pakistan through all the money you're giving saudis to drive your SUVs, you'll send your sons, daughters, fathers, mothers to die in pointless wars, you'll fuel global warming, you'll make your cities unbreathable...

    but remember, its nuclear power we should be afraid of

    read NIMBY's, and reverse your idiotic mental block:

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

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

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:so NIMBYs by evilviper · · Score: 1, Troll

      you won't have nuclear reactors with modern technology.

      so instead you'll have thousands of acres of your shoreline turned into a befouled environmental calamity

      Unless they're putting nuclear reactors directly in the SUVs, oil is completely orthogonal to nuclear power.

      france and japan have been relying on reactors for decades.

      Oh, I'm sorry. How has uptake of electric cars been going in France and Japan? What percentage of the overall automotive market do they make up?

      I'll wait...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    2. Re:so NIMBYs by Black+Gold+Alchemist · · Score: 2, Interesting
      --
      Responsibility is an addiction
      Virtue is a temptation
      Community is a cartel
    3. Re:so NIMBYs by rhakka · · Score: 2, Insightful

      double the cost of electricity. do it nearly all renewably. accept that doubled electricity costs are the costs of SAFE, SUSTAINABLE, CLEAN power. and call that the baselines requirement of civilized power generation. If it's too expensive to do with safe, clean, sustainable power, it's too expensive to do, period.

      oil is for plastic. and less and less of that as time goes on.

      it can absolutely be done.

      nuclear power in a best case scenario still leaves us guarding a pile of dangerous material (not just toxic, but dangerous to allow to fall into the wrong hands) for hundreds of years. that's a burden you'd place on countries and generations not even conceived of yet, through circumstances no one on earth can plausibly predict including very real possibilities of major societal collapses (thus leaving such material basically unguarded). That ignores any risks or danger in procuring, processing, reprocessing, and in the actual power generation itself. Never mind non-meltdown problems such as the radioactive material leak occurring in vermont right now and moving towards ground water supplies for communities in 3 states.

      that is a risk. it's one that doesn't trouble my life or your life, probably... we can probably assume that we could keep it safe for 50 years. maybe. but hundreds? that's unlikely.

      Forget risk. we don't need it, as long as we get over the need for energy to be dirt cheap. double the cost of electricity, covert everything to it or to fuels produced with it, and let's get on with a clean, safe future. soon.

    4. Re:so NIMBYs by jafac · · Score: 1

      Well; I *do* have a nuclear reactor in my back yard. Probably the most modern and advanced one in the US. And if they *fuck* that up, like BP fucked up Deepwater Horizon. . . we'll need a lot more than a CEO's apology. Maybe we could deal with a TMI-type event. But not a Chernobyl-type event. This region is already pretty difficult to make a living in, since the clam and fish population has been decimated. Though it's still got fairly rich farming, wine grapes (as long as that remains a fad) and cattle grazing going on. A Chernobyl would kill all that.

      We banned offshore drilling here in 1969, after a spill down south.
      The oil companies have been cleaning up other spills up and down the California coast for the past 30 years. I can think of 4 ongoing cleanup projects off the top of my head, and two completed ones. The local Union Carbide refinery had a minor explosion and fire just last year. No deaths, no headlines.

      The thing is: the crazy folks are talking about removing the drilling ban. Deepwater Horizon, of course, THANK GOD, has put the kibosh on that. For what? Maybe another 30 years, until people forget again.

      No matter what we do with nuclear - people will forget, and we will end up with both nuclear and oil drilling. NIMBY is nothing. NIMBY is Not In My Back Yard (Today. . . maybe tomorrow). NIMBY is Not In My. . . wait, $5 a gallon, are you fucking kidding me? Drill baby drill!

      One thing that The Great American Dream has been based on; (and probably not a great idea), is the idea of home ownership, and stable/growing property values. You spew oil on my beach, rain down Sr-90 on my dairy farm, or wrap all my neighbor's mortgages in a CDO, none of that has anything to do with whether I put in a good day's work at my job. All of them can destroy decades of saved-labor I have in the form of home equity. Even if oil does not actually kill any wildlife, even if Sr-90 doesn't bind in place of calcium in your bones and cause bone cancer. Even if 3 mortgage defaults in your neighborhood don't cause appraisers to write-down values - it's still actions and choices that other people make, that have absofuckinglutely NOTHING to do with me, yet fuck me over completely.

      Why not YOUR backyard, instead? Get off of my lawn. Thanks.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  29. Wow! by copponex · · Score: 1

    Hey look! It's the aptly named troll of assertions!

    Aww, isn't that cute... no, no, don't ask him to cite anything. He'll scurry away.

    1. Re:Wow! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I guess a simple google search was too hard for you to do before you started trolling.

      But hey, everyone loves the little retard forced to sit in regular class with us now that the Special Ed budget has been depleted. It's simply amazing what he will say. (BTW, Ingore the part about god and pay attention to the oil in the lab parts as they are referenced for your enjoyment).

    2. Re:Wow! by copponex · · Score: 3, Informative

      A University of Illinois research team is working on turning pig manure into a form of crude oil that could be refined to heat homes or generate electricity... Years of research and fine-tuning are ahead before the idea could be commercially viable -MSNBC

      circumstantial evidence strongly favors a [biogenic] origin for almost all found to date. -The Straight Dope

      Our findings illustrate that the abiotic synthesis of hydrocarbons in nature may occur in the presence of ultramafic rocks, water, and moderate amounts of heat. -WorldNetDaily

      Skeptics say that while traces of abiotic hydrocarbons may exist, little data support the idea of economically meaningful deposits. "Companies have been looking for oil for 100 years. If all this abiogenic stuff is there, why haven't they found it?" asks geochemist Geoffrey Glasby, who spent nine months investigating the matter for a 2006 review paper in Resource Geology. He concluded the totality of the evidence did not support the concept. -Forbes (my link)

      You may want to read the articles before you cite them.

      PS: WorldNetDaily? Really? What's next, Mad Magazine and Star?

    3. Re:Wow! by Namarrgon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We've long known that hydrocarbons can occur without biogenesis - and finding new sources of them, or methane on Titan, isn't any sort of revelation despite media labels like "game-changer".

      However, as far as I'm aware we've never found any abiogenic petroleum - long-chain, more complex hydrocarbons (primarily paraffins and cycloalkanes) than the much simpler/smaller hydrocarbons like methane. It's possible abiogenic petroleum exists of course, but it's never been discovered in commercially-significant quantities, certainly.

      The Science Daily article you cite is interesting, and contains some bold claims from Stockholm researchers, but they appear to be based solely on simulations to date. When/if they can show their simulations match reality (e.g by drilling where their simulations indicate, and discovering quantities of petroleum lacking in biotic markers), then that might be considered a "game-changer".

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    4. Re:Wow! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I didn't say it was fact, I said it was theories floating around that didn't involve religion, grudges against environmentalist, or oil companies trying to rape people. BTW, the dinosaur for oil theory is the same- not fact but a theory that doesn't involve religion, grudges against environmentalist, or oil companies trying to rape people.

      You should try reading the posts before attempting to do whatever it was you were attempting to do. You're like an ignorant troll to stupid to be effective and ends up appearing like a clown. Does it hurt your feelings when people laugh at you? Or do you still believe your mom when she said they were laughing with you?

    5. Re:Wow! by sumdumass · · Score: 0

      I was more aiming towards "the some people without evil motives think differently" with that post. I know most of it was speculation or unimportant to some degree but it shows that there is interest in these areas which is what is needed for research to happen.

      How promising it might turn out to be is another story. As for the details of it, I'm going to admit I'm not that well versed and probably less qualified to comment on it. I just know that people are looking in those areas. And while people are looking, some may have ulterior motives, while most do not. But motives don't really matter if the science backs it up and is correct which is what sparked this side thread. One thing that really gets my goat is where someone claims something is useless or should be ignored because it can be associated somewhere, somehow, with someone of some thing they disagree with. Science simply isn't designed to work that way.

      It's like saying you lost your wallet. Someone else says oh yea, where did you lose it at? And you reply, It's under the couch but I'm not looking there because my ex lover is sitting by it.

    6. Re: Wow! by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      A University of Illinois research team is working on turning pig manure into a form of crude oil that could be refined to heat homes or generate electricity

      Best line in Mad Max: Beyond the Thunderdome - "Methane cometh from pig shit."

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    7. Re:Wow! by dbIII · · Score: 1

      If "descended in a scientific submarine" doesn't set off any alarm bells from the bit of bullshit you linked to then your bullshit detector is broken.
      I am part of the oil industry you pretend to speak for and instead are making look like flat earth idiots.
      I respectfully suggest that you fuck off and instead write about a topic on which you have at least some form of a clue instead of spreading conspiracy theory bullshit.

    8. Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We already know that abiogenic hydrocarbons can form. You only need to look at Titan, as mentioned in one of the articles you cite -- there are lakes of the stuff. We also know that traces of them form abiogenically on Earth in the right conditions, such as the deep-sea vents mentioned in an article you cited. Significant methane is also expelled by volcanoes. What hasn't been demonstrated is a place anywhere in the world where abiogenic hydrocarbons have any significant commercial deposits, or where exploration based on abiogenic theories have led to any exploration success at all. We're talking about traces, at best, in commercially irrelevant concentrations.

      In your previous post, you said "There have been scientific theories floating around for decades now that support to some degree, an idea that oil can be made naturally without the long process currently ascribed to it."

      What you neglected to mention was that the idea of finding commercially significant abiogenic hydrocarbons has been tested in a few sites (e.g., the Siljan Ring in Sweden). The idea has been thoroughly negated in those same decades.

      This theory was a bunch of wishful thinking about a potentially new resource that has turned out to be useless from the perspective of increasing commercial oil and gas supply.

      And nobody doubts that you can promptly get oil or gas from modern biological materials if you do the right thing in the laboratory. That's what "biofuels" are all about. Biological material is what the oil and gas in the Earth came from in the first place. It doesn't mean the stuff you can make right now has exactly the same chemistry, it just means it is similar enough that you can burn it as if it was oil and gas. The real challenge with biofuels is how to get enough of the stuff cheaply enough to compete with geologically-sourced oil and gas that has already been naturally produced and concentrated.

      Also, it's not the chemical reactions themselves that necessarily take millions of years in the formation of oil and gas, it's the natural geological process that takes millions of years (i.e. depositing the rocks and heating them to cook the organic material in them).

    9. Re:Wow! by jbengt · · Score: 1

      It's not that the a-biotic origins of oil and gas aren't proposed by reasonable people. It's that the theories are glommed on to by the drill-baby-drill and anti-evolution types and promoted as if they throw into doubt the age of the earth and the finiteness of the supply of oil.

    10. Re:Wow! by sumdumass · · Score: 0

      I agree with that. Except that I don't think that the association of someone after the fact does anything to the fact at hand. It may be that a-biotic oil is a reality, is be that it is not, it may also be that the oil creation process can be accomplished in certain conditions completely as the traditional or contemporary explanation says excepts that it can happen much quicker on a timescale.

      Here is an alternative example that shows exactly what I mean. Evolution for instance, people who dislike religion and creation stories take the ancestral connections to apes and claim we came from monkeys/apes. Of course Biological evolutionary theory says nothing of the sort- it says that we come from an ancestor that branched and one branch lead to humans while the other lead to apes. Do we toss out the entire evolutionary theory because a couple of evangelical atheist co-opted the science to suit their needs? Of course the answer is no, we just don't give those idiots credit for their idiocy. Likewise, with the science behind anything, the science will prove to be the deciding factor- not the people who are presenting it or corrupting it to their own favor. To be anything else simply isn't scientific and that was my point.

    11. Re:Wow! by sumdumass · · Score: 0

      Hey troll. I Know I have spanked you a couple dozen times in the past when you put ideology over fact, but common, you need to read and comprehend what is being said before letting your knee jerk so hard it hit your own head. I know that when I have corrected you, I did it harshly and your feelings were really hurt as I chipped away at the foundation of the falsehoods you have been brainwashed into believing. I promise I will try to do it more gently this time so you don't have to get your panties in such a bunch.

      First of all, I did not in any way shape or form pretend to speak for any oil industry. I said that people outside of the motives listed entertain the ideas too. I then presented links to some of those people who have no conception of a flat earth. I think you need to learn to separate your ideology from your facts, learn some reading comprehension, and actually understand what is being presented before making comments that only show how ignorant you really are.

      BTW, just because a link doesn't agree with you does not make it any conspiracy bullshit. You are not the keeper of the world's knowledge as I have shown here and in the past on numerous occasions. I know it sucks to be put in place by someone claiming to be a dumbass, but that should really tell you more about yourself then anything about me.

    12. Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow - you showed him. Your carefully reasoned response to his trollish post has clearly demonstrated how an adult discussion should be conducted.

    13. Re:Wow! by Tyler+Durden · · Score: 1

      Evolution for instance, people who dislike religion and creation stories take the ancestral connections to apes and claim we came from monkeys/apes. Of course Biological evolutionary theory says nothing of the sort- it says that we come from an ancestor that branched and one branch lead to humans while the other lead to apes.

      Not only does evolutionary theory say that we came from apes, but that we are apes. Great Apes to be exact.

      --
      Happy people make bad consumers.
    14. Re:Wow! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Our common ancestors with the other great apes would certainly be classified as an ape. It would not be like any ape found today, but how else would you classify such an animal, considering the morphology it would have had? Neither of the following is inaccurate:

      1. We evolved from an ape-like ancestor.
      2. We are apes.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    15. Re:Wow! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      So far as I'm aware, Titan is dominated by methane, methane and other simpler hydrocarbons. Do you have some citations where there is evidence of more complex hydrocarbons that approach petroleum?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    16. Re:Wow! by sumdumass · · Score: 0

      I guess I wasn't specific enough. I know when you do not draw pictures or use power point, it's difficult to follow.

      The difference is that humans didn't come from the apes alive today, they split from an ancestor of both in which we have the apes alive today and humans from it. Of course you link explains that in detail so I didn't think it would be that much of a problem. However, I am wrong sometimes.

    17. Re:Wow! by sumdumass · · Score: 0

      Yawn...

      Ape-like is not monkeys/apes. We are not descendants of the apes currently walking the land as was the point being made. The taxonomy terms in biology has changed over the years to reflect these misconstructions and attempts to confuse the area. It is now called Hominidae instead of apes to avoid this vary issue. The use of the term Ape is somewhat outdated Specifically because of the issues I raised.

    18. Re:Wow! by Tyler+Durden · · Score: 1

      The difference is that humans didn't come from the apes alive today, they split from an ancestor of both in which we have the apes alive today and humans from it.

      Yes, I already knew that humans didn't come from the apes alive today. In your post you say that "people claim from monkey/apes" and that "evolutionary theory says nothing of the sort". But it does say something of the sort. We came from apes and continue to be classified as apes. It is not the case that "one branch lead to humans while the other lead to apes," as you wrote.

      So either your writing did not reflect what you were trying to say or you retroactively claimed you were trying to say something else in order to save face. Why are you being belligerent towards me when you are the one who is deficient?

      --
      Happy people make bad consumers.
    19. Re:Wow! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I never said we were descended from any ape currently alive today. But the term "ape" most certainly best describes the animal that we and the other Great Apes descended from. In fact, I doubt you'll find anyone out there other than Creationsts and those absurd semiotics freeks who wouldn't call us an ape. If Genus Homo is a great ape, and if Genus Pan is called a great ape, and Genus Gorilla is a great ape, and Genus Pongo is a great ape, then I'd say it stands to reason that the common ancestor, which there can be no doubt of being ape-like, could reasonably be called a great ape as well. But I tell you what, if being associated with apes, bothers you so much, call our sadly rather small family Hominoids.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    20. Re:Wow! by Tyler+Durden · · Score: 1

      Dammit! First quote should have read "[people] claim we came from monkeys/apes." My bad.

      --
      Happy people make bad consumers.
    21. Re:Wow! by sumdumass · · Score: 0

      It must be that the writing didn't reflect what was being said as you understand it. As I said, my point was that some people claim we come from monkeys (apes, I know they aren't the same) (alive today) in order to piss religions off. Evolution theory says that the gorillas and apes and such that aren't human and alive today branched from a common ancestor (or we branched or both or whatever). It's not what is being presented by some with the intent to kill religious beliefs and we do not toss everything related to evolution out because of their perversions. Likewise, it shouldn't happen when someone else does the same.

    22. Re:Wow! by sumdumass · · Score: 0

      Do you think there is a difference between a great ape and an ape? I mean a common ape is reference to the apes alive today while great ape is what you properly used for historical taxonomy purposes.

      And yes, I was the one who said apes alive today. It's implied in the initial argument and should be carried through the threads discussing it. If it's not what you meant, then we have experienced some unnecessary confusion here. This confusion is probably bilateral in that I couldn't clearly convey the message I was presenting and you couldn't read between the lines of my failings to derive the proper meaning of the statement. Personally, I think they are short misgivings that have been purposely inflated but I will refrain from judgment on motive.

    23. Re:Wow! by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Troll? You are the one claiming white is black and providing nothing of your own to back it up and nothing of worth from anyone else. Your extreme ignorance on this issue is revealed when you suggest that "sound waves" are no longer used when the reality is seismic exploration is how the majority of these resources are found.
      I do not understand why you are here as a blight on the landscape attempting to mislead the ignorant into the realms of pure fantasy. I suggest a different hobby.

    24. Re:Wow! by sumdumass · · Score: 0

      Troll?

      Yea, I'm talking to you.

      You are the one claiming white is black and providing nothing of your own to back it up and nothing of worth from anyone else.

      Really? Lets see what I claimed and what I backed up. "There have been scientific theories floating around for decades now that support to some degree, an idea that oil can be made naturally without the long process currently ascribed to it. And all this is done without the mentioning of a GOD or 6000 year earth history." Oh gee.. SO I claimed that science has been investigating oil outside of the contemporary setting for decades and this wasn't because of a motivation of god or young earth. Well now, how it this white claiming to be black? Huh, troll? Answer that without invoking your much feared god.

      So lets see what I provided, Hmm.. It was the results of a fucking Google search that show exactly that. Science, even in one case a religion using science, that is investigating the possibilities of oil being made alternatively to the contemporary million year dinosaur process. Wow, not exactly what of my own am I suppose to provide other then links and references to science looking into what I claimed? Am I supposed to do all the research on everything before commenting on it? Well, if that is the case troll, then I suggest you do the same. What have you provided besides your inability to comprehend a statements while injecting your own prejudices about religion and god?

      Your extreme ignorance on this issue is revealed when you suggest that "sound waves" are no longer used when the reality is seismic exploration is how the majority of these resources are found.

      Self reflecting again I see. You see, I never said sound waves weren't used, I said that the way they are use has changed as our knowledge and understanding has increased. If anyone is extremely ignorant here, it would have to be you seeing how you cannot even follow a concept, thought, or simple sentence in black and white. You are nothing but a troll taking shit out of context.

      I do not understand why you are here as a blight on the landscape attempting to mislead the ignorant into the realms of pure fantasy. I suggest a different hobby.

      Well, if you seriously think I am a blight on the landscape of your fantasy land, then you will never understand why I am here. It's going to be pointless to explain it to you because you will end up twisting that and trolling with it too. This is because you are the one disconnected from reality here and I'm pretty sure it's intentional. I do not know what sucks so much about your real life, but spreading the shittyness to others isn't dealing with it. Perhaps you father was both a preist and he molested you or something, I don't know. You but hole hurting doesn't justify your trolling though.

  30. Re:Sarah Palin knows the reason for the spill....p by FooAtWFU · · Score: 4, Interesting

    While Palin's pretty shamelessly rent-seeking (drill in Alaska? why, how convenient!) the idea that we've been avoiding one ecologically sensitive area (pristine Alaska wilderness) in favor of drilling in another, potentially more sensitive area which is also much much riskier to drill in (the Gulf) for whatever reason (perhaps it's easier for people to conceive of the former as wilderness-y?)... that part of her idea is not without merit. Regardless of our ultimate course of action, we should be sure that we are weighing the potential environmental impact a bit more dispassionately, and with an eye to overall impact - including the impact of the risks, so elusive and difficult to grasp until disaster strikes.

    --
    The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
  31. What? by copponex · · Score: 1

    Why do you think replacing one form of finite energy with dangerous byproducts is superior to another form of finite energy with dangerous byproducts?

    Nuclear can be a useful bridge, but we need to learn how to deal with the limitations of the energy that the sun provides on a daily basis, or harness the thermal energy of the Earth's core. Everything else is ultimately unsustainable.

    1. Re:What? by Black+Gold+Alchemist · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Nuclear power is far, far, far cleaner than fossils. What would you rather have? A concrete box of toxic nastyness, or a mist of global warming inducing toxic nastyness all over the place. I agree that we should move to solar and other sources (by the time nuke runs out, I think we'll be flying around the galaxy on zero point energy modules). I actually don't think the suns energy is "a limitation" it is actually far, far more than 15 billion Americans would use. Continuing on the GP's theme, I think the most promising technology in this regard is thermochemical technology. If we coat just 5% of the Sahara desert with this technology, we can make oil for 6 billion Americans.

      --
      Responsibility is an addiction
      Virtue is a temptation
      Community is a cartel
    2. Re:What? by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      And what makes you think harnessing the Earth's core energy is not ultimately unsustainable, either? In my mind's eye (and that's all anyone has at this point on this topic) the thermal energy from the Earth's core is, in essence, like a fire. You sap that heat and you are ultimately going to be taking more energy from the system, resulting in potentially screwing something up.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    3. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Im trying to figure out if your name has something to do with what your talking about.

    4. Re:What? by Black+Gold+Alchemist · · Score: 1

      Yep. That's what I want to study in college. Black gold = oil/coal. Alchemy = turning junk (lead) into good stuff (gold). So Black Gold Alchemist is turning junk into oil and coal.

      --
      Responsibility is an addiction
      Virtue is a temptation
      Community is a cartel
  32. abiogenesis of petroleum was a mainstream theory by rubycodez · · Score: 4, Informative
  33. ugly. by adolf · · Score: 1

    TFA is a good example of why everyone should have the Readability bookmarklet handy.

  34. you'll wait? by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    wait for what?

    $10/ gallon gas?

    or $20/ gallon gas?

    india, china, brazil... they're using more and more oil. the sources are only getting deeper and more expensive

    at what point do you see the need for change?

    but thanks for the shortsightedness. thanks for the belief that oil is going to last forever and has no downsides. you're mental stagnation and acceptance of a sucky status quo is a huge help. i love well-funded islamic fundamentalist nutjobs and i love choking on fumes

    thanks for your ignorant complacency dude!

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:you'll wait? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      wait for what?

      Figures on electric cars in Japan and France...

      I'm still waiting...

      but thanks for the shortsightedness.

      And thank you for the lack of 6th grade reading comprehension, wasting my time...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    2. Re:you'll wait? by DigiShaman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We will wait for a crisis. We always do. At best when the oil gets really expensive, expect rationing to occur. At worse, expect civil and global warfare over this precious resource.

      Individually, we are very smart. Collectively, we're fucking dumb as shit!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  35. It needs a step zero by dbIII · · Score: 1

    0) Develop a civilian nuclear power generation technology that is good enough that it will be build for a commercial reason other than merely ripping off the taxpayers. The current operating solutions are a stupidly expensive way to boil water and are of little practical use. Now while we could build a lot of them it's a matter of what we give up or tax more heavily to pay for them because suddenly energy is a huge amount more expensive.
    IMHO it makes a HUGE amount more sense to develop the emerging nuclear technologies to the point where a full scale prototype can be build AND THEN consider building a lot of them instead of the frankly stupid approach of spending shitloads building a lot of 1970s designs painted green that we know can barely do the job so long as we can keep on shovelling in the cash and have rapidly increasing fuel costs due to scarcity of the fuel they need while other stuff is less fussy about fuel.
    Completely avoiding the problem of old designs needing expensive high grade fuel that relies on relatively scarce reserves is enough of a reason to work on something newer instead of building a pile of tweaked 1970s designs. The newer designs are nowhere near as fussy about the fuel but WE NEED TO BUILD ONE TO SEE IF IT REALLY WORKS BEFORE BUILDING 1000.

  36. Artifical by MrKaos · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure this oil was released by actually drilling for it as opposed to natural means.

    I'm not an expert though.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  37. Re:Silver Lining? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

    I doubt it was that troll mod. I think the system is just broken.
    I'm a regular poster, nearly daily, good karma, decent number of up-modded posts.
    I don't meta-moderate anymore because they changed it to require javascript and I noscript the crap out of the web and refuse to make exceptions for lazy web designers.

    I get mod points about once a year.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  38. So where the fuck is this magic oil? by dbIII · · Score: 1

    A simple google search will also turn up thousands of fucking deranged conspiracy theories so it is up to YOU that makes the assertion a million miles away from recorded wisdom to outline it YOURSELF.
    You need to do better than what I can paraphrase as "other people say stuff" - you have to say it yourself and present the points in a way that convince others.
    As it is you have nothing apart from putting bullshit in the mouths of people that didn't say it. Go on, name a geologist in the petrochemical industry that writes such bullshit - you only have to find one BUT YOU HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO DO SO.
    Instead you pretend that people that take these things seriously indulge in your fantasy.

    1. Re:So where the fuck is this magic oil? by sumdumass · · Score: 0

      A simple google search will also turn up thousands of fucking deranged conspiracy theories so it is up to YOU that makes the assertion a million miles away from recorded wisdom to outline it YOURSELF.

      And that is why I provided links- so you wouldn't be confused over all the shit that you aren't inteligent enough to wade through.

      You need to do better than what I can paraphrase as "other people say stuff" - you have to say it yourself and present the points in a way that convince others.

      Please tell my why? Look moron, this entire thread is over one person's dismissal of something because some people say stuff. If you had the reading comprehension of a third grader, you could easily follow that. Saying "other people say stuff" is entirely relevant to the thread and more importantly it's completely appropriate seeing how it's in response to "people say stuff".

      As it is you have nothing apart from putting bullshit in the mouths of people that didn't say it. Go on, name a geologist in the petrochemical industry that writes such bullshit - you only have to find one BUT YOU HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO DO SO.
      Instead you pretend that people that take these things seriously indulge in your fantasy.

      I don't need to find anything you twit. The contemporary theories used in the petrochemical industry were developed outside of it entirely and then adopted as they proved useful. A theory does not have to be in use in a specific industry in order for it to be a theory, scientific, or viable. As more and more tests are done and the theory proves more and more accurate or possible, then it will find use in specific industries. That's how science works, and that how industry uses science and scientific advances. It is acted as you suggest, we would still be using sound waves to detect salt domes in our exploration of oil. Fortunately for the people of the world at large, those practicing science and participating in the petrochemical industry, aren't as stupid as you.

      and exactly what is my fantasy? That people work on science without (evil) agendas? I mean that is exactly what I was saying. And if that is a fantasy, it is a fault in the current practices not a feature.

    2. Re:So where the fuck is this magic oil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of your links was to WND, a "news" site so full of crazy fundamentalists that they hired fucking Chuck Norris and gave him a column to wank about creationism and how the evillusionists and the ACLU are sending their black helicopters to genocide the Real Christians. They have a long-documented history of lying about anything and everything to justify their insane ideology, and are more than happy to throw in a few sciencey words to support the latest guy whose found Noah's Ark or proved that Obama doesn't have a birth certificate because he was grown in a lab by satanic Kenyan mad scientists. Your choice of sources is extremely dubious. If they told me that fire was hot, I'd be breaking out the thermometers.

    3. Re:So where the fuck is this magic oil? by sumdumass · · Score: 0

      I guess in your mind guilt by association is justified and only one example is enough to push it for you right? Why don't you start looking at the whole picture and not cherry pick what you want to ignore everything on the table to deny food was ever present.

  39. you're awesome by circletimessquare · · Score: 0, Troll

    you don't have any ability to lead or think abstractly about problems in your own right

    you can only wait for someone else to lead, you can only depend upon someone else to do the right thing

    why didn't you just tell me up front you think of yourself as a slave? save all the effort. i thought i was talking to a responsible human being, not a lemming

    so you go, back in your little box, where everything makes sense and you don't have to think about problems or potential problems

    sorry to have disturbed you with, you know, the idea of electric cars, which is obviously some sort of crazy hippie pipe dream that no one, no one at all, is taking seriously

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:you're awesome by evilviper · · Score: 1

      If you hold up X as an example, it needs to work as an example... End of story. France and Japan are actually proof that Nuclear power plants everywhere will do NOTHING about dependence on oil.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  40. Re: Silver Lining? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

    By the way, how come it's been a long, long time since I received any mod points?

    Maybe another leak...

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  41. Why not pump the oil at the surface into a tank? by jdoire · · Score: 1

    I have 2 questions:

    1) Why they don't use those oil eating microbes???
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VfypUzx1tI&feature=youtube_gdata

    2) Why they don't pump this oil at the surface of the sea and put it into a super tanker??? Some water would get pump at the same time, but simply let the mixture sit a little while and the water will drop at the bottom could be pump back into the sea afterward. It certainly would not be perfect but it sure could recover a lot of the oil fairly quickly at a relatively low cost.

  42. Re:Why not pump the oil at the surface into a tank by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    That is all part of what they are doing.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  43. Re:Silver Lining? by Score+Whore · · Score: 1

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=26315&cid=2850660

    If you moderated that post you've been permanently banned from moderating.

    See "Other trolls" at this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Timwi/Slashdot_trolling_phenomena

  44. Re:Sarah Palin knows the reason for the spill....p by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Wait, what?

    You think that if we let Palin drill in ANWR that the drilling in the Gulf would stop? That thought is completely divorced from reality.

  45. Re:Silver Lining? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

    Looks like bare assertion to me.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  46. Re:Why not pump the oil at the surface into a tank by thegarbz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    #2 They have been doing from the beginning. Between skimming and collection / separation they end up collecting more than 90% water. Very inefficient, slow, and all over has a lame effect on the oil on the surface but they are doing it anyway.

  47. Oil spill in US...IMBY not NIMBY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good that the spill happened in USA. Similar incidents - industrial accidents - by big oil and other big multinationals (Bhopal tragedy for example) gets no coverage or is not taken seriously because it is NIMBY. Now it is IMBY...in your face, in your beaches, in your fishing stock and so on. Now it is not possible to simply avoid the problem as 'collateral damage', 'necessary to support American interests' and other BS. I am glad this spill happened in US...rather than some poor boondocks third world country.

  48. Re:Why not pump the oil at the surface into a tank by maxume · · Score: 1

    There are already oil eating microbes in the gulf. I think taking some that had been cultured and spreading them probably wouldn't result in much more activity (just given how much the oil has spread out).

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  49. Corporate whores (was: The Exon Valdez) by bwcbwc · · Score: 1
    --
    We are the 198 proof..
  50. All fine except they didn't ignore standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    All fine except they didn't ignore standards because the safety standard they missed isn't required by the US government in oil rigs. They are a safety requirement that other countries have, but this accident was in newly-acquired US territorial waters.

    1. Re:All fine except they didn't ignore standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Let's see...a stuck pipe in the well, a modified, improperly installed blowout preventer that had three separate hydraulic fluid leaks, a dead man switch hooked up to dead battery, the metal casing used was known a year prior not to be able to take high pressure, pressure tests conducted...and then ignored even when they showed catastrophic build up of gas, including two hours before the explosion, improper cement used, use of sea water instead of drilling mud, and other failures that are slowly coming to light from leaked internal engineering reports from the day of the explosion to over a year prior to the explosion. Hell reports are coming out nearly every day--Deepwater Horizon was so ineptly managed at all levels its explosion was a certainty. Plus, BP accounts for 97% of all "egregious and willful" safety violations issued by OSHA in the last three years, 760 violations in all. This is indicative of a corporate culture, one that comes directly from the top and permeates the company, to cut corners at every and any opportunity and damn the consequences. The consequences of their egregious and willful violations of safety this time is an oil volcano vomiting out up to 95,000 barrels of oil a day, over five times greater than the link in TFA's laughably low "worst case." BP is a corporation that should have it's corporate charter revoked, assets seized and sold off, and executives investigated for criminal activity. Tony Hayward's life isn't worth spit at this point. Look for him to show up in a non-extradition treaty country any day now.

  51. Deepwater Horizon sounds like a title of by Technomancer · · Score: 1

    a space horror movie. Or some under water slasher/ghost ship movie.
    It just could not end well with a name like that.

    1. Re:Deepwater Horizon sounds like a title of by cffrost · · Score: 1

      Deepwater Horizon sounds like a title of a space horror movie. Or some under water slasher/ghost ship movie.

      Correct: Deep Blue Sea (1999) + Open Water (2003) + Event Horizon (1997)

      Regretfully, Leviathan (1989) failed to match our title mask.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
  52. Passport for Guilt Trip: DENIED by archer,+the · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Thank you for pointing out that, being under 40, I was one of the people to choose Oil as a major energy source back in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. Thank you for pointing out that, making $50K a year, I was one of the people who lobbied politicians with the message of "there's no such thing as global climate change". Thank you for pointing out that being a non-governmental, non-petrochemical, non-drilling employee, I chose the poor oversight and safety practices that occurred on Deepwater Horizon.

    Enough sarcasm.

    Yes, we are too dependent upon oil. Most people know that. Many of us have believed that for decades. However, these decisions were made long ago and by people with influence.

    Recently, we have been making progress: there are hybrid cars on the road now. There will be electric cars on the road soon. We're looking for alternatives for plastics as well. People can pay an extra fee to have their electricity supplied from a renewable source. But the oil problem won't change overnight.

  53. Oil cleanup method by SPickett · · Score: 1

    An interesting cleanup proposal:

    1. Blow hay on the ocean surface in the middle of the slick.
    2. Wait a short while as the waves mix the oil and hay. The oil attaches to the hay.
    3. Skim the hay from the surface.
    4. Any hay that gets to shore is easier to pick up than raw oil on the sand.

    Here's a video demonstration.

    http://www.wimp.com/solutionoil/

    1. Re:Oil cleanup method by dominious · · Score: 1

      maybe you should provide this proposal on the bp suggestions website: http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/doc/2931/541843

  54. Oil is not the sole feedstock for society. by lotho+brandybuck · · Score: 2, Insightful
    There's plastics that are coal derived... Melamine can be synthesized from coal products... Phenolic... other stuff.. Steel uses iron ore, coal, and limestone. Ceramics? Don't need petroleum for those, been doing it for 1000's years.

    I'm getting sick of people saying that modern life is dependent on petroleum. Sure.. things won't be as easy, but we can make all sorts of things, and won't be giving up all the technological developments of the last century just by switching feedstocks!

    This will not drive us back to the middle ages, in the middle ages, we didn't have electricity!

    Reducing petrol use in transport, even by only 50% will increase the amount of "easy oil" available for use as chemical precursors for the stuff that can't easily be made from coal or fresh biomass.

    Agriculture scares me the most because modern ag pretty much involves turning diesel into meat. But we can make changes here, too.. there's no reason we cant farm electrically, we're already using electricity for irrigation. What scares me the most is a ill-considered switch to biofuels as we could quickly starve ourselves trying to grow massive quantities of fuel from food crops.

    This stuff isn't rocket science and I'm getting more and more angry about the lack of political will to start adapting rather than burying our heads in the sand.

    1. Re:Oil is not the sole feedstock for society. by Mspangler · · Score: 1

      "There's plastics that are coal derived... Melamine can be synthesized from coal products... Phenolic... other stuff.."

      The chemical industry started with coal tar (aniline dyes in particular). It can go back there if we have to. 29 dead men vs 11 dead men and a fried ecosystem makes the trade off calculations interesting to say the least.

  55. meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the @*&k is this article meant to be about ... its just a train wreak of contentious crap ... how do I remove timothy from my list of contributors?
    Comparing natual large oilfield rupture to slow ongoing natural seeps is just fricking retaraded. Deep seated fault can break to surface .... if the conduit is right they won't just seep they will dump any fluid/gas which is out of equilibrium with its environment to surface. A big fault could vent a whole field.. but fortunately these big fault movements don't occur every day.

    But looking at seep rates and trying to compare to catastrophic failures man- made or natural is just dumb.

  56. Re:Sarah Palin knows the reason for the spill....p by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

    I didn't say that, and no, I don't think it would, certainly not with the way oil politics are structured today. But that's the problem: it's the political climate that determines these things more than reality. We don't drill in the Gulf or in Alaska because it's a good idea or a bad idea in its own right, we drill because the politics make it more convenient.

    --
    The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
  57. Re: Silver Lining? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    Palin and Bachman are what are best described as useful idiots.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  58. sometime in 1910 by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    two guy sitting on horses watched a ford model t pass them on the road, and one guy on horse said to the other: "someday, no one will ride horses anymore and we'll all ride those things"

    and the other guy laughed at him and said "If you hold up X as an example, it needs to work as an example"

    electric cars are not warp drives or graviton bombs: exotic science fiction. its a damn battery attached to a damn motor. its really not that complicated. we haven't used them up to now, because gas has been so cheap. its not going to be so cheap, ever again

    so now you figure the rest of the story out with your boundless imagination as to the future and the role of electric cars in them

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:sometime in 1910 by evilviper · · Score: 1

      That's the most incoherent rant I've heard in here in quite a while...

      Replace all the coal power plants with Nuclear, and it won't help one bit to prevent OIL SPILLS. Other countries have nuclear instead of coal, and they are just as dependent on oil as everyone else.

      its a damn battery attached to a damn motor. its really not that complicated.

      Get back to me when you've put together a few car-sized Li-Ion batteries. Simple.

      we haven't used them up to now, because gas has been so cheap. its not going to be so cheap, ever again

      It was more expensive in the 70s. It's much, much more expensive in other countries. Other countries have cheaper electricity, better electric grids, etc., etc. Note that even with all these combination, not one of them is free of oil, Nuclear power plants or no.

      so now you figure the rest of the story out with your boundless imagination as to the future and the role of electric cars in them

      I have no problem seeing what the future likely holds. You, however, have a severe problem with your reading, having a rational discussion, and really have no sense of the reality of the world around you.

      But hey, what do I know? A few nuclear power plants, and all oil spills will stop, and a week later we'll all be driving around in our $100 electric flying cars.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  59. Buy Cheap? by mindbrane · · Score: 1
    I've a long standing record as a strong environmentalist and I can't think of any legal remedy too harsh for BP. That aside, is anyone buying BP stock? Does anyone know if it's downside has been discounted enough to warrant buying the stock? The above may seem OT but it's not really because we're all gonna end up paying for this catastrophe. Since, President Obama's declarations aside, tax dollars, and, perhaps, cost at the pumps is going to pass the cost along to all of us, it might be a good idea to recouping some of that cost by buying BP stock. As a matter of course I'm all for a conservative investment strategy that relies on safer saving/investment instruments than stocks provide, but, if you've got your backside covered to handle contingencies for 18 months or so, and, you want to invest, then wouldn't investing in BP (given the stock has been adequately discounted (big given)) be a good hedge? It would, if nothing else, be a classic education in the basics of stock valuation.

    just my loose change

    --
    ideopath @ play
    1. Re:Buy Cheap? by nopainogain · · Score: 1

      the investment community has a saying about "not trying to catch falling knives" I'm no Buffet but in my experience it's held true.

  60. There, Quantified... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you really want to quantify it (at least area-wise) you could easily overlay a map of the spill on Google Maps using data from NOAA. Oh wait, somebody already did that... http://www.ifitwasmyhome.com

  61. Cost Avoidance by BP PLC is No Supprise ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just when the accounting derpartment determined that the least figure will be about $218 trillion US dollars.

    Then BP PLC instituded a crash program to "buy" US Federal Judges in Texas, Louisiana, Alabama and Florida to start ... next round will include Georgia, South-North Carolina, Virigina, Maryland, Deleware, New Jersy, and New York as the oil and contagions move along the eastern seaboard of the US on their way to the Greenland Current junction of the thermohaline circulation current.

    The Queen Mum is going to be Royally Pissed that here July barbecue will be too cold and snowed out by blizzard conditions in the southern UK!

  62. Re:oildrank by Anti-Trend · · Score: 1

    Never has the term "Anonymous Coward" been more appropriate.

    --
    Working in a DevOps shop is like playing in a band made up entirely of keytarists.
  63. What irritates me most by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    Commentators both left and right are calling this "the worst environmental disaster ever". They evidently choose to ignore Tuskunga, Chernoble, Mt. St. Helens, Mt. Pinatubo, Vesuvius, Krakatoa, The Year Without a Summer (1816), the dust bowl, the black plague, the 1906 San Fransisco earthquake, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, and numerous other earthquakes, floods, tidal waves, volcanos, hurricanes and meteor strikes.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    1. Re:What irritates me most by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Commentators both left and right are calling this "the worst environmental disaster ever". They evidently choose to ignore Tuskunga, Chernoble, Mt. St. Helens, Mt. Pinatubo, Vesuvius, Krakatoa, The Year Without a Summer (1816), the dust bowl, the black plague, the 1906 San Fransisco earthquake, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, and numerous other earthquakes, floods, tidal waves, volcanos, hurricanes and meteor strikes.

      Would inserting words so it reads "the worst environmental disaster, caused by human activity, in US territorial waters ever" make you feel better?

  64. How to turn off the tap by LandGator · · Score: 1

    http://kiloseven.blogspot.com/2010/06/open-letter-to-keith-olbermann-on-being.html explains succinctly, with references, how to shut down the leak.

    --
    There is nothing wrong with yr Internet. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling the transmission - NSA
  65. Actual Solutions by technosaurus · · Score: 1

    Perspectives from an engineer on the gulf oil spill. Submit your favorite solution by filling out a form here: http://www.horizonedocs.com/artform.php HOWTO fix the gulf oil spill and minimize impacts. “Oil-water separators” Kevin Costner’s “invention” is not a new technology. The same results can be achieved with a suction pump (the “goes in”) that discharges to an oil water separator ( widely available commercially in capacities of 5000 gallons per minute with capacities of 50,000 gallons – probably more). From the oil water separator tank, the oil and water are then discharged to an external tank and the ocean respectively. “Insufficient Oil Booms” This is not only a problem of insufficient quantity, but also a case of insufficient type. Regarding the insufficient type, a deep-water boom (going to the depth of the spill) is necessary to contain the discharged oil to the immediate vicinity to minimize the environmental impact and for ease of collection and cleanup. The inability to meet the demands for smaller, more traditional (off-shore) booms can be met locally using readily available local labor, much the way sandbagging is handled. This would require a length of fabric, an equal length of steel chain or other heavy material, two sewing machines a spray foam blower and an ounce of imagination “STOPPING THE LEAK” Method 1: Freeze seal and weld a cap - Cryostop of Wilmington, NC makes freeze seals of sufficient size and there are liquid nitrogen tanks of sufficient capacity available at various naval shipyards. Once a freeze seal is in place the pipe can be capped or even fitted with a valve for future use. Method 2,3: Plug/Cap the hole – Using the mathematically determined flow rate to deduce the well pressure (along with the surface area of the pipe opening) will enable engineers to determine the weight of a plug necessary to overcome the pressure and stop the leak. This plug can be bullet shaped and go inside the pipe or an elongated, cone-shaped cap that seats on the outside wall of the pipe. Method 4: Reduce the flow rate by inserting large porous material(s) – Since the capacity of the attached system is already maxed out, reducing the flow rate is essential to enable currently installed systems to handle the amount of flow. Aside from capping the hole or creating a new one to relive the pressure, the only way to reduce the flow rate is to increase the differential pressure throughout the system, such that the pressure at discharge is lower (and thus the flow rate). This is done by increasing head loss throughout the pipe. Head losses occur normally due to friction or from any treacherous path such as a bend in the pipe, but can be created artificially by introducing a treacherous path into the system. Cutting into the pipe to insert a series of plates to create a series of treacherous paths would be too risky, but inserting porous materials (large sponges etc) into the pipe opening would provide the same results, provided the materials are kept inside. Method 5: Use hot taps to divert the flow – As hinted in Method 4 it is possible to reduce the flow rate of the leak by making another hole to relieve the pressure. Simply making an extra hole in the pipe would defeat the purpose, fortunately there is already a product called a hot tap that is used to do exactly that and is used all the time in the construction industry to tap into live natural gas lines. These hot taps can be used to attach alternate pipes/tubes for removal and accommodate the lack of capacity of the main line. Method 6: The Plunger Method - When a plunger is inverted the upward force on the bottom creates an outward force along its circumference. In this situation inserting a large “inverted plunger” would create a self sealing plug due to the upward force of the well pressure. Method 7: The Flange insertion Method – It is possible the cut off the majority of oil flow by cuttin