Slashdot Mirror
US Confirms Underwater Oil Plume
oxide7 writes "An underwater three-dimensional map of the oil spill is closer to becoming a reality, now that the US has for the first time confirmed the discovery of a subsurface oil plume resulting from the ruptured BP well. The government agency in charge of ocean science has received the first of several expected reports from university investigators aboard research ships detailing specific locations where oil has been found below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico. The government, which denied reports of giant underwater oil plumes in mid-May, said researchers at the time had not confirmed the presence of conglomerated oil." The New York Times talked with scientists on a two-week mission in the Gulf and reported them "awed" at the size and density of the underwater plume.
This is such a disaster. Someone please provide links: I know that even now after the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska there is ongoing environmental damage and hardship for the people who live in the area. From that example, speculate on what will happen in the Gulf.
Shh.
The whole in the ocean floor has been spewing oil for 50 days. The long term effects of this disaster can't even be imagined yet. BP = Bhopal for the Gulf.
Oh, wait...
All in one spot hopefully. Let me get my straw.
I... drink... your... milkshake!
Obama still hasn't spoken to BP’s CEO Tony Hayward.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
This is the kind of thing conservatives want to bring to every aspect of your life; when Grover Norquist talks about drowning government in a bathtub, the tub is full of crude oil and dead fish.
:-P
Uhh, what? They aren't talking about 100% oil in this plume...............
I don't think people quite appreciate how difficult it is to remove oil from the ecosystem when things like cleaning the birds is considered futile, the dispersant may be longer acting than the oil and the median time for complete recovery is looking to be in the decades. Any solution that does not prevent future blow outs from happening in the first place is far too expensive to justify, its sort of sad that it is cheaper just to ignore the gulf coast and fish and vacation somewhere else till the pollution dies down. It may make for good TV viewing but I for one would rather see them invest billions to prevent another disaster instead of making largely cosmetic changes to the gulf coast that may lull people into a false sense of security.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
I'd think that a more-or-less conglomerated area of oil will make recovery processes easier. I'd like to see these recovery processes footed by BP, and the resultant sale of the recovered crude denied BP and used instead to fund environmental cleanup.
At 15 miles x 3 miles x 600ft that's 21,314,566,152 cubic meters. At .5ppm (absolute minimum, from TFA), that's 10,657 cubic meters of pure oil. Google tells me that 10657 cubic meters converts to 67,030 barrels. This thing has been going on for 49 days now, so we're talking about at least 1367 barrels of oil per day in this plume alone.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
No, but it ain't 5 trillion gallons of seawater, either.
About 26,000 sq miles one foot deep in oily water...
Ya just gotta love those big numbers.
Dave
Sure, the scientists are in "awe".... but are they "shocked" too?
I am open source, and Linux baby!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Whoever was on the other end of the line was apparently trying to calm Harrell down. "I am fucking calm," he went on, according to Buzbee. "You realize the rig is burning?"
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/06/the-rigs-on-fire-i-told-you-this-was-gonna-happen/57775/
what's he supposed to do? throw on some snorkel gear and swim down and close it himself? The military already said they don't have the ability to manage an oil pipe that has the estimated 12,000psi that this thing is pumping out. They have said that the oil companies are far better equipped to deal with something like this. So what the F do you idiots that keep saying this bs want obama to do when the F'n oil companies that caused this problem aren't capable of fixing their own crap? Damn armchair engineers... if it's so easy you come up with a plan to stop a oil geyser at a mile below the ocean surface genius.. lets hear it! And try to use something that won't spread nuclear waste all over the place while you're at it.
You're a F'n moron. Please STFU. Your bush administration was the group that deregulated everything that allowed this kind of crap to happen in the first place.
Maybe because Bush has far better ties to oil than Obama? Maybe because the dikes that failed were built by Army Corps of Engineers, employed by the US government? Maybe because there all there was to do with Katrina is to clean it up (It's not like the hurricane hovered there for months on end)? What do you want him to do, swim down 5000 feet and plug the hole with his huge biceps? If Bush were in office we'd probably be invading Great Britain right now.
for a bit, the big question has been: is the seabed there generally fractured so that the only real option to seal the leaks is nuclear explosives. BP does not like this question because they want to eventually make money off the oil field. Of course, there are a lot of questions they do not like.
Now I read that there are two fractures anyway.
Suppose it turns out we need nukes. There is significant preparation time. Just in case, we should already have been working on preparation. Things like engineering studies, etc. Do you feel like holding your breath for these studies to start up?
So I am not some environmentalist. I do not get big upset about birds dying unpleasantly, though that response might speak well of those who do. But the following statement seems credible to me: biggest environmental disaster in USA history. Simply being a patriot might make you wonder about the response of the political class.
Asking "where's the critcism?" means you haven't been paying attention. There's tons of criticism in mainstream press. I see it every day as I track the news on the spill.
Why's he getting off better than Bush did with Katrina? Well, probably because he sacked the MMS head who screwed up instead of telling her that she did "a heckuva job". Little things like appearing to recognize when somebody has not, in fact, done a heckuva job seems to count for something.
I want to see more housecleaning at MMS and I'm quite disappointed that there hasn't been signs of it, yet. But then there's the AG's criminal investigation, which if half the things said about what BP did and didn't do before the spill are true is warranted. And then there's that outside of mobilizing the Coast Guard, what can the government do about the spill itself? All the people who can actually do something about it are in private industry. We're not talking about ferrying people out of a flooded area, we're talking about fixing something in an environment where it's never been fixed before.
And while I would agree with the hypothetical comment that the government should take more direct control over the actions of the oil companies in order to fix it, that's actually not a simple thing to do. We already have plenty of critics even in Congress saying that the regulatory action Obama has taken and has promised to take are going to have a stifling effect on private industry in the gulf. Hey idjits, I want to say to them, if this is what they're going to do then I want to stifle the ever loving fuck out of them.
The enemies of Democracy are
True, and for good reason.
In the real world, actually, there have been very frequent, very vitriolic attacks on the current President, and a widespread labelling in the media of the spill as his Katrina, beginning very shortly after the spill began.
Actually, the Justice Departmen has been turned on BP. Unfortunately -- from your apparent perspective -- the US Constitution doesn't allow the federal government to arbitrarily detain people for potential crimes. You have to investigate and have evidence first.
We know the company operating the drilling platform was a separate company (owned by BP), is the BP company that has the drilling rights the main BP company or is it something like "BP Cayman Islands"?
Is it possible if the BP accountants and lawyers have done their jobs properly the amount of money that can be extracted from BP might be "capped"? - the US public could end up paying the bulk of the clean up costs while BP keeps operating in the US under a different name.
I know, my cynicism is showing.
BM3
I think this oil spill is a little more abstract than seeing one of our continent's major cities inundated and its populace not only more or less abandoned but for the major response to be the allocation of armed troops to the area. Further, New Orleans and its black citizens have a bad history that would make people likely to be suspicious. Yes, this is a mess. But what exactly would have happened if Obama had said no offshore drilling? Wouldn't that have made Palin and other Republicans ecstatic for just one more "look at the commie negro" opportunity? Frankly, the whole political scene in the US is a cesspit, and it's because we already live in the world imagined in Idiocracy. From the gutted schools to the sycophantic media to the narcissistic and selfish populace, we're all to blame for this. Just turn up the AC, turn on the tube, crank up Red Dead Carjack, lean back and enjoy the coast into oblivion.
Sigh.... did you not pay attention to what people were blaming Bush for? Here, I'll list them out:
1) Putting a guy in charge of FEMA who had been kicked out of his commissioner position at a Horse association
2) Telling the head of FEMA "Heck'uva job, Brownie" when it was patently obvious that FEMA was bungling what little responsibility it had.
So far, the person in charge of the government organization that was supposed to monitor BP is gone, and there isn't anything legal that Obama can personally do to fix the issue. Unless, as others said, you suggest he put on a snorkel and plug the leak himself.
So: what is exactly that you mean by "coming out fighting against BP" and "proactive"? Cross-reference with what has already been done and what is legal. Thank you.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
During and after Katrina everyone attacked Bush
We should be attacking Obama about Katrina because, while the touristy French Quarter is back to normal, the ninth ward still looks like the day after Katrina hit.
American's have such a short memory that we..
-sent relief to Katrina victims until Haiti happened,
-sent relief to Haiti victims until the BP Oil spill happened,
This country started going to hell in a handbasket when we replaced a trained nuclear engineer/sub driver with an actor that made people feel good.
Sounds like a catchy new name for BP
Todos mis movimientos están friamente calculados
While I agree with you completely ... that wasn't his point. Whether or not Obama could have done anything is irrelevant; public perception of what he should be doing is what the post is complaining about.
Besides, this isn't just a problem of sealing the well -- there's the cleanup to deal with too. We can't just leave that up to BP. Make them pay later? Sure. But mobilize now to protect and prevent.
If Bush were in office we'd probably be invading Great Britain right now.
That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. First off, Great Britain actually has ties to BP, so it wouldn't fit in with Bush's track record of going after completely unrelated entities a-la Afghanistan/Iraq style. Secondly, Great Britain would be far too obvious a target since they could actually be implicated in the BP fuck ups through corrupt officials. It would make much more sense for Bush to attack someone that has some cloudy, uncertain, unlinked nature with BP...someone like India. See, Great Britain also has crappy beaches and India's beaches are nice and warm and sandy, so there is that added benefit. Besides that, the gulf stream is supposed to make Britain's beaches get FUBARED as well, so no, it's much better to avoid Mother Britain all together.
...
If Bush were still president, we wouldn't even speak of Britain. We'd be much more likely to invade India for being a colony of rebels that attacked our great ally Britain so many years ago. An ally, mind you, that is trying to reduce our gas prices so we could drive our SUVs to the Longhorn's game this weekend. Besides, we already have troops somewhat near India so the logistics make more sense. On top of that, India has been launching satellites lately and discovered water on the moon (the same moon that Bush wants to colonize one day) before we did, so they are trying to beat us to our own manifest destiny amongst the stars. Besides, since those satellites are launched on rockets, and rockets are what the Russians used to talk about attacking the US with in combination with WMD's, India probably has WMDs.
So yeah, India is definitely a threat and needs to be invaded right away. Besides, I hear they aren't a good Christian nation like real civilizations...they worship some seven armed Goddess or something and actually believe in reincarnation, pagan devils. It's time to stop India's encroachment on our rights once and for all!
Errrr....what were we talking about again?
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
Here;
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1679466&cid=32502780
and here;
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1679466&cid=32502842
and several other places, but I'd need to look further than this page to find them. As I've already done more than you, I don't see the need to look further.
Is 1563649 a prime number?
BP = Bhopal for the Gulf.
Uh, no, not even close. This isn't even close to being the worst oil spill in history, let alone the worst disaster in history. If the worst case scenario comes to pass... a spewing well until Christmas... then maybe this will make the top ten spill list. Second, this is oil, a natural substance, which even in its toughest form is a far cry from the chemical pesticides that Union Carbide leaked (and this leak is light sweet crude, not the much heavier grade of oil that was spilled at Valdez. It'll actually start evaporating). Last, Bhopal killed 17,000 people. This spill will kill no one, unless we've suddenly started counting birds and fish as people. The birds and fish will recover. The victims of Bhopal aren't coming back.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
US Constitution doesn't allow the federal government to arbitrarily detain people for potential crimes.
Not that our government should be allowed to... but all we'd have to do is label them potential (eco?) terrorists and we'd be able to lock them up for years without trial or substantial evidence.
Given that this high-pressure Macondo oil field has been in existence for many years, and that other fields lie elsewhere under the oceans, could plumes occur naturally through some seismic or tectonic event? Is there any evidence of prior plumes? How did these play out?
there has been very little vitriolic attacking on the current President
What planet do you live on?
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Exactly my point. During Katrina people expected Bush to go fix it personally, I point out the double standard and you do some Bush bashing.
Thanks for making my point.
They do it all the time with terrorists. Someone doesn't blow up a crappy bomb in Times Square and he is in Federal custody in hours, but the CEOs of BP are running around scot-free?
They could federalize the state guards and get them to cleaning up. They could start a FEMA organized clean up and put forth a jobs program starting right now to get those people whose industries will be destroyed new jobs.
Pipe the oil leaking pipe and burn it at the surface.
attach a pipe bigger than the other pipe, but can slide over the current oil spewing pipe.
Plus please remove the gentiles of the employees of BP as punishment why not tar and feather them while they are at it
For once, that might be on topic...
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
FTA: "Bacteria are breaking down the oil's hydrocarbons in a massive, microorganism feeding frenzy that has sent oxygen levels plunging close to what is considered "dead zone" conditions,"
So...shouldn't we be trying to oxygenate the water?
Extra oxygen means the oil gets eaten *and* the fish can survive ... it's win-win.
(Yes I know the sea is quite big but there must be something they can dump into the patches of oil...H2O2?)
No sig today...
We know the company operating the drilling platform was a separate company (owned by BP)
Transocean is not owned by BP. Transocean is a separate company entirely.
The part added by kdawson isn't quite right. The article is available on the New York Times website, but was not written by them. It obviously says: "By PAUL QUINLAN AND JOSH VOORHEES of Greenwire", "Copyright 2010 E&E Publishing. All Rights Reserved", "Greenwire is published by Environment & Energy Publishing." The actual New York Times article was written by different people and doesn't say anyone was "awed."
Knowledge is the small part of ignorance that we arrange and classify. (Ambrose Bierce)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Folks, our government has been lying to us. They knew the area of the spill on the surface and the rate of the leak. You can compute whether there is any missing oil, and the missing oil must be subsurface. So why are scientists amazed that so much is underwater? doesn't simple math show it must be?
Currently hooked on AMP
During and after Katrina everyone attacked Bush, often very personal attacks for the Federal and even state responses to that event.
Yet here we are nearly two months after this started and there has been very little vitriolic attacking on the current President.
Hurricanes are well-studied and predictable, to some extent. Bush saw Katrina coming, he knew where it would hit, he knew how strong it was, and he was told how devastating it could be, and it was still a failure.
Oil leaks are not predictable. They're an eventuality, yes, and they're preventable, yes, but there was no weather report saying "tommorrow, 70% chance of massive explosion on oil rig. Take an umbrella."
Is it possible if the BP accountants and lawyers have done their jobs properly the amount of money that can be extracted from BP might be "capped"?
There's already a low-ball legal cap.
All the talk about raising it or removing it is probably just hot-air politics: IANAL, but I'm pretty sure a change in the law can't be applied retroactively.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
BP actually have a really shitty environmental record.
What they have is a really good marketing department.
Yet here we are nearly two months after this started and there has been very little vitriolic attacking on the current President.
News must be slow to reach whatever planet you live on. The anti-anything-not-Republican crowd was calling it "Obama's Katrina" about 3 days after the leak hit the news.
Also, it's not clear what usa.gov can do. So far as I know, they don't have the equipment for fighting underwater oil leaks.
(Not to imply that I think Obama is anything but just another do-nothing-Democrat.)
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
A "scientist was awed by the density" of the plume? At HALF A PART PER MILLION???!!!
Am I missing something, or am I just a dullard whose panties don't get bunched over TRACE CONCENTRATIONS?
And 2 weeks ago, they had paid a massive $990m on clean up. Your point?
You're being ironic, right? You're referring to the fact that BP announced it will pay its normal quarterly dividend of 2.63 billion dollars.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
So, looking at the wikipedia entry for BP, it seems they own AmPm, Conoco, Castrol, and Arco.
Maybe next time you get an oil change, or fill up the tank, you should consider who you're giving your money to.
Voting with our dollars seem to have much more impact than voting with our votes.
-T
During and after Katrina everyone attacked Bush, often very personal attacks for the Federal and even state responses to that event.
Yet here we are nearly two months after this started and there has been very little vitriolic attacking on the current President.
Why is that I wonder? The Obama administration was in charge of the offices at the Interior that oversaw this and no changes were made. The Justice Department could have been turned on to BP and people could be in jail right now, but nothing was done.
I'll field this one.
Why is the difference between Deepwater and Katrina? Well multiple reasons. First, Katrina was a natural disaster, and Deepwater was a man-made one, no matter how many times BP and anti-government apologists claim it was a "natural disaster" or an "Act of God". While not all the facts are in, it's looking increasingly likely criminal negligence and lack of proper enforcement of regulations due to long time corruption in the Mines and Minerals Service are to blame. The government has always had a role in the preparation and recovery after natural disasters. In fact, there's a whole agency dedicated just to that, the Federal Emergency Management Agency. States and even large cities have similar agencies. Man made disasters? Not so much. The government simply doesn't have the tools or expertise in repairing deepwater drills. It never did. Now we can argue whether or not the government should have the tools and the expertise in-house for future events, but it has never had this. Second, Katrina had warning. Days of warning for Katrina specifically, and years of warning about the possibility. Sadly, the devastation of Katrina pretty much played out exactly as predicted. The Bush Administration simply failed to prepare because he appointed political allies instead of the (albeit recent) tradition of professional emergency managers. Finally, and this is the biggest difference. The economic and human toll of the two disasters are simply incomparable. The death toll for Katrina is literally 100 times greater. The economic impact is equally disproportionate.
You talk about coverups, but the only coverup I'm aware of is BP's not the government's. Keep in mind, BP was repeatedly denying access to the site by outsiders and providing the absurdly low estimates. Not the Coast Guard, nor any other government agency.
Heck, I wonder if he played golf that day.
Probably. Even war couldn't stop his game.
Except that Katrina was something the government was supposed to be equipped and prepared to do. We have FEMA and the national guard (although a lot the Guard and its equipment was in Iraq at the time).
The government does not have its own petroleum engineering capabilities. Are you suggesting we should have a national petroleum company, like Venezuela does?
If there's a hurricane or similar disaster on land that Obama gets a free pass on, you'd have a point. But here we have a case where the standards are different because the situations are different. It wouldn't be rational to expect the same kind of response from the government to both these situations. Yes, they're both disasters, but they're completely different kinds of disasters.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
It's funny, because I think sacking the head of the MMS, while probably politically necessary, wasn't really a reasonable action.
Birnbaum took office on July 15 2009. She was taking over the most notoriously corrupt and ineffective agency in the Federal Government. The permits for DWH had already been issued, and the relaxation of safeguards that might have prevented the disaster had taken place six years earlier. Any revision of the policy could not have been made in time to prevent the disaster.
So there is no reasonable way that Birnbaum could have been expected to avert this disaster in the 9 months she was in office. It was entirely a political gesture. They'd already decided MMS was so broken it couldn't be fixed, and they were going to split it up and move its functions to other agencies. So Birbaum's "resignation" was purely symbolic.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Seems the article left out what the lady reported in the news conference about the concentration of this "plume" . When I think of a "plume" I think of this big thick thing like a black smoke plume moving along. But the lady in the conference made the horrid mistake of actually providing information. They are not supposed to do that in the political arena. She told their sampling found the oil concentration was 0.5 ppm (parts per million) Oops. So that means you cant see or taste it. This 0.5 ppm would be like having a LARGE city size swimming pool of a Million gallons and pouring in 2 quarts of oil. Devastating... ....(2 quarts being the 0.5 part of the million gallons )
I will agree with you IF you concede that it's hypocritical to argue for "small government" and "free enterprise with no government oversight" and then ask for government to respond to a man made - or rather, enterprise made - disaster.
Katrina was a natural disaster. The federal government is supposed to have a plan in place. Who else is going to deal with it?
Gulf oil spill is a disaster created by free enterprise. Are you seriously arguing that every disaster created by any enterprise is the responsibility of the government? And you expect the government to not grow? Are they supposed to be prepared to clean up after every business that might make a mess?
I'm not saying that the federal government isn't responsible. I've responded elsewhere in this thread that I'm quite outraged that the government oversight failed. A massive failure of the government. But you can't even argue that if you also argue for "completely free enterprise" and "free market knows best". It's quite obvious it doesn't.
So, why the double standard? One was a natural disaster - something where the government is the only one with any responsibility. The other is a company fucking up - I don't want a government big enough to handle every company's fuck-ups. Can you imagine the size of the government that would be required to be able to handle the fuck-ups of every chemical, bio, construction, nuclear and what have you?
What if I wanted to create a company that was somehow going to extract energy from dormant volcano by tapping into the heat. Now should the government scale up in case I somehow manage to blow the top off of the volcano and unleash the lava? If you're saying yes.. imagine the government needing to be prepared in everything that any private enterprise engages in. And retaining people that are better equipped/trained in all those fields to be able to respond where the private enterprise failed. Do you realize what you're asking for? What I'm asking for is for government to maintain strict oversight so that I don't manage to unleash the lava and if I do, that I have the capacity to contain the situation. And if it appears that I couldn't, I shouldn't be allowed by the government.
Also, I pay taxes to keep the government running. If those tax dollars go towards the government preparedness for private enterprise fuckups, I will expect my share of the profits from every private enterprise. You can't have a private company that reaps the profits and then leaves the mess for the government (general publics tax dollars) to deal with.
What I want is free market with strict oversight - something this administration failed at. The response to the oil spill is BP's responsibility. Response to Katrina was a government responsibility. Hence the perceived dual standards.
Transocean is a separate company entirely.
Thanks for pointing that out to me, I mistakenly thought BP was using a company that that acquired a controlling interest in the company running the platform.
BM3
here ya go: http://psychicpolitics.com/psychic_politics/psychic_politics/Entries/2010/5/15_release_the_kraken.html
Ask Me About... The 80's!
There's already a low-ball legal cap.
Wow, it is low - 75 million. Transocean - a separate company (thanks for that phantomcircuit) - is trying to limit it's liability to 26 million.
Even if congress approves lifting the cap to 10 billion. I would think the cost will be a lot higher than that figure. At 75 million I think BP execs would not be losing too much sleep. Will they invoice the US for the money they've spent above the 75 million?
BM3
BP was lobbying in secret Indiana officials to dump toxic crap into lake Michigan in exchange for some future jobs a few years back.
UK law differs than US law on these things, but recently Hayward created a new org separate from the rest of BP to head these spill operations. This sadly seems to have been the same first step when they spun-off a shell corp to limit their liabilities in Indonesia a while back.
No corporation should be allowed to grow large enough that it can't be drowned in a bathtub.
This is a great reappropriation of Norquist's infamous line, but I'm inclined to be a bit more long-winded. :)
Here's the thing: in the U.S., were not only the fortunate heirs of a constitution that's created a government of checks, balances, and somewhat limited powers. We're also the recipient of a national story about how our forbears fought for it and we're therefore generally free of state oppression. And whatever your complaints against the federal/state government (and there are some legit complaints), it's still historically true: if you live here, you have more civil liberties and economic freedoms than most of the people who've ever lived on this world. Doesn't mean we couldn't learn a thing or two from other countries, but here we are.
The thing is, that heritage handed to us through the efforts of patriots from the revolution through the cold war -- and just as importantly that national story -- has been forged in a time period during which sovereign states (and maybe a church or two) were essentially the only entities around which enough power could amass to systemically entrench itself into tyranny. When we justifiably celebrate the founding of the United States and its achievements, and when we invoke the language of the revolution... we're talking about the resolution of *that* war. The war fought to forge a modern state that safeguards its citizens from itself.
The world has changed, though. And the modern state isn't the only entity that now has enough power to infringe on your liberties. In fact, many modern states are less powerful than some other entities.
The reason we need a state in the first place is that private power can and will be abused as surely as government power can be. But if the national conversation over the last two years is any indication, we're still fighting the war against state power in our heads.
Tweet, tweet.
Skytruth is a great organization that has been buying Satellite time to survey the area. Turns out that while surveying the oil spill from DWH they found another leak in the Gulf of Mexico. The story was confirmed this morning. Makes you wonder how many leaks have occurred that have been "small enough" that they are simply forgotten about for years.
the sadest thing about this is probably: - for BP it is now the super-gau - cant get any worse - since this is so, their first priority is certainly not to close the leak as fast as possible, but to gain as much kowhow from the incident while proclaiming to try to close it as fast as possible - that knowledge is something nobody else in the industry will have to that extend - so: if you have a similar problem in the future... whom will you ask ( and pay ) to fix it ? :BP
- so : this disaster (and the related costs ) will be seen as an invesment into a business unit that brings that "disaster knowhow" to market.
- all the media coveradge - that it is the greatest polution of all times and such - will be turned aroung by BP marketing into "there was the greates pollution of all times - and we fixed it"
I'll never understand arm-chair petroleum engineers. How easy do you think it is to drive a multi-ton robotic submersible a mile underwater using cameras that don't provide good depth perception to plug a hole spewing oil with a pressure exceeding 5,000 PSI?
I'll never understand why BP thought it was okay to do this with no feasible back-up plan. It's not about how easy or difficult this all is. It is about why they are doing this in the first place if it is so unimaginable to recover from the unexpected.
Reply to That ||
I am glad that Google is profiting from the gulf oil spill and providing us top and center links to valuable, BP provided web sites that keep me informed on the gulf oil spill goings on. If it weren't for that I'd think this thing was a disaster. Thanks, Google, for putting my mind at ease!
--- What?
And those sad pelican shots weren't covered in oil, but merely whale poop.
It's the pelicans who chose to take an unauthorized swim in BP's crude.
Sure, there is more that the federal government could be doing (e.g. containment booms, sandbars, etc.), but the main question we should be asking is not whether the government is doing enough, but why the government is spending taxpayer resources on things that do more to serve BP's PR problem than to serve the interests of citizens whose livelihoods have been affected by the ecological and economic damage.
For instance, government resources are being used to keep reporters from taking pictures of wildlife damaged by the oil spill. No democratic government has any business doing such a thing, and it most certainly serves BP's PR needs more than it serves the needs of the public. Why were government/military C-130s being used to distribute dispersants when coagulants would have made removing the oil easier? The only purpose served by dispersants is to reduce the appearance of that oil slick on damning satellite photos. Again: government resources are being used to serve BP's PR needs instead of the citizens' ecological/economic needs.
Getting angry at Obama for not personally swimming down there and plugging the leak with his thumb is stupid. Getting angry at Obama for not getting angry enough is stupid. People making these complaints are asking the wrong questions and complaining about the wrong things. Government should serve us first, and large multinational corporations only when doing so also serves our interests.
If you want to drill someplace dangerous in Canada, the evil socialist nannystate requires you to drill a relief well at the same time you drill the main well. If the American government had the same requirement on drilling done in very deep places, then this problem would have been solved a long time ago. No engineering degree is needed to understand this.
Unfortunately, our government doesn't require such precautions, because our government counts on the "magic of the free market" and "rational self interest" to motivate oil companies to do these things on their own. Thus, such precautions were not taken, and now we have to wait until August for the first attempt at a relief well (keep in mind that the first attempt is rarely successful).
Here is something for everyone in America to think about. I recently had a house built. During this process I was required to have a gas shutoff valve connected at the point of entry to the house and at the stove. Now if I am required to have a double fail safe on my home, how is it possible for BP to get away with one shutoff valve (Blowout Preventer..) ????? Where are we headed if we can't have basic saftey regulation passed without any hitches. Does Murphy's Law ring a bell anywhere????
The challenge here, for those of us who are concerned about damage and risk mitigation, is to accurately assess risk and formulate appropriate action. To do so requires knowledge and reasoning.
For you, this appears to be an emotional experience. And though politicians will be doing a lot of dancing and shouting to pander to your popular feelings, all of that will have little to do with effective risk mitigation. The show is for you. But the work is for others, and you and your thinking are MASSIVELY DIVERSIONARY AND SO TRULY BESIDE THE POINT.
Do you think oil toxicity is analogous to cyanide toxicity? Of course you don't. And it's not as if you care. But it's fun to note that cyanide, having a low-end lethal dose of 1.5 mg/kg, diluted in water at .5 ppm, would require a drink of about 50 gallons of your "cyanide water" to kill a 60 kg person. I suspect a glass of .5 ppm cyanide water, being 1/800th of a lethal dose, would be quite benign.
Whatever your mission, it is only tangentially related to health and safety. You may take solace in knowing that there are many smart people on this earth working to improve health and mortality, and you will benefit from the fact that their thinking employs the kind of discipline that is absent from your own.
Comment removed based on user account deletion