EPT(seriously though, that took forever... stupid ubumu...)
Oil Leak Plugged - Page 4
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Floophead_III
United States1832 Posts
(seriously though, that took forever... stupid ubumu...) | ||
|
MangoTango
United States3670 Posts
On July 16 2010 13:20 Floophead_III wrote: I heard they stuffed Rosie Odonnel into the leak and she plugged it. Turns out she's good for something after all! (seriously though, that took forever... stupid ubumu...) Pretty sure his name is spelled Obama. Also, I love how all the government-hating Republicans nonetheless blame him for something that his administration did not cause, nor should he have any resposibility for cleaning up, under their philosophy. Hypocrisy is great. Anyway, yeah, the long nightmare is finally coming to a middle. At least from now on, the situation is not actively deteriorating. Cleanup will likely take decades, but at least we've made progress. Took frakking long enough. | ||
|
SonKiE
United States167 Posts
| ||
|
neohero9
United States595 Posts
On July 16 2010 13:29 MangoTango wrote: Pretty sure his name is spelled Obama. Also, I love how all the government-hating Republicans nonetheless blame him for something that his administration did not cause, nor should he have any resposibility for cleaning up, under their philosophy. Hypocrisy is great. Anyway, yeah, the long nightmare is finally coming to a middle. At least from now on, the situation is not actively deteriorating. Cleanup will likely take decades, but at least we've made progress. Took frakking long enough. Rawr rawr small gub'mint is how the founders wanted it! Now why didn't Obummah commandeer some private ships and clean up the oil like he oughta? Harumph harumph harumph harumph harumph! | ||
|
Craton
United States17250 Posts
On July 16 2010 06:47 neohero9 wrote: The spill screams to me of our technology's reach going beyond our grasp. We hold the power to extract these millions of gallons of fuel from the earth, refine it, and use it to create everything from fuel to lubricants to plastics. Not, not really. Just an unwillingness to use the technology that can all but completely remove the effects of said catastrophes because of bureaucratic bs. See the earlier posted article about the cleaning ships. I was an Obama supporter before I learned of all that. Now, I'm not so sure. | ||
|
neohero9
United States595 Posts
On July 16 2010 16:20 Craton wrote: Not, not really. Just an unwillingness to use the technology that can all but completely remove the effects of said catastrophes because of bureaucratic bs. See the earlier posted article about the cleaning ships. I was an Obama supporter before I learned of all that. Now, I'm not so sure. I read them, and the article. The decision to send the Dutch away was ill-advised (and probably influenced by more than a few dozen factors, including political backlash, as sad as that sounds), but I'm mostly calling out BP's (and other companies, they are not alone in this) complete lack of a contingency plan. I don't think the government ought to be the primary entity accountable for any disaster created by private citizens or companies. The onus is on BP, TransOcean, and any other company operating in a situation where a single "catastrophe" can cause billions of dollars and decades of man-hours and actual time in damage to prove to the people and wildlife of the world that they are capable of minimizing fallout caused by failures. They should have think tanks sitting around thinking of everything that could possibly go wrong, and how to fix it, and testing these things to make sure they actually work. They should have adequate funding for preparedness (including manufacturing and training) for when these things actually happen. They should be communicating with the government agencies responsible for overseeing their industries to keep said agencies up to date on new tactics and technologies. Emergency fabrication of "top hats" is pitiful when compared to the plans the Dutch have, for instance. They're on their shit; our private sector ought to be on their shit, and yes, our public officers ought to be ready to back them up should the situation warrant. | ||
|
Number41
United States130 Posts
If you look at the cap on the live streams of the cap (which they aren't showing now suspiciously,) you will see multiple hoses connecting to the side of the cap. I presume they are connected to relief valves. CNN reported: "BP cautioned that the oil cutoff, while welcomed, isn't lilkely to go beyond the 48 hours. Valves are expected to open after that to resume siphoning oil to two ships on the surface, the Q4000 and Helix Producer, as government and BP officials assess the data and decide what to do next. Two more ships are due to join them in coming weeks, bringing containment capacity to 80,000 barrels of oil a day, more than high-end estimates of how much oil had been leaking." Are the hoses we see now pumping oil into the gulf? Are they relief valves? If so, how many barrels are they pouring into the gulf?' Why use the containment ships if the well is capped? It seems like we are being lied to... | ||
|
Craton
United States17250 Posts
On July 16 2010 17:26 neohero9 wrote: I don't think the government ought to be the primary entity accountable for any disaster created by private citizens or companies. The onus is on BP, TransOcean, and any other company operating in a situation where a single "catastrophe" can cause billions of dollars and decades of man-hours and actual time in damage to prove to the people and wildlife of the world that they are capable of minimizing fallout caused by failures. They should have think tanks sitting around thinking of everything that could possibly go wrong, and how to fix it, and testing these things to make sure they actually work. They should have adequate funding for preparedness (including manufacturing and training) for when these things actually happen. They should be communicating with the government agencies responsible for overseeing their industries to keep said agencies up to date on new tactics and technologies. Emergency fabrication of "top hats" is pitiful when compared to the plans the Dutch have, for instance. They're on their shit; our private sector ought to be on their shit, and yes, our public officers ought to be ready to back them up should the situation warrant. As I understand it, Europe (or several nations, at least) have a pretty strong grasp on all of this. It's more the rest of the world not keeping pace with things that are already known. I certainly don't think technology is eclipsing man's ability to keep it in check, it's just a complete lack of effort and initiative. And unfortunately, unless the regulating government(s) have pretty goddamn severe consequences or requirements, companies are always going to take shortcuts. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
For the last few weeks, BP has been offering signing bonuses and lucrative pay to prominent scientists from public universities around the Gulf Coast to aid its defense against spill litigation. BP PLC attempted to hire the entire marine sciences department at one Alabama university, according to scientists involved in discussions with the company's lawyers. The university declined because of confidentiality restrictions that the company sought on any research. The Press-Register obtained a copy of a contract offered to scientists by BP. It prohibits the scientists from publishing their research, sharing it with other scientists or speaking about the data that they collect for at least the next three years. Source | ||
Empyrean
16991 Posts
This is just depressing. And what's even more depressing is that they'll probably get away from it because they can afford the best industry lawyers :/ | ||
Chill
Calgary25981 Posts
On July 16 2010 18:05 Number41 wrote: Why use the containment ships if the well is capped? It seems like we are being lied to... If I understand correct, a cap is just something that holds pressure and pumps into a ship. So it's not holding line pressure and stopping flow, it's just holding enough to allow the oil to flow into a ship. You basically have to have an endless amount of oil tankers. I'd imagine it allows them access down there to weld up whatever phase 2 is. Edit: I haven't read the OP or any articles specific to this particular work. | ||
|
Chill
Calgary25981 Posts
| ||
|
nineninja9
United States194 Posts
What kind of respectable conclusions can you draw from research that isn't peer reviewed? | ||
|
Geo.Rion
7377 Posts
| ||
|
NrG.Bamboo
United States2756 Posts
Just sayin' | ||
|
Ecael
United States6703 Posts
On July 17 2010 03:53 Geo.Rion wrote: i wonder how big of a hit this whole mess means to BP? Those who are familiar with INCs, rankings stockmarkets etc could give me a hint BP: 52 week 26.75 - 62.38. As of April they were about at 60, currently trading at 37.44. | ||
|
Offhand
United States1869 Posts
On July 17 2010 03:53 Valentine wrote: I was at the gym and was watching the news in the weight room (Fox news, I live in Oklahoma) and they showed some reporter at a beach in Alabama and they were talking about how crystal clear the water is (looks like there is no problem after all!) Just sayin' The main news story on Fox news the day the spill happened was about how oil seeps into the ocean naturally all the time. On July 17 2010 03:50 nineninja9 wrote: What kind of respectable conclusions can you draw from research that isn't peer reviewed? A significantly better one then someone who just demands uncontrovertable proof of everything instead of mounting an actual counter-argument. | ||
|
nineninja9
United States194 Posts
On July 17 2010 04:25 Offhand wrote: A significantly better one then someone who just demands uncontrovertable proof of everything instead of mounting an actual counter-argument. You can't draw conclusions from someone that's demanding proof, since that makes no sense. What are we even talking about? | ||
|
Offhand
United States1869 Posts
On July 17 2010 04:43 nineninja9 wrote: You can't draw conclusions from someone that's demanding proof, since that makes no sense. What are we even talking about? You're either trying to deride from the conversation by attempting to discredit another poster or asserting that because one source cannot be 100% verified, the opposite must be true. Either way, it's a logical fallacy and detrimental to the discussion. | ||
|
nineninja9
United States194 Posts
| ||
| ||
