So yeah, for now it's over. They've still got more work to do and are hoping this means they can open it up again, temporarily, to get the real fix done.
July 15 (Reuters) - No oil is leaking from BP Plc's (BP.L) (BP.N) blown-out Macondo well into the Gulf of Mexico for the first time since late April, a company executive said on Thursday.
Kent Wells, BP's senior vice president of exploration and production, told reporters a new cap had completely shut in the flow while the company conducts a critical pressure test on the stricken well. (Reporting by Kristen Hays)
I'm a little hesitant to celebrate just yet. BP still has a lot of cleanup to do and there's no guarantee this will hold, but it's a step forward. Here's hoping this stops it for good.
There is, of course, the matter of the MASSIVE cleanup operation that still needs to take place, but that's really a topic for another discussion.
Yeah that's how I'm operating right now. I mean BP wouldn't lie about it being stopped for now (they're not THAT retarded), so I think it's definitely stopped. It's just a matter of for how long.
Well its good that they stopped it, now i have just 2 more questions: 1. how long will it take to clean the spill up? 2. how durable is the block that they put on the leak?
On July 16 2010 05:32 Issorlol wrote: Yeah that's how I'm operating right now. I mean BP wouldn't lie about it being stopped for now (they're not THAT retarded), so I think it's definitely stopped. It's just a matter of for how long.
Lmao, BP lies about pretty much everything, they try to fake and cover every single thing.. It's funny when you finally find out the real truth, BP can't be trusted.
On July 16 2010 05:31 Empyrean wrote: I'll be waiting for an independent agency (hopefully by a government agency such as the EPA or a major university) to corroborate these claims.
In the meantime I suppose I'll be cautiously optimistic :<
They're reopening the valves in a few hours or tomorrow at the latest. The oil is temporarily stopped while they determine if the casing to the well is cracked or intact. As they monitor the pressure it will help them determine if the relief wells will be deep enough to be effective when they eventually pump concrete.
They are still drilling it. The oil spill is not over, and if they discover that the casing has cracked (very likely) they will reopen the flow of oil to prevent further erosion until the relief wells are finished.
What pisses me off isn't even that the well blew or that it took so long to cap it, but rather that the government outright refused free help that would have cleaned 99% of the spill throughout this whole process.
On July 16 2010 05:36 Ossian wrote: it's hardly 'over'
the damage of this spill is going to take decades to undo
The technology to clean this spill up does not exist.
This isn't just a bunch of oil sitting around on the surface waiting to be skimmed up. Its on the surface and near the ocean floor, and in the sand on the beaches and seeping into the marshlands and on and on. There aren't even real engineering propositions as to how you can catch all of the oil.
This area will be a poisoned wasteland for at least the duration of our lives.
On July 16 2010 05:36 Ossian wrote: it's hardly 'over'
the damage of this spill is going to take decades to undo
Yeah... considering we're still hearing about the effects of the Exxon-Valdez spill some 20 years later, (which is the equivalent of about 1 day's worth of oil from the BP leak), this is undoubtedly the greatest ecological disaster we've ever seen on the planet.
I'm willing to bet we'll be hearing about this spill right into our old age.
just heard about this, sounds pretty good, lets just hope BP holds up it's end of the bargain, and pays for all the clean up, this has hit most of our southern neighbours quite hard. It'll be nice to get everything back to 'normal'
On July 16 2010 05:46 stroggos wrote: so much oil wasted
Uh, I'm pretty sure that's not a relevant concern here. This well represents an extremely small fraction of the world's oil production. It's the tragic destruction of the environment that you really should be worried about.
On July 16 2010 05:38 Tozar wrote: As a citizen of Louisiana and avid fisherman, I am greatly pleased to read this.
Yes but fishing is destroyed for decades to come. It's great that the leak is plugged, for now anyway, but the damage is done. FUCK BP and everyone who continues to say "drill baby drill!".
given the risks involved and the massive liability resulting from the leak, i wonder if oil companies will ever drill off the coast of US in the foreseeable future.
On July 16 2010 05:59 dybydx wrote: given the risks involved and the massive liability resulting from the leak, i wonder if oil companies will ever drill off the coast of US in the foreseeable future.
On July 16 2010 05:59 dybydx wrote: given the risks involved and the massive liability resulting from the leak, i wonder if oil companies will ever drill off the coast of US in the foreseeable future.
On July 16 2010 05:59 dybydx wrote: given the risks involved and the massive liability resulting from the leak, i wonder if oil companies will ever drill off the coast of US in the foreseeable future.
It's about fucking time. 3 months of oil just gushing into the gulf, completely ruining the local seafood industry. Most people won't even eat what little uncontaminated seafood is fished up from here now. There's a lot of damage to be undone in the environment, and I have no idea how most former fisherman or really anyone involved in the industry (restaurant owners, employees etc) who went bankrupt and had to shut down their businesses will recover.
Better than having it still open, but incredibly far from over.
Will they stop dumping the corexit into the Gulf too?
By the way, we still need an investigation of the Gulf oil spill and the events leading up to it along with an investigation of those (Including President Obama) who dumped a large portion of their stocks from BP in the weeks prior to the spill.
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.
The energies poured into the acquiring of this resource ought to be matched by energies used to fix what may become broken. In this case containment, stopping, and cleanup of a catastrophic spill. It's incredibly apparent that BP didn't know how to handle such a situation, and that is a major problem, as we've seen the last 90 days. The article linked earlier in this thread about the Dutch offering their help is an incredible resource, and I think the government and any offshore-drilling oil companies ought to be made to consult with them in order to learn to have resources at the ready, and to move swiftly in order to fix the mistakes.
The ban itself is very reactionary, yes. Its merit is debatable. On the one hand, we have a huge catastrophe caused by a technical malfunction (based on the track record of the company building the part that failed, sloppy construction is a serious possibility, but not the only one), and vastly exacerbated by unpreparedness; on the other we have other wells and other potential wells in similar conditions, at similar depths, made by companies who had nothing to do with BP or TransOcean which are functioning properly.
I can see the ban having been imposed to force the drilling companies to create more thorough disaster-preparedness plans, and being in place until such time that those conditions are met. Obama's not a radical liberal, and his policies right before the Gulf spill reflect his position on oil drilling. The ban will be extinguished, hopefully once contingency preparedness is caught up to the possibilities.
On July 16 2010 06:42 thopol wrote: That's good news, but BP needs to be prosecuted hard for this. They've been secretly bleaching islands to make them look better. Not cool.
The link you provided can hardly be called a reliable news source. You can't just clean off oil from beaches just by spraying bleach on it from a plane...Besides, don't you think one of the many major news companies would have caught wind of it and published their own article? But as far as I can tell none of the bigger news sources have mentioned anything of the sort, which leads me to seriously doubt the validity of the article. Until a more reputable source publishes, I'm not buying. Also, BP can only be prosecuted if it has actually broken laws, not just because a spill occurred. Although I'd imagine there are many environmental laws that could be brought against them. What I'm trying to say is, no matter how much the public hates BP, you can't just sue them because you hate them.
On July 16 2010 05:32 Issorlol wrote: Yeah that's how I'm operating right now. I mean BP wouldn't lie about it being stopped for now (they're not THAT retarded), so I think it's definitely stopped. It's just a matter of for how long.
Lmao, BP lies about pretty much everything, they try to fake and cover every single thing.. It's funny when you finally find out the real truth, BP can't be trusted.
On what grounds do you make such allegations. Sure BP screwed up royally but in what way have they been "faking and covering up every single thing"? Any company in anything remotely close to this kind of situation will of course try to manage the bad PR. But you can't just "cover up" an oil spill of this magnitude. If you are referring to the failed attempts to control the oil spill I would hardly consider those "faked" attempts...BP is as eager to fix the leak as anyone else.
I am against offshore drilling and I hate that there is now a ridiculous amount of oil in the Gulf polluting everything. But demonizing a company because of an accident that everyone wishes never happened is stupid. BP screwed up, and they better fix the problem. I hope that they won't just stop at plugging the leak but also put a lot of money towards cleaning up the effects of their spills. Luckily, they have a $20 billion annual profit (not revenue) to draw from.
On July 16 2010 06:42 thopol wrote: That's good news, but BP needs to be prosecuted hard for this. They've been secretly bleaching islands to make them look better. Not cool.
The link you provided can hardly be called a reliable news source. You can't just clean off oil from beaches just by spraying bleach on it from a plane...Besides, don't you think one of the many major news companies would have caught wind of it and published their own article? But as far as I can tell none of the bigger news sources have mentioned anything of the sort.
On July 16 2010 05:32 Issorlol wrote: Yeah that's how I'm operating right now. I mean BP wouldn't lie about it being stopped for now (they're not THAT retarded), so I think it's definitely stopped. It's just a matter of for how long.
Lmao, BP lies about pretty much everything, they try to fake and cover every single thing.. It's funny when you finally find out the real truth, BP can't be trusted.
On what grounds do you make such allegations. Sure BP screwed up royally but in what way have they been "faking and covering up every single thing"? Any company in anything remotely close to this kind of situation will of course try to manage the bad PR. But you can't just "cover up" an oil spill of this magnitude. If you are referring to the failed attempts to control the oil spill I would hardly consider those "faked" attempts...BP is as eager to fix the leak as anyone else.
I am against offshore drilling and I hate that there is now a ridiculous amount of oil in the Gulf polluting everything. But demonizing a company because of an accident that everyone wishes never happened is stupid. BP screwed up, and they better fix the problem. I hope that they won't just stop at plugging the leak but also put a lot of money towards cleaning up the effects of their spills. Luckily, they have a $20 billion annual profit (not revenue) to draw from.
BP has hired reporters to write and report on news so that it is skewed to seem everything is fine, they have repeatedly lied about estimates on the spill, they have blocked reporters from asking about the oil spill to workers, and have banned pictures to be taken on threat of arrest.
On July 16 2010 06:42 thopol wrote: That's good news, but BP needs to be prosecuted hard for this. They've been secretly bleaching islands to make them look better. Not cool.
The link you provided can hardly be called a reliable news source. You can't just clean off oil from beaches just by spraying bleach on it from a plane...Besides, don't you think one of the many major news companies would have caught wind of it and published their own article? But as far as I can tell none of the bigger news sources have mentioned anything of the sort.
On July 16 2010 05:35 Trizz wrote:
On July 16 2010 05:32 Issorlol wrote: Yeah that's how I'm operating right now. I mean BP wouldn't lie about it being stopped for now (they're not THAT retarded), so I think it's definitely stopped. It's just a matter of for how long.
Lmao, BP lies about pretty much everything, they try to fake and cover every single thing.. It's funny when you finally find out the real truth, BP can't be trusted.
On what grounds do you make such allegations. Sure BP screwed up royally but in what way have they been "faking and covering up every single thing"? Any company in anything remotely close to this kind of situation will of course try to manage the bad PR. But you can't just "cover up" an oil spill of this magnitude. If you are referring to the failed attempts to control the oil spill I would hardly consider those "faked" attempts...BP is as eager to fix the leak as anyone else.
I am against offshore drilling and I hate that there is now a ridiculous amount of oil in the Gulf polluting everything. But demonizing a company because of an accident that everyone wishes never happened is stupid. BP screwed up, and they better fix the problem. I hope that they won't just stop at plugging the leak but also put a lot of money towards cleaning up the effects of their spills. Luckily, they have a $20 billion annual profit (not revenue) to draw from.
BP has hired reporters to write and report on news so that it is skewed to seem everything is fine, they have repeatedly lied about estimates on the spill, they have blocked reporters from asking about the oil spill to workers, and have banned pictures to be taken on threat of arrest.
Sources?
Also of course they would block the reporters talking to the workers. News reporters write some of the most falsified, inconsistent, un-researched and biased news known to man. Their soul purpose or job is to create DRAMA for people like you and me to watch. It does not matter if that DRAMA is falsified or exaggerated, what's important are the ratings/viewer numbers.So why would they want to fuel that fire even more since everyone is gunning on BP so hard atm.
The thing that sucks is that this happened. Off shore oil drilling WAS approved by OUR government. Blame them first, then the Company, but there is not much the Company could of done in this situation.The company did have fail safes in place, but apparently they didn't work. It just happened that BP was unlucky in this situation. But hey, they are trying their hardest, spending tons and tons of money to try and control/seal the rupture. You have to give them credit for finding solutions that didn't exist. We don't have the technology to deal with such accidents let alone clean them up. Look at the Exxon incident.
If this oil spill is so terrible and what not as we/government make it out to be (yeah its bad). Maybe the government should of came in and chipped in it's MONEY and Resources to help BP out.
On July 16 2010 06:42 thopol wrote: That's good news, but BP needs to be prosecuted hard for this. They've been secretly bleaching islands to make them look better. Not cool.
The link you provided can hardly be called a reliable news source. You can't just clean off oil from beaches just by spraying bleach on it from a plane...Besides, don't you think one of the many major news companies would have caught wind of it and published their own article? But as far as I can tell none of the bigger news sources have mentioned anything of the sort.
On July 16 2010 05:35 Trizz wrote:
On July 16 2010 05:32 Issorlol wrote: Yeah that's how I'm operating right now. I mean BP wouldn't lie about it being stopped for now (they're not THAT retarded), so I think it's definitely stopped. It's just a matter of for how long.
Lmao, BP lies about pretty much everything, they try to fake and cover every single thing.. It's funny when you finally find out the real truth, BP can't be trusted.
On what grounds do you make such allegations. Sure BP screwed up royally but in what way have they been "faking and covering up every single thing"? Any company in anything remotely close to this kind of situation will of course try to manage the bad PR. But you can't just "cover up" an oil spill of this magnitude. If you are referring to the failed attempts to control the oil spill I would hardly consider those "faked" attempts...BP is as eager to fix the leak as anyone else.
I am against offshore drilling and I hate that there is now a ridiculous amount of oil in the Gulf polluting everything. But demonizing a company because of an accident that everyone wishes never happened is stupid. BP screwed up, and they better fix the problem. I hope that they won't just stop at plugging the leak but also put a lot of money towards cleaning up the effects of their spills. Luckily, they have a $20 billion annual profit (not revenue) to draw from.
BP has hired reporters to write and report on news so that it is skewed to seem everything is fine, they have repeatedly lied about estimates on the spill, they have blocked reporters from asking about the oil spill to workers, and have banned pictures to be taken on threat of arrest.
First, BP can't hire reporters to write anything...at least not in major news avenues, which is why it's important to determine the repute and validity of your news sources. Hence the issue about the bleaching of beaches. BP can, however, bribe said reporters of reputable news sources. However, those are the reporters most likely to say no due to their reputation being on the line.
Second, you can't know that they were lying about estimates. In fact I believe that BP has absolutely no incentive to lie about that at all. After all, they are the sole entity responsible for paying to clean up the spill. Whatever the cost of the spill, BP will be forced to dish out that much money either in their own direct efforts or compensation for external entities. The fact is that BP makes far more money than would ever be required to contain the spill. Although I certainly hope they go further and pay also for the effects of the spill.
Third, BP cannot threaten to arrest anyone, only the police can do that. If BP says, "you will be arrested if you try to take pictures" then that only means that the police are enforcing that statement, which then means that we would be demonizing the police along with BP. The preventing of workers from talking to reporters is, as I said, an attempt to limit bad PR, but in no way is definitive proof of a cover-up or a lie.
In any case I'm not trying to take BP's side. They really did frak things up. Just saying that sweeping generalizations and accusations serve no constructive purpose when clearly this sort of thing could have happened to ANY oil company. Keep in mind our own government allowed offshore drilling in the first place. That was a real facepalm moment.
On July 16 2010 05:59 dybydx wrote: given the risks involved and the massive liability resulting from the leak, i wonder if oil companies will ever drill off the coast of US in the foreseeable future.
On July 16 2010 05:42 Craton wrote: What pisses me off isn't even that the well blew or that it took so long to cap it, but rather that the government outright refused free help that would have cleaned 99% of the spill throughout this whole process.
When I heard Sarah Palin talking about going to the Dutch for their help because they were "good with dikes" I thought she was being retarded and needlessly criticizing Obama to get herself more attention. How ironic.
The dutch (shell) and other oil companies have been helping out with the spill from day one, it's in every oil companies interests to sort this problem as quickly as possible because they all require permission to drill in these places.
On July 16 2010 05:41 travis wrote: This is excellent news. I thought the method they used to fix it was pretty neat, btw.
How did they fix it? I couldn't find it.
here is the dumbed down version that i learned from the news
they basically placed a cap on it, very thick but the cap has a series of valves, which were open when it was placed so when they first cap it, the oil comes out the holes, so it's not insane pressure(so they could get the cap on)
then, as they check the pressure, they closed off those valves one by one
Paula Kolmar and Tom Seslar, two "reporters" hired by BP, have been blogging from the Gulf and posting descriptions of cleanup operations on the company's "Gulf of Mexico Response" PR Web site. One update by Kolmar, dated May 28 and titled "Ballet at Sea," describes the laying of oil-absorbent boom amid the unparalleled environmental disaster.
Oil spill cleanup workers sick from hydrocarbons. The oil company hired fishermen to work on the cleanup efforts of the spill. BP forced the men to sign contracts that prohibit them from talking to the press about their health.
Last week, wives of some of the fishermen spoke out publicly about the symptoms their husbands were experiencing, and now some fishermen are starting to come forward. The workers are stating that they are feeling drugged, disoriented, tingling, sick, fatigued, and having shortness of breath and cough. These are symptoms that are consistent with what one might expect from exposure to hydrocarbons in the slick.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
BP and the Feds have said that the cap was successful. However, just because the cap was successful doesn't mean oil isn't getting into the gulf. The most recent Fox and CNN reports say BP is monitoring pressure levels and closing relief valves one at a time.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!)
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
I'm saying that scientific conclusions that are not peer reviewed should at the very least be approached with great skepticism. Where did I imply any of the things you are accusing me of?
On July 16 2010 13:32 SonKiE wrote: too bad that whole area is fubar
Indeed it is. I cannot go to the beach any longer- people are starting to get sick from oil contamination and diffusion.
However, what angers me the most is that BP will not release or allow anyone to release aerial pictures of the spill since May. The norther gulf coast is likely blanketed, and they won't let us see, lest it prompt (ooh, gasp) third party action!
Well, actually, here is what is happening in my area: they are taking massive bags if oil and seawater that they have skimmed, and get this- they are dumping it into a landfill! So, why not mess up the land as well as the sea? This will have tremendous implications and effects, particularly because of the salt water and the dispersants of questionable ecological safety that BP sprayed all over the oil.
On July 17 2010 13:19 All Quiet wrote: Well, actually, here is what is happening in my area: they are taking massive bags if oil and seawater that they have skimmed, and get this- they are dumping it into a landfill! So, why not mess up the land as well as the sea? This will have tremendous implications and effects, particularly because of the salt water and the dispersants of questionable ecological safety that BP sprayed all over the oil.
LOL that's incredibly, incredibly illegal in Canada...
On July 17 2010 13:19 All Quiet wrote: Well, actually, here is what is happening in my area: they are taking massive bags if oil and seawater that they have skimmed, and get this- they are dumping it into a landfill! So, why not mess up the land as well as the sea? This will have tremendous implications and effects, particularly because of the salt water and the dispersants of questionable ecological safety that BP sprayed all over the oil.
LOL that's incredibly, incredibly illegal in Canada...
It's illegal in the US as well, except when the government is doing it. And this is why I want to move to Japan or SK.
So whats the difference between all the oil that is naturally stored on the planet and say the oil that i take outside and dump on the ground. isnt it going back where it came from?
couldnt hypothetically an earthquake strike the gulf coast oil areas and release all that oil into the water naturally?
On July 17 2010 15:57 Coagulation wrote: something i never understood. plz dont flame me.
oil is naturally found underground right?
So whats the difference between all the oil that is naturally stored on the planet and say the oil that i take outside and dump on the ground. isnt it going back where it came from?
couldnt hypothetically an earthquake strike the gulf coast oil areas and release all that oil into the water naturally?
Well, to start, oil that you would have to dump on the ground has been refined, giving it a different viscosity etc. from the oil found naturally.
But more to the point, I read recently that some oil does leak entirely naturally from the seafloor, regardless of whether or not we're drilling for it. The entire Gulf region probably leaks something on the order of an Exxon Valdez sized spill each year. There are organisms and such in the water that consume and break it down naturally, so nature does clean up after itself in case of something like what you're mentioning. A massive spill like this one just dumps it into the ocean far faster than nature can deal with it on its own. Because of this, the Gulf itself (the actual water) will probably be fine within a year or two. The damage to the beaches, health, economy, and from whatever else BP is doing to try to cover up the spill is another matter entirely.
On July 17 2010 15:57 Coagulation wrote: something i never understood. plz dont flame me.
oil is naturally found underground right?
So whats the difference between all the oil that is naturally stored on the planet and say the oil that i take outside and dump on the ground. isnt it going back where it came from?
couldnt hypothetically an earthquake strike the gulf coast oil areas and release all that oil into the water naturally?
Well, to start, oil that you would have to dump on the ground has been refined, giving it a different viscosity etc. from the oil found naturally.
But more to the point, I read recently that some oil does leak entirely naturally from the seafloor, regardless of whether or not we're drilling for it. The entire Gulf region probably leaks something on the order of an Exxon Valdez sized spill each year. There are organisms and such in the water that consume and break it down naturally, so nature does clean up after itself in case of something like what you're mentioning. A massive spill like this one just dumps it into the ocean far faster than nature can deal with it on its own. Because of this, the Gulf itself (the actual water) will probably be fine within a year or two. The damage to the beaches, health, economy, and from whatever else BP is doing to try to cover up the spill is another matter entirely.
If Alaska is any indication you're probably going to see tar balls washing ashore 10 years from now.
Tar balls actually wash up on shores naturally- but not in the scale of this disaster. The amount of oil that spills into the gulf is equivalent to one exxon valdez every year, and this is natural. But this is much more potent because this oil is hitting shores in its liquid form, and in much higher concentration. Also, thus spill is exponentially larger than the exxon valdez.
(CNN) -- The federal government's oil spill response director says testing has revealed that there is a "detected seep a distance from the well" and has ordered BP to quickly notify the government if other leaks are found.
"When seeps are detected, you are directed to marshal resources, quickly investigate, and report findings to the government in no more than four hours," retired Adm. Thad Allen said in a letter to BP Chief Managing Director Bob Dudley. "I direct you to provide me a written procedure for opening the choke valve as quickly as possible without damaging the well should hydrocarbon seepage near the well head be confirmed."
i'm glad that they finally got it plugged. i mean it's really late, but it could have been going on for another month if the media and the government didn't pressure them
The latest curio in the ongoing exhibition of BP obfuscation comes via John Aravosis at AmericaBlog, who examined an image from BP's website and determined it to be a fake. The image depicts BP's "Command Center" in Houston, where ever-vigilant BP employees sit in a dark room, monitoring screens. BP's website has been running a photo in which three men appear to be watching a ten-screen display of oil-spill footage. Here's the thing: it's a Photoshop job. And not just a poor one -- a seemingly unnecessary one.
The latest curio in the ongoing exhibition of BP obfuscation comes via John Aravosis at AmericaBlog, who examined an image from BP's website and determined it to be a fake. The image depicts BP's "Command Center" in Houston, where ever-vigilant BP employees sit in a dark room, monitoring screens. BP's website has been running a photo in which three men appear to be watching a ten-screen display of oil-spill footage. Here's the thing: it's a Photoshop job. And not just a poor one -- a seemingly unnecessary one.
On July 21 2010 04:07 Wonderballs wrote: To all of everyone saying "why did it take this long"
I challenge you to do it faster. Engineering dosen't happen overnight.
At least they got it done.
It doesn't have to take months either. And your challenge is ridiculous. Give me the same amount of resources to fix the problem and free reigns to hire anyone I wanted and "I" might.
On July 21 2010 04:07 Wonderballs wrote: To all of everyone saying "why did it take this long"
I challenge you to do it faster. Engineering dosen't happen overnight.
At least they got it done.
It doesn't have to take months either. And your challenge is ridiculous. Give me the same amount of resources to fix the problem and free reigns to hire anyone I wanted and "I" might.
His post is ridiculous, but the point he's trying to make is that it is a really complex situation. People are like "why don't they just ..." without really understanding the magnitude of line pressure down there.
Yeah, it may seem like a really simple fix but I can assure it is NOT. It is a VERY complex situation with many many many many different variables and even more things that can go catastrophically wrong if they fuck up trying to fix it hastily. It's a terrible situation, but BP's actual efforts in fixing it (not the "cover up" of the damage) have been quite, quite, quite good whether you realize it or not.
what if they instead of plugging it went ahead with there original plan and just drilled it after the fact. or am i missing something? or is everyone else.
I haven't really been following the spill, but a quick look at wikipedia caught my attention. The spill is in a much more damaging ecological climate, and it's flowing out at a rate of four to seven times faster than the exxon valdez.
A few thoughts came to mind: I wonder if they'll be able to express a cause for this tragedy. Wikipedia says that workers and supervisors expressed concerns before the explosion. Could this be another Challenger or Three Mile Island that could have been created had a safer work environment been in place? It's really not enough to just say "human error" and move on. At the UofT the first book engineers read is "The Human Factor" by Kim Vicente.
We learn that people have to be treated well just as security systems are treated well. Otherwise we might have something worse in the future. One good thing to take from this is that the way people work on oil rigs will definitely change.
On July 21 2010 05:56 FindingPride wrote: what if they instead of plugging it went ahead with there original plan and just drilled it after the fact. or am i missing something? or is everyone else.
Wikipedia says that 110000 people sent BP suggestions for plans to contain the rig. They chose 320 that sounded ok and picked one later. Maybe it was just less dangerous to plug up the rig and resume drilling in the future.
On 31 May, BP set up a call line to take cleanup suggestions and by 27 June, they had been inundated with more than 110,000 ideas from citizens of many countries. By late of June, BP had reviewed 92,000 and categorized 320 as "promising".[155]
It ist not the only leak, deep sea links are happening as your planets crust shifts as is sink holes begining to occur expect more. Your gobal warming is also being caused by methane bursts some of which are also occuring at sea. Interesting times your in. constistancy of the water will be changed soon.
On July 16 2010 05:42 Craton wrote: What pisses me off isn't even that the well blew or that it took so long to cap it, but rather that the government outright refused free help that would have cleaned 99% of the spill throughout this whole process.
I wasn't sure whether this article was legit- I wasn't ready to believe that the Obama administration could be so bombastically inept at handling the whole situation.
Then I showed the article to a friend of mine who happens to be an engineer with a degree on environmental stuff (not sure how to translate it into english), and who did his thesis work on oil spills- and he corroborated the whole story.
Why isn't there a major outrage over this? I can understand the outrage at BP, and it is completely justified. The problem is, Obama always talks about the spill and BP like he has the moral high ground, and he sure as hell doesn't. I am disgusted by this.
Thanks for linking the article, Craton. It was very informative. It should ideally be linked in the OP.
On July 16 2010 05:42 Craton wrote: What pisses me off isn't even that the well blew or that it took so long to cap it, but rather that the government outright refused free help that would have cleaned 99% of the spill throughout this whole process.
I wasn't sure whether this article was legit- I wasn't ready to believe that the Obama administration could be so bombastically inept at handling the whole situation.
Then I showed the article to a friend of mine who happens to be an engineer with a degree on environmental stuff (not sure how to translate it into english), and who did his thesis work on oil spills- and he corroborated the whole story.
Why isn't there a major outrage over this? I can understand the outrage at BP, and it is completely justified. The problem is, Obama always talks about the spill and BP like he has the moral high ground, and he sure as hell doesn't. I am disgusted by this.
Thanks for linking the article, Craton. It was very informative. It should ideally be linked in the OP.
This was a huge controversy awhile ago and its more or less a fabricated issue. The linked article was obviously written as a hit piece full of bias and misleading "facts". The Obama administration could have taken more steps to clarify what was going on but really, they acted appropriately.
First off, most of the time these "free help" offers actually had large price tags associated with them most of the time (link). From that article, only Mexico offered something to the US free of charge, all other countries asked for payment for aid. So really, its not so much "free aid" so much as "we have some things that we can sell you to help with the oil spill". Thats not to say that aid was unwanted, we probably don't have hundreds of miles of containment booms lying around waiting to be used, as the US did accept aid from many countries. When you change the term "free aid" to "potential suppliers" it sounds a little different right? The US took time to evaluate which offers were reasonable and which offers were not and rejected those offers.
Secondly, a lot of the offers were for things that would arguably make things worse. France offered to sell the US a dispersant which the US rejected because shits nasty. Dispersants make sense on the surface but in a submerged water column the effects are unknown and possibly worse than just leaving the oil spill there. Instead of a oil/water mixture spreading out we now have an oil/soap/water mixture. The Dutch also offered to dredge sand to make sandbars to protect the coastline but many scientists were opposed to the idea because it destroys an already ecologically fragile system and doesn't even really do anything. Normal tidal movement would erode the protection almost immediately and if that doesn't do it the next hurricane/tropical storm would wipe it out.
Really, this story was just publicized to incite and inflame, which is all the media does nowadays. Half truths and misleading information can go a long way in sensationalizing a non-story.
I'm not exactly sure what this loop current is, as unfortunately I'm not an experienced meteirologist, but destroying it can't possibly do us any good.
In the survey, commissioned by the rig’s owner, Transocean, workers said that company plans were not carried out properly and that they “often saw unsafe behaviors on the rig.”
Some workers also voiced concerns about poor equipment reliability, “which they believed was as a result of drilling priorities taking precedence over planned maintenance,” according to the survey, one of two Transocean reports obtained by The New York Times.
“At nine years old, Deepwater Horizon has never been in dry dock,” one worker told investigators. “We can only work around so much.”
“Run it, break it, fix it,” another worker said. “That’s how they work.”
Well, it looks like the slimy bastard is getting the heck out of dodge. Personally, I think his plan to 'fully cap the leak' by the end of August is complete bollocks. There's always an ulterior motive to corporate douchebags like himself. I suspect he simply wishes to flee before shit really hits the fan.
If I had any control over the situation, I would've drowned Tony in the oil spill for his incessant lies against the public. Alas, the corporations pervail.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.huffpost.com/gen/184978/BP-POHOTOSHOP.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.huffpost.com/gen/184981/BP-ORIGINAL.jpg)
