BP's Final "Top Kill" Procedure For Gulf Oil Spill 593
eldavojohn writes "So far every attempted fix has resulted in failure to contain the Gulf of Mexico oil spill with the exception of the riser insertion method that appears to be little more than a mile-long tube sucking up oil. After attempting many options to allow the continued collection of crude oil, BP is finally considering a 'top kill' option that will kill the well. A vessel at the surface will use 30,000 horsepower pumps to slam kill mud and clay into the well's bent riser, allowing them to cap the well off with two relief wells (which won't be ready for several months). If that fails, the vessel will move on to a 'junk shot' that involves spewing larger debris like shredded rubber and golf balls into the lines to gum up the flow and stop it. Government officials acknowledge that while this may provide a solution, it may also worsen the situation if the resulting pressure causes the lines to blow or fail at other points. While this is likely one of the worst environmental disasters to hit the gulf, BP's debacle has caused Shell to pre-build cofferdams into seven wells that it is currently drilling in the gulf. These would drop into place in the event of such a catastrophic failure of a riser under the well."
How many blunders will the American gov't allow? (Score:1, Insightful)
How long will the American government keep allowing BP to blunder its way into not fixing this problem?
Maybe the government should step in and put and end to this situation themselves.
This is horse shit (Score:3, Insightful)
Why didn't they just do this in the first place? Why muck about with wholly unproven methods? They should have sealed this thing up weeks ago. They greed and attempts to keep the well usable are a fucking disgrace.
Re:How many blunders will the American gov't allow (Score:5, Insightful)
The question is, though, will the government be able to do any better? I say let a disinterested (disinterested in the collection of the oil, that is) tackle the problem. Get BP out of the equation completely (aside from paying for the 3rd-parties services).
Re:This is horse shit (Score:5, Insightful)
Environmentalism (Score:1, Insightful)
Everybody wants to blame the need for oil, or greedy corporations, or a slew of other things for this disaster. Not once do they acknowledge that (a) this is an unprecidented engineering failure, (b) there were multiple safeguards, (c) it's an economic necessity that we drill for oil, and (d) Murphy's law -- no matter how hard you try, eventually mistakes will be made.
BP is doing everything possible to fix the problem, while we sit on the sidelines and debate their ineffectiveness. I don't think that's really fair -- if we get into a car accident, we're quick to shrug it off as just that: an accident. Nobody's fault. We pick up the pieces and move on.
But when it's a large corporation, we somehow think they should be held to a higher standard? No, I don't think they should. They're holding themselves to the same standard the average person would.
Re:to cap the spill. (Score:5, Insightful)
They do, it's called an uncontained oil leak.
Re:Environmentalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Accept car accidents don't kill of entire ecosystems.
What KILLS me is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Privatized profits. Socialize losses!
BP wont ever end up paying much of the real cost involved in this. Any fines they do face will be a tiny percent of their yearly profit.
And they will go on to do this again in the future.. Saving a buck or two on safety to make some money. Just like they did 20 years ago for their last major disaster.
Yeah know, we really need the oil.. But i'd say we need someplace to live way way more.
Someday we're really going to have to hold corporations accountable in a REAL way for the lives and things they destroy.
Major oil spill cuz you skiped on some safety that we have invented already? Shoot the CEO in the head.
Sooner or later companys will stop doing things that endanger the environment or peoples lives... Or we'll run out of CEO's. either way... it would be an improvement.
Re:Environmentalism (Score:1, Insightful)
No, but they frequently kill off entire people...
Re:Environmentalism (Score:4, Insightful)
Well that's not the standard of care they're supposed to follow.
Re:How many blunders will the American gov't allow (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you know WHY governmental regulation has been so bad in the last dozen or so years? It's because presidential administrations and Congress have NOT ALLOWED it to be good. They have purposefully put people in those political jobs knowing that they weren't going to regulate on purpose. The Bush administration did this more than anyone else. The Clinton administration was 2nd only to Bush, and Bush, Sr. was a close 3rd.
Do you think government can't get the experts it needs to professionally oversee these companies? Are you kidding? They could in a second. It's that the politicos don't want to put competent people without conflicts of interest in these positions. And we're paying the price for it now and he gulf cost will be paying the price for the next century or so....
Re:Environmentalism (Score:4, Insightful)
It sure isn't fair to the fishermen who may very well be watching their livelihoods disappear. The real disaster here might not even be the beaches, but the salt marshes.
BP should be made to pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay until every last solitary nickel of economic and physical damage is fixed, even if it takes fifty years and a trillion dollars. That's the risk side of the equation, my friend.
Re:Environmentalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Accidents are rarely accidents, someone fucked up. I sure blame the person who backed into my last car. Guess what she did not even come close to risking death zones in the gulf. Her insurance paid the for everything and got me a rental while my car was fixed. That is all we ask here, they fix their mess. If that means they go out of business collecting every last drop of that oil, too fucking bad for them.
These assholes cut corners, you can read all about on the news sites. The simple fact is they did this to make a quick buck and now thousands of folks are screwed, fishermen with no fish to sell, property owners with ocean front property ruined, the list goes on and on.
Already in progress (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope everyone who chanted "drill baby drill!" during the last election cycle is willing to go down to the gulf coast and help with the cleanup. What a mess!
Still saying 5,000 barrels a day....a blatent LIE (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Environmentalism (Score:3, Insightful)
Accept car accidents don't kill of entire ecosystems.
The scale changes, the ethics remain unchanged.
Re:Environmentalism (Score:5, Insightful)
But when it's a large corporation, we somehow think they should be held to a higher standard?
Because the large corporation is posting billions of dollars in profits because of their drilling?
Because some people are implying that BP engaged in several salvage operations before looking to actually lose the well?
Because a car accident puts the occupants of your vehicle and the other vehicle at risk, not entire countries, their economies and endangered animals in the surrounding environment?
Because (as the article noted) we're about to let Shell start drilling in the Arctic where the seas are rougher and the location more remote to create delays in response times?
I think at this point we could reopen the debate on the effects of a nuclear plant failing compared to an oil line failing. And how much easier and effective it is to drop a cofferdam on a nuclear core than a well miles below the surface of water.
Your argument of it being a one time thing that is unprecedented does not sit well with me when we look to expand on the number of wells we have. Precedent has now been set. Either tighten regulations so that your point (a) doesn't happen and point (b) is actually true. Care to prove point (c)?
When bad things go wrong to corporations making lots and lots of money, then they should be held accountable, girlintraining. Why you rush to BP and the oil industry's rescue, I'll never know.
Re:Environmentalism (Score:5, Insightful)
> But when it's a large corporation, we somehow think they should be held to a higher standard? No, I don't think they should.
Why the hell SHOULDN'T they be held to a higher standard? They are a huge corporation that has a huge amount of money therefore they are hold a huge amount of power. They should be at a MUCH higher standard. As an individual I have the power and money that I could probably ruin the environment for my neighborhood... in this case BP holds the money, power, and equipment to ruin an entire coastline.
This statement is fairly typical of American thinking right now: let corporations have all the benefits and none of the responsibilities. It's the individuals that had nothing to do with the bad decisions and cut corners that are paying in our current corporate dominated culture and government.
Re:Environmentalism (Score:4, Insightful)
Your comment juxtaposes itself. Many people HAVE acknowledged that this was an engineering failure. And yes, mistakes are eventually made. Thats why we hold THAT to the same standard as a car accident. Accidents happen, they are sometimes preventable, but they will always happen.
Its the aftermath we're upset about. It's how BP is trying to fix the problem: They are trying to recover as much of the oil as possible, or try to recover as much of the well as possible. They are not viewing it from the point of ecological concern, they are trying to stave off their losses. That's what pisses most of us off.
You accidentally rear end someone. You can get out, offer to pay it, give them your information, or you can back up, speed off, and do your best never to see them again. The latter is obviously going to be less expensive for you, and thats kind of what BP is doing.
Re:How many blunders will the American gov't allow (Score:4, Insightful)
In all fairness, we still have no idea what went wrong. I want BP to be dragged across the coals for this as much as the next guy, but the truth of the matter is that we still don't know why the BOP failed, given that it was designed and certified to protect against this very sort of disaster.
As others in this thread have mentioned, several aspects of this accident are unprecedented, and although the oil industry should be faulted for pushing too hard too quickly, this accident may simply have to serve as a learning experience, given that it's entirely possible that BP, Transocean, SLB, and Halliburton were all following the established safety protocols in conformance with past experience.
Not on my dime (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe the government should step in and put and end to this situation themselves.
So long as they send the bill to BP and not the taxpayers, I'm for it.
Re:Top Kill (Score:3, Insightful)
since when did "dump a bunch of shit on it and hope that plugs it up" become a formal strategy?
About a week ago, if I recall correctly.
Before that, it was "let's slip a tube down in the middle of the hole so we can keep sucking some of the oil out of it, while we fill a couple of tankers and stall for time."
Before that, it was "let's put a funnel on top of it so we can keep sucking the oil out of it."
The "top kill" only became an option after all other options that allowed them to continue extracting at least a small portion of the oil from the well were utterly exhausted.
And, remember, the "top kill" option will probably require the fast drilling of a couple of "relief wells" nearby - and since they are "relief wells" there will be a great deal of push to exclude the same fucking safety features that would have prevented this disaster in the first place in the name of urgency this time rather than saving money. I wouldn't be at all surprised if some congresscritter managed to get the relief wells paid for with FEMA money.
Re:to cap the spill. (Score:3, Insightful)
The leak is not uncontained. The BOP and (partially-destroyed) riser stack are providing resistance against the flow of oil. The concern is that this proposed solution could cause enough pressure to build up inside the BOP that the entire apparatus fails completely, which could then increase the flow of oil by at least an order of magnitude.
Re:Environmentalism (Score:3, Insightful)
Accidents are rarely accidents, someone fucked up.
How exactly does someone fucking up preclude it from being an accident? In fact, so far as I know, someone fucking up is pretty much inherent to the term, 'accident.' It's very rare that someone fucks up intentionally. It's very rare that accidents just spontaneously happen without someone dropping the ball somewhere along the way. To use a car analogy, even if a tire blowout causes an accident, that often is due to someone fucking up by not checking their tire pressure regularly, or someone disposing of hazardous materials (screws, nails, glass etc) on the road intentionally or unintentionally (improperly tightened bolt, improperly secured goods in a truck whatever). I don't think the OP was trying to say that nobody fucked up. I think the OP was trying to say that, yeah, somebody fucked up. It caused a legitimate accident, a bad one true, but an accident nonetheless, and we should hold that entity that fucked up responsible. The point he (or she?) was making was that BP is being held responsible. They are trying to fix the problem. They have been taking numerous steps since the accident to fix the problem. So far, those have not worked. So, rather than get frothing mad about it and scream, "OMG teh evul corporations!!!!!!!," maybe we should calm down a bit and let the people capable of solving the problem (i.e. those folks who have experience at drilling and operating heavy equipment in high-risk underwater environments [oil rig workers]) keep trying to solve the problem.
Frankly, that seems like a much more level-headed statement and assertion than claiming that, 'thousands of folks are screwed...' fishermen have no fish to sell, and ocean front property is now ruined.
That's just my two cents though.
Re:This is horse shit (Score:3, Insightful)
And, pray tell, what proven method is there of stopping an oil leak a mile underwater?
Re:Environmentalism (Score:3, Insightful)
But when it's a large corporation, we somehow think they should be held to a higher standard?
No, just the safety standards they're supposed to be held to, which they felt they should not be required to have [go.com]. If you fight tooth and nail against requiring safeguards, I will blame you when your lack of those safeguards cause globally catastrophic problems.
Re:2 things (Score:5, Insightful)
Does it have something to do with enabling the microorganisms in the ocean that are capable of consuming hydrocarbons to consume them?
Re:Already in progress (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I think a lot of people forget this (Score:5, Insightful)
this is why the doctrine of reasonable prevention would have gone so much farther here. the oil industry doesn't have much experience drilling these super-deep wells, they certainly have no experience dealing with problems in them.
going down there with a known not-properly-functioning BOP and untested cementing was blatantly stupid. now they have to try to fix the problem with stuff that's essentially untested and could make the whole thing worse.
Re:This is horse shit (Score:4, Insightful)
There isn't a proven method. Everything that they are trying is something that they are trying for the first time. The well is so deep that it is beyond crush depth for many subs. There aren't any manned subs that can even go down that far, and less than half a dozen robotic / remote ones that can. Nobody has ever dealt with a catastrophe of this magnitude before. There were supposed to be safety precautions taken to prevent this kind of thing. Those safety precautions were there to insure that nobody would ever have to go through what is currently being gone through. Those precautions were ignored and diluted by "regulators" who were subserviant to the interests they were supposed to be regulating.
The obviously solution is to plug the well with the pulped bodies of everyone who was responsible for allowing the problem to occur in the first place. As others have stated, there are safety mechanisms being used RIGHT NOW in places like Brazil that are SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to prevent the kind of cluster fuck that took place. The problem is that greed won out, and Congressional representatives are cheap. It's easier to donate money to a re-election campaign than it is to spend money on fail safe devices.
Re:How many blunders will the American gov't allow (Score:4, Insightful)
If someone did certify the safety precautions, they should lose whatever authority they have to certify anything.
Certifying a process and making sure the process is performed are two very separate acts. I would investigate how much of each were to blame before going nuts.
From what I can tell, there are hugely involved and expensive processes in place to prevent this sort of disaster. Could the procedures be better? Probably. Were the procedures followed to the letter? I seriously doubt it.
Re:How many blunders will the American gov't allow (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems to me that the last thing that one would want to do in this case is blow up the BOP - it's routing, and apparently choking off much of, the flow. If a failed explosive attempt were to destroy/disconnect the BOP yet not seal the well I think we would be looking back at the current flow nostalgically. Given the apparent lack of experience using explosives to deal with a situation like this it seems likely too risky to attempt -- given that the relief wells are eventually expected to solve the problem.
Re:Environmentalism (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, interesting. So because they want cheap gas, it's okay for BP to wipe out their livelihood, right? I mean, what's the point of your post other than to be a rather shameless immoral apologetic for ecological destruction.
I'm coming into your yard next week to crap on your lawn. Don't bother to thank me, just give me $50.
Re:How many blunders will the American gov't allow (Score:5, Insightful)
On what basis do you claim that the dispersant has been effective in reducing the impact? I have to say I trust the judgment of the EPA on that more than I trust J. Random Slashdotter or BP, but I'm willing to look at expert opinion if you can cite some.
When corporate criminals are fouling the planet, I'm all for government agencies interfering with them.
Re:Accident vs. Negligence (Score:2, Insightful)
(Note well: This assumes the survivor was telling the truth.)
Indeed it does. And when you've got this much press coverage, I think it's reasonable to conclude somebody might want to make a few bucks on the talk show circuit. They can always recant later, when the truth comes out and say they were "mistaken".
This was people cutting corners and getting caught.
Neither of us, I'm pretty sure, are qualified to say whether it was within tolerances to put two plugs instead of three down, or what pieces of rubber coming out might mean. And nobody who is qualified to make those claims has stepped forward to make the conclusion the media has made. The reason is because there aren't enough facts yet to form a professional conclusion -- and all of this is speculation. The media is great at speculation, jumping to conclusions, and reporting only half the facts, then over-analyzing and saying "what if".
This is why I have mostly ignored the media's reporting of what caused the accident: The objective and full truth will still take months, if not years, to be known. It is very likely to be like most disasters: There was no single point of failure, but a series of failures and mistakes that led to the disaster, and nobody at the time had all the facts to realize "oh shit, it's a perfect storm!"
People say this is all about BP making a profit by cutting corners and that's what caused it. In reality, it makes no sense to allow a production rig to explode and topple into the ocean and kill your employees to save a buck. They likely did a risk assessment and concluded it was safe. The assessment was probably flawed somehow and retrospectively we'll find out how.
But again, that's years from now, not today. Today, people just want a name to vent their rage at -- and people hate waiting when they're angry.
Re:How many blunders will the American gov't allow (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm almost afraid to say this, for fear of a flame war. Really I'm not trying to make a statement for or against a political figure, I'm making a comment about the fickleness of the Americans:
I am no fan of G.W. Bush, but you can bet if he were in charge, he would be getting reamed up and down over this. I am astonished, flabbergasted, that I haven't seen Obama held accountable at the same level that Bush would have been (and was, on similar disasters).
Have I just been missing it (because I don't watch Fox News), or am I right?
And is this a statement of the fickleness of the Americans? or is this a statement of how effective Obama's team is at deflecting blame? or is there still a halo around him?
Please, don't let this evolve into a "GWB suxors" or "One Big A$$ Mistake, America" argument. I'm curious if I'm right or wrong on my assessment, not if you think Obama sucks or rocks. I DO think that the president should be held accountable to protect us from "all threats, both foreign and domestic", but I don't think that the "reaming" of the president is necessarily in order. I'm more interested in consistency of accountability.
BP did screw up intentionally (Score:5, Insightful)
Link [nola.com]
Criminal Negligence.
Re:Not on my dime (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe the government should step in and put and end to this situation themselves.
So long as they send the bill to BP and not the taxpayers, I'm for it.
I would think that at this point (and before..) the cost to taxpayers is greater if the oil continues to spill than if your government manages to do something about it. Hell, ask EU countries to fix it for you, I'm willing to pay my fractional piece of the cost.
Although I find it doubtful that there's any suitable equipment nearby. This costs talk is just pissing me off. Punish BP all you want afterwards, but please just fix the situation.
[/rant] Sorry about that.
Re:Environmentalism (Score:3, Insightful)
No true. The ethics in dealing accidental bumping someone mail box and leaving a scuff mark is not the same as knowingly driving an unsafe vehicle and then slamming into a group of kids.
Re:How many blunders will the American gov't allow (Score:2, Insightful)
IMHO there is little to no difference between using other “weapons of mass destruction” and this one. It’s just that there aren’t 10,000 people affected, but it’s spread over millions of people. It’s still mass destruction of a giant area. Imagine this happening on land. Inside the USA. They’d roll in the army and shoot everyone in sight (e.g. BP officials), before stopping it.
Re:How many blunders will the American gov't allow (Score:3, Insightful)
So, once again the design wasn't really that bad. It was the humans running the equipment that screwed it up. Hearing stuff like this, especially when you bring up rubber seals, reminds me of the Challenger disaster.
The myth that they want to "collect the oil" (Score:5, Insightful)
"After attempting many options to allow the continued collection of crude oil, BP is finally considering a 'top kill' option that will kill the well."
Why are people coming up with this fantasy that BP wants to keep the hole viable, and wants to continue collecting or be able in the future to collect oil from this hole? Some people have developed the misconception that the only reason BP hasn't tried to plug the hole is that they want the oil to flow -- i.e. $$$$$$. It's total nonsense. Why?
A) the hole at depth and the equipment on top of it is damaged. It would be foolhardy and inconsistent with industry practice in a situation like this -- especially if instability in the hole due to melting hydrates is an issue at depth in the well -- to try to keep the hole operational. The plan was, and always will be, to stop the flow from the hole and then cement and abandon this hole once it is stopped. To produce this field they will have to drill new holes. That was and always will be the case, and BP said that was the case from the start;
B) they deployed various collection devices earlier because they are faster to deploy and do not depend on being certain about the state of the deeper borehole or the blowout preventer (BOP), both of which had to be thoroughly assessed before attempting techniques that would plug the well, especially when it was known that the BOP failed to perform the way it was supposed to and the hole was unstable. You don't fiddle with things like this when they are in an "unknown state". If they proceeded to try a "top kill" without that assessment they would run the risk of making things worse if a subsurface blowout occurred when pressures built up (i.e. the pipe failed below the sea bottom) or something failed in the BOP;
C) the oil coming out (even with upward-revised numbers) is a piddling amount compared to normal oil production rates in these types of wells when they are working properly, and the value of the oil is dwarfed by the costs of collecting it like this. Even if it were flowing at 10000 barrels a day and they collected it all, that's a "mere" $700000/day (10000 * ~$70 USD/barrel), which wouldn't cover half the daily costs of all the vessels and other gear they have on-site trying to fix the problem ($500k/day is routine for ONE rig when you add in all the materials, personnel, and support. Here are costs for just the rig contract alone [rigzone.com] -- the Semisub 4000'+ WD is the relevant one at $411k/day). Usually a rig or subsea production system in this setting will be producing from multiple holes simultaneously -- that's the only way it is economic. It would be economically stupid to try to produce from the well in its current state and with the setup they have on site. Get a clue, people!
Anyone who thinks the delay in resorting to a "top kill" solution is due to some kind of ulterior financial motive on the part of BP doesn't understand the technical challenges of doing any of this stuff at extreme depths or what the real economic situation is. They're resorting to a "top kill" now because they've finished the X-ray and gamma-ray studies of the damaged BOP that give them confidence the whole thing isn't going to blow up in their face when they try to plug it. The other techniques were worth trying in the interim. That's the whole explanation for what they've done. It's nothing nefarious.
Hold BP and other oil companies responsible for accidents. Remember that they are drilling at the ends of the Earth to satisfy *your* demand for this resource, so perhaps try to cut back a bit. Beef up safety regulations and inspections. Diligently work on alternative energy sources. But for god's green Earth's sake, leave the stupid conspiracy theories out of it. This "they haven't plugged it because they want the oil to flow so they can make money" one doesn't make a speck of technical or economic sense.
Re:Environmentalism (Score:3, Insightful)
Does your car typically threaten all the native creatures for miles around and the livelihoods of many people after it is involved in an accident?
And this is why we'll never fix the system. (Score:5, Insightful)
You have no idea what you're talking about.
First, it's not a bay. It's the Gulf of Mexico.
Second, no attempt was made to "save the well". If you knew anything about drilling (or even if you'd even of bothered to read the freaking summary) you'd know that the reason drastic measures like injecting a plug into the well have not been tried is that there's a very real possibility this might do further damage to the well and make the spill significantly worse, possibly to the point of not being able to stop the leak at all. Every step of this process (from remotely activating the blowout preventer, placing the "dome" on top of the break, and syphoning off the oil as it comes up) has been done with meticulous care specifically to prevent making the situation worse, as we still don't even know why it happened!
Do you know why we don't have "disinterested" parties regulating this industry or overseeing the cleanup? Because they're people like you, who don't know what the hell they're talking about but are perfectly happy to act like the solutions are obvious and simple.
Re:Accident vs. Negligence (Score:3, Insightful)
Does not matter one bit if their risk assessment was wrong. Maybe I like to go out drinking and driving because my risk assessment says I will never hit a church van full of preschoolers, but when I do you had better bet I will be in deep shit.
You wait your couple years and see, BP will only pay but a tiny portion of these costs.
Are you so young you do not remember Exxon Valdez? Exxon paid not even pennies on the dollar for that one.
Re:Top Kill (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How many blunders will the American gov't allow (Score:1, Insightful)
(vote libertarian)
So we can get folks Rand Paul into office? No thanks. Bad enough his father already holds office, now we got his son in there too, and it would appear the apple didn't fall far from the tree.
I like the Civil Rights Act as is.
Re:Environmentalism (Score:2, Insightful)
Accidents are rarely accidents, someone fucked up.
I agree. Maybe we should start calling these events "neglidents" (I say, it's a joke, son!)... Let's use the obligatory /. car analogy:
Having a heart attack and driving into a bunny orphanage: Accident.
Texting and driving into a driving into a bunny orphanage: Neglident.
An elephant jumps out from behind a truck, you swerve only to crash into a bunny orphanage: Accident.
Going too fast poor weather, you lose control and crash into a bunny orphanage: Neglident.
Accident should only apply to specific events where the cause and outcome would be unforeseen prior to the time of the event. For everything else there's Neglidents®.
Re:How many blunders will the American gov't allow (Score:3, Insightful)
It is *not* easy to gather up the oil in the water and it is definitely *not* easy to just stick a cap in the tube.
Also, you speak of waste (and other people speak of BP being greedy and wanting solutions that gather the oil rather than stop it)...I saw evidence somewhere that the total amount of oil expected to spill was on the order of magnitude of 7.5 minutes worth of the worlds consumption. Believe me, this is not significant waste and certainly not a significant financial loss to BP (in terms of the oil value)--they want this thing shut quickly and cheaply just as much as you do.
Re:How many blunders will the American gov't allow (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama hasn't "taken charge" because he knows that BP is going to catch the blame when none of these other "fixes" work. That's smart. Contrast this with the actual Katrina: there were known things that could have been done to relieve the disaster situation in New Orleans, that were actually the responsibility of the Federal government to do, that did not get done. Bush actually failed to act when there was work to be done, whereas there is not much here for Obama to do.
Re:How many blunders will the American gov't allow (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Already in progress (Score:3, Insightful)
Everyone who knows how to deal with an oil well at this depth works for the oil companies. Other oil companies are assisting.
Re:Already in progress (Score:2, Insightful)
I hope everyone who chanted "drill baby drill!" during the last election cycle is willing to go down to the gulf coast and help with the cleanup. What a mess!
You do realize that tanker spills are far more likely than a rig failing? When a tanker spills off the coast, it will then be your fault for advocating the more risky and expensive alternative of importing oil. Finally, I'm sure you won't mind telling the working poor while they have to pay more for gasoline while you're at it right? Oh I'm sorry, I forgot... You're just making political hay of a tragedy... Please carry on then.
Re:Already in progress (Score:1, Insightful)
You think the corporations know what the hell they are doing?
Heck, do you think WE know what the hell we are doing?
I'm pretty sure you'll be surprised when you find the answer.
Umm...no... (Score:4, Insightful)
There is more than one Mike in them there links.
Mike Mason [huffingtonpost.com], the guy in the photo there and Mike Williams [cbsnews.com], the guy in the CBS' 60 Minutes". [cbsnews.com] The "electrical engineer".
BTW, those two Mikes talk about different cases of negligence by BP.
Also, the first link in the GPP is an analysis report by another guy called Glenn Stehle, [thecablevine.com] an engineer with "extensive experience in drilling operations".
Then there is Bob Bea, a professor of engineering at the University of California, who got the job to analyze the Deepwater Horizon accident.
That is like.. four guys and a couple of cases of "cutting corners when it came to oil rig safety" already.
Then there are couple of more guys in that second link. [blacklistednews.com]
So like... Do I now get my +5 Informative or a +5 Insightful?
New solution (Score:3, Insightful)
$75 million damages cap (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless we prove they were criminally negligent, the most BP will pay is $75 million. Those are the laws we passed when we opened the Gulf up to drilling. Because, you know, oil companies make so little profit off of all this, there's no way they could afford to pay for their mistakes. And this is America, land of the free! We don't hold corporations accountable for their mistakes here, that would be infringing on their FREEDOMS!
Re:And this is why we'll never fix the system. (Score:2, Insightful)
People are regularly killed, governments are overthrown for oil, etc, etc, I don't think it's outrageous for someone to suspect they might have tried to save the well for economic purposes.
We need to fix the regulatory environment, becuase companies will always race to the bottom to maximize the ROI, even if they're wildly popular.
People have a right to be angry about this, even if they don't understand it at a technical level. I don't think angry people are why we don't have better parties regulating, it's becuase of a classic ethical failure in government, (beer and hooker --scratch that-- coke and hooker parties with industry) and people like us for some reason have had our heads in the sand about the risks inherrent here.
Anyways, I'll get off my rant.
Re:Not a simple problem (Score:3, Insightful)
With the pressures and temperatures involved this is actually a very difficult problem to solve.
Obviously. That's why BP has billions of dollars to hire as many of the world's best engineers as they need.
Also, you can't just turn a valve under the blowout preventer - it is pretty much the bottom valve. So replacing this isn't an option - you are pretty much stuck with it unless you are prepared to do something drastic.
You know what you can do when the bottom valve partially fails? You can stop whatever you're doing and wait for the engineers to figure something out. Maybe you add another safety system that makes up for what the BOP can no longer do. Maybe you abandon the well and make a not to not fuck up the BOP next time.
What you can't do is rush the remaining work, increasing the odds of something catastrophic happening even further. Partly damaged BOP, fine, install some other safeguard or find a way to be more careful. Partly damaged BOP, and a botched cement job, and a smaller plug than the engineers originally specified? Whoever signed off on that should be in fucking jail.
The US could, I suppose, nationalize BP because of this.
Or they could see to it that BP pays for every bit of damage and cleans up everything that's humanly possible to clean up. You could force them to immediately release all pertinent data on the spill so that other experts can make informed suggestions and so that containment and cleanup efforts can be properly directed. You could fine the shit out of them for being negligent in the first place. You could put the people that signed off on the various rush jobs in prison. You know, you could be reasonable but firm.
Hell, you could do all that and BP would probably still turn a profit this year.
Re:Environmentalism (Score:1, Insightful)
I modded you -1 Troll for bitching about moderation. Either say what you want and deal with it or don't open your yap.
Re:Already in progress (Score:3, Insightful)
I hope everyone who chanted "drill baby drill!" during the last election cycle is willing to go down to the gulf coast and help with the cleanup.
That would mean they'd have to admit they were wrong.
No, what they're now doing is trying to already downplay the spill and its effects. See, it's just those hippie liberals that think spilling 10s of millions of gallons of oil a couple hundred miles from shore is bad for the environment. I mean, there's already millions of gallons of oil released over the entire gulf over a whole year, so having it all in one place over a month isn't any different than that, right?
Yup. Oh, and you can bet those oil companies have learned their lesson this time. They didn't learn it last time, or the time before that, or the time before that. But this time.. they mean it.
Severe problems with the blowout preventer (Score:4, Insightful)
* There was a leak in the hydraulic system that provides power to the shear rams.
* The BOP had been modified in unexpected ways. The underwater control panel had been disconnected from the bore ram, and instead connected to a test ram. Drawings of the BOP provided by Transocean to BP do not correspond to the structure that is on the ocean bottom.
* The BOP's shear ram is not powerful enough to cut through joints in the well pipe. It is only effective on the body of a drill pipe. Since 10% of the drill pipe is threaded joints, the BOP is expected to succeed on only 90% of the drill pipe.
* Emergency control to the BOP may have failed in multiple ways. Cameron, the BOP's manufacturer, has stated that the explosion may have severed the communication link so the BOP never received the instruction to engage. Before the backup dead man's switch will engage, communications, power and hydraulic lines must all be severed; Cameron, has stated it is possible BOPs hydraulic lines were intact after the explosion, in which case the unit would not engage. Of the two control pods for the deadman switch, the one that has been inspected so far had a dead battery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill#Investigation [wikipedia.org]
Obviously in your case "as far as I'm aware" isn't very far at all. You have been arguing a false position for multiple posts without bothering to check your facts in even the most cursory way.