Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Earth News

BP Says "Top Kill" Operation Has Failed 768

Posted by kdawson
from the unlimber-the-nukes dept.
MrShaggy sends a quote from a CBC story: "BP has scuttled the 'top kill' procedure of shooting heavy drilling mud into its blown-out oil well in the Gulf of Mexico after it failed to plug the leak. BP chief operating officer Doug Suttles told reporters on Saturday that over the last three days, the company has pumped more than 30,000 barrels of mud and other materials down the well but has not been able to stop the flow. 'These repeated pumping[s], we don't believe will likely achieve success, so at this point it's time to move to the next option,' Suttles said."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

BP Says "Top Kill" Operation Has Failed

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 30, 2010 @05:07AM (#32395394)

    let's try Bottom Seduction.

  • Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 30, 2010 @05:11AM (#32395400)

    It's amazing that BP can drill for oil with no provable solution to a catastrophic failure. It's like operating on a patient and going 'Trust me, I'm a doctor'.

    • Re:Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 30, 2010 @05:18AM (#32395430)

      Find a sufficiently desperate patient and promise to help him, then "trust me" might be all you need.

      • Re:Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)

        by MrNaz (730548) on Sunday May 30, 2010 @06:23AM (#32395662) Homepage

        Flamebait?

        This is exactly what happened here. A government addicted to petroleum taxes as well as a band of politicians personally heavily invested in the oil industry makes for just such a desperate patient, who needs no assurance and asks no questions about the complex, expensive and dangerous procedures being conducted.

        If the government was truly objective about its handling of industry, oil companies would have been required to demonstrate contingencies for all outcomes, including total catastrophic failure of equipment or processes. It's not like the industry operates on the knife's edge of profitability and can't afford to be held to account for their safety and recovery procedures; the oil industry has both the means and the funds necessary to keep such contingencies at the ready. However, they buy political apathy, and can put the money they would otherwise spend on safety into big bonuses for their directors and major stakeholders.

        Fuck modern politics.

        • Re:Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)

          by kthreadd (1558445) on Sunday May 30, 2010 @06:32AM (#32395690)
          Instead of simply blaming governments and oil industries we have to think about our own desire to consume oil. Why don't we put more energy and effort into finding and using existing alternatives to oil? We, as consumers, have a responsibility in this situation as well.
          • Re:Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)

            by iserlohn (49556) on Sunday May 30, 2010 @06:48AM (#32395748) Homepage

            The problem is that alternatives are not (yet) economical, and will never be until they get economies of scale (which is a chicken and egg problem), or until cheap oil runs out.

            Laissez-faire markets can only take us so far. Our addiction to oil is just another example of why we need to re-think the way in which markets are supposed to work, and to come up agreements on how we can internalize some of the environmental and other externalities. Things like carbon credits are crude measure, but it's a step in the right direction.

            The problem is, that there is no such thing as a "collective conscience" when it comes to money.

            • Re:Amazing (Score:4, Insightful)

              by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Sunday May 30, 2010 @08:01AM (#32396036) Homepage Journal

              or until cheap oil runs out.

              Or until we triple the taxes on oil. Use the revenue to promote energy alternatives.

              Laissez-faire markets can only take us so far.

              It's taking us straight to Hell.

              The problem is, that there is no such thing as a "collective conscience" when it comes to money.

              Ah, but there is. Unfortunately, corporations do not participate in the collective.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by paiute (550198)

              The problem is that alternatives are not (yet) economical, and will never be until they get economies of scale (which is a chicken and egg problem), or until cheap oil runs out.

              Some allege that cheap oil is an illusion:

              http://www.iags.org/costofoil.html [iags.org]

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Mr. Freeman (933986)
            No, we don't. It's literally impossible to elect representatives into government that will further the public interest. It is completely absurd to suggest that we completely stop buying oil from companies that do unethical and irresponsible things because there are no alternatives.

            We are completely dependent on oil and will be for some time. It is 100% BP's fault for this problem. The government shouldn't have to mandate safety. The simple fact that profit will take precedence over safety is proof that
            • Re:Amazing (Score:4, Insightful)

              by rvw (755107) on Sunday May 30, 2010 @09:14AM (#32396336)

              Do you really think that Shell, Exxon or Texaco or any other oil company would handle this better, or is prepared for a problem like this? Do you really think that if one of those companies had the solution for this problem, they wouldn't offer to help?

              BP is probably to blame, and yeah you might blame Obama as well, but the real problem is the complete dependency on oil. Just like you say. And that's not BP's fault. That's not this governments fault.

              I'm not American, and for me it would be easy to blame the American people or the American system. But the reality is that we all profited from the American mentality the past century. So now we have two or maybe three crises going on, all about oil and money. And the American way is turning out to be working against us.

              The real problem is that still the American people don't realise that things should change. It's similar to the Greek going to strike because they are going bankrupt. It will only make things worse.

              I'm very glad that this accident happened in the Mexican Gulf, and that the US is the one suffering the most. That's the only way the American people start to realise that something should change, even though they don't want to pay for it. Europe and Asia are simply not powerful enough to make a real change.

              • Re:Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)

                by IdolizingStewie (878683) on Sunday May 30, 2010 @02:10PM (#32398624)
                As an employee of one of the companies you listed, do I think we would have handled the cleanup better, probably not. Do I think we would have had better preventative measures and emergency procedures to keep the situation from escalating to the current mess? Absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt. The accounts I have read of what was going on at the times surrounding the incident terrify me. Beyond even the engineering shortcuts taken, the idea that you need permission to hit the Emergency Shut Down was supposed to have died with the 167 men lost in the Piper Alpha disaster 22 years ago. If a lowly galley hand on my platform is the first to see a problem, I expect him to hit the ESD and then call the Control Room, not waste time runnning around in search of the only two people on the platform with the authority, who have to both agree to hit it.
              • Re:Amazing (Score:5, Interesting)

                by frank_adrian314159 (469671) on Sunday May 30, 2010 @02:35PM (#32398870) Homepage

                Do you really think that Shell, Exxon or Texaco or any other oil company would handle this better, or is prepared for a problem like this?

                No, but those companies probably wouldn't have had this problem in the first place. You see, BP has the worst safety/regulatory compliance of any of the major oil companies by far. They've got 760 citations for "egregious, willful safety violations" from OSHA; their nearest competitor in the oil industry, Sunoco, has 8 (Exxon, the last poster-child for oil-industry irresponsibility, has only 1.) Their regulatory compliance for EPA issues is just as bad in comparison to their cohort. And I'm sure if you look at people supplying hookers and blow to the MMS, they're right at the top, too. Bottom line, BP is "the worst of the worst" when it comes to playing by the rules despite it's pretty green and yellow logo. They deserve to have all leases terminated and no more granted in perpetuity. Maybe then they'd get their act together.

          • Re:Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)

            by nacturation (646836) * <nacturation@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Sunday May 30, 2010 @07:48AM (#32395982) Journal

            Instead of simply blaming governments and oil industries we have to think about our own desire to consume oil. We, as consumers, have a responsibility in this situation as well.

            Let's say an apple farmer gives his apple pickers faulty ladders to work with and, as a result, dozens of workers every year fall and break their necks. Are you saying this would be the fault of consumers who purchase apples? Should people reduce their consumption of apples to fix this problem? Or does the fault lie with the farmer and have nothing at all to do with the people who purchase the apples?

            Substitute farmer and apples with BP and oil.

          • Re:Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)

            by erroneus (253617) on Sunday May 30, 2010 @08:18AM (#32396102) Homepage

            We don't "desire" to consume oil. We really and seriously don't.

            I come from Texas where there is no mass transit to speak of. Before I moved to an area where there is popular mass transit, I would have completely agreed with you. But mass transit is POPULAR with the people here. You don't NEED to take a car everywhere to get by. Many shops are walking distance, the definition of which has increased since the move, and the rest of most destinations are available by train and bus. I don't spend what I used to on gas just going to and from work any more. I spend a fraction of that amount for commuting now.

            When there are better alternatives made available, people will use them every time. It has been the auto industry and oil industry that protested the building of rails in most areas and they are still the parties resisting mass transit today. The masses of people who have never had an alternative to POV transportation might also get fooled into protesting mass transit on the grounds that more train and bus stops will provide increased inconvenience to drivers, but I have to say, that too is marginal. For those who have access to mass transit, they will most often report that they prefer it. For those who don't, it is hard to imagine any other way.

    • Re:Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Lumbre (1822486) on Sunday May 30, 2010 @05:34AM (#32395490)

      It's amazing that BP can drill for oil with no provable solution to a catastrophic failure. It's like operating on a patient and going 'Trust me, I'm a doctor'.

      It's amazing that ANY corporation can drill for oil since NONE have stepped up to the plate with a viable solution.

    • Re:Amazing (Score:5, Interesting)

      by DarkOx (621550) on Sunday May 30, 2010 @06:34AM (#32395696) Journal

      Really? How exactly do you test solutions for catastrophe of unknown nature a mile underwater, working with wells of unknown pressure filled with oil and gas of unknown composition? You do understand this was an exploratory well right; the point of this thing was largely to find out what is down there.

      If you have a solution to this problem of being able to prove catastrophic failure modes can be solved by doing X with all the other unknowns you are clearly way smarted than the rest of us and I welcome our new over lord; otherwise you just another arm chair quarterback here.

    • It's amazing that BP can drill for oil with no provable solution to a catastrophic failure.

      ... is how naive you are.

      1. It's not just BP - the other oil companies are doing exactly the same thing. It's just that BP drew the short straw today.

      2. We do tons of things with no provable solution to a catastrophic failer. Do you want the short list or the long?

      • by Mr. Freeman (933986) on Sunday May 30, 2010 @07:37AM (#32395936)
        "1. It's not just BP - the other oil companies are doing exactly the same thing. It's just that BP drew the short straw today."
        Oh shit, well as long as everyone else is doing it then I guess it's OK.

        "2. We do tons of things with no provable solution to a catastrophic failer. Do you want the short list or the long?"
        Take your long list. Now restrict it to things in which "catastrophic failure" also includes "catastrophic consequences". For example, the space shuttle disasters, catastrophic disaster resulted in the deaths of less than 10 people per shuttle. All of whom were volunteers with full knowledge of the risks. The risks they took were their own and the consequences were felt only by themselves. No one else died because they wanted to go into space. Catastrophic failure resulted in acceptable consequences.

        With this oil situation we're talking about catastrophic failure causing absurdly huge consequences. Make sure you don't confuse "catastrophic failure" with "less than perfect success record".
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by igny (716218)
          things in which "catastrophic failure" also includes "catastrophic consequences"...

          It depends on the time scale. This particular catastrophe is nothing on the geological time scale. In fact no one will probably remember this spill 100 years from now.
  • So... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 30, 2010 @05:11AM (#32395404)

    I believe the proper tag for this is 'now what'

  • Lets Try (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 30, 2010 @05:15AM (#32395422)

    Lets try the same thing again, except with BP senior execs

  • by krou (1027572) on Sunday May 30, 2010 @05:18AM (#32395432)
    Okay, plugging the leak is important, but why aren't BP also doing something like this [esquire.com] to contain the effect of the leaked oil: use 'empty supertankers to suck the spill off the surface, treat and discharge the contaminated water, and either salvage or destroy the slick.' Instead, they're just rolling out containment booms and sending people out to mop up beaches, never mind trying to initially insist that the crude was red tide, dishwashing-liquid runoff, or mud [motherjones.com]. Oh wait, the supertanker idea costs a lot of money. Sorry, sorry, my bad.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by lolbutts (1638867)
      Unfortunately, BP has been using dispersants on the failed well to prevent the oil from slicking on the surface. Because there is so much oil, the slicks on the surface are still happening, but this isn't all of the oil. I don't know of any defensible estimates for the % of oil that is getting to the surface versus hanging out in "clouds of oil". However, it seems that most people, even BP, will acknowledge that this is a nontrivial amount of oil. Though it would be nice to do something more about the o
  • by OrwellianLurker (1739950) on Sunday May 30, 2010 @05:22AM (#32395440)
    Doug Suttles later stated that BP is hard at work to come up with even cooler names for their next failed attempts to stop the oil leak. When questioned about their competence to do the job, he was quoted saying "we're stuck between overkill and final death."
  • Déjà-vu (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 30, 2010 @05:23AM (#32395444)

    Seems all to be a Déjà-vu : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHmhxpQEGPo

  • Solution. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Buzzsaw5 (1047078) on Sunday May 30, 2010 @05:29AM (#32395464)
    Why don't they start pumping into the well all the bullshit they've been spouting for the last month. That should plug that sucker up real quick.
  • by leuk_he (194174) on Sunday May 30, 2010 @05:29AM (#32395468) Homepage Journal

    This is all deja vu. This has occures before [youtube.com]. In 1979 a oil well [wikipedia.org] in the gulf blew and it took 9 months to close the gap, using the same techniques [reuters.com] they used so far.

    So expect repost of failed attempts for the next 9 months.... in the true /. tradition. If it is important it will be posted again. ;)

    • by Mashiki (184564) <mashiki AT gmail DOT com> on Sunday May 30, 2010 @06:36AM (#32395704) Homepage

      Oh quiet. People think that this stuff is new or something, in the same way that the gulf doesn't already leak a few million or is it a few hundred thousand, barrels of oil naturally every year anyway. The reality is when you're dealing with a BFP is to go through the steps of things that have and haven't work in the past. Working your way through up to what will work. Anywho it's just my guess but they'll have to use something in relation to relief wells, it's a large amount of oil with just a little bit of water giving it forced pressure.

      *parts may be sarcasm.

  • Not prepared (Score:5, Informative)

    by Vicegrip (82853) on Sunday May 30, 2010 @05:43AM (#32395512) Journal
    I suspect that they always knew their attempts to fix it would fall short, this is all make-busy to give the appearance that everything that could be done is being done. The correct solution appears to be forcing oil companies to drill relief wells for existing exploitation. The idea here is that the relief well is mostly completed so that if a disaster occurs, instead of taking months to connect to the main well, the work can be done within days.
    BP's experience is showing us that the relief well is the only solution that will work.
    It's why the Canadian government is taking the position that one must be drilled at the same time as a new well is being built. Unsurprisingly, oil companies are already lobbying hard to have these measures curtailed.
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-will-take-tough-stand-on-offshore-drilling/article1557095/ [theglobeandmail.com]
    "At issue in talks between the oil industry and the National Energy Board on relief wells in the North is whether they must be drilled during the same season as the primary exploration well. The window for drilling in the North is only a few months because of ice conditions. However, allowing oil companies to wait a season to drill relief wells could leave a new well exposed to a potential rupture for a year or more. Mr. Pryce at CAPP said the policy for relief wells was devised in the 1970s, and alternative technology for dealing with ruptures has advanced considerably. "
  • by lightversusdark (922292) on Sunday May 30, 2010 @05:43AM (#32395514) Journal

    I've come to the conclusion that this is mostly for show.
    Best case estimates of success for any of the proposed solutions have been incredibly low.
    Repeated failures are changing the problem conditions with each attempt.
    BP has to appear to be trying absolutely everything (and I suppose they are), but I think there is an executive acceptance that nothing before the relief wells kick in (August!) is going to make a dent in the flow of escaping oil and gas.
    The ROV operators and everyone with a real job to do are doing amazing, admirable work, but I just feel that this is all futile.
    We are down to real basic mechanical approaches.
    No technological solutions exist, none have been developed as there is no demand, as the oil companies have not invested in disaster management technology. Unproven response measures like the dispersants have been at best useless, and increasingly appear to have had an overall negative effect on the situation.
    We seriously don't have any bright ideas about dealing with this, and it's already too late.

    • by Genda (560240) <mariet@@@got...net> on Sunday May 30, 2010 @06:39AM (#32395724) Journal

      Hhhmmm, I don't know, but I think this would have been a really simple thing to prevent... no need for any new technology whatsoever

      1. First replace the entire bozo squad passing for government regulators, in fact jail the lot of them, for receiving bribes, and causing billions of dollars of damage to the country.
      2. Next when an oil company installs emergency shut off valves at the well head, make certain they work, BP knew for a fact theirs didn't work and ignored it.
      3. Additionally, when your high tech well has special high pressure seals, design expressly for potential disasters, and you know you've damaged or destroyed them, stop drilling, and fix the seals, BP knew they had a problem when they brought huge chunks of rubber and again ignored it to continue drilling.
      4. Finally, when some idiot from an oil company tells the folks on the rig to remove tons of drilling mud from the well, now, to shave a few days off of opening the well to pumping later, knowing full well that leaving that mud in the well is a critical safety feature for preventing disasters like... this one, they should be politely shot in the head. Twice.

      There was absolutely no need for this mess. BP played loose and fast with the lives of millions of people. Hell, they virtually murdered the drilling crew. They knew they were engaged in risky behavior, they cut dozens of corners, shaved the rules, lied about their problems, and did anything at all to cut their expense and increase their profit. At some point, when a company creates, literally manufactures a disaster of this proportion, and the only significant cause is a blatant and callous disregard for human life, and environmental safety, I think it's only fair to invite them to leave the country permanently. They've demonstrated they have absolutely no interest whatsoever in being responsible, decent, or even vaguely accountable. We're still the largest consumer of petroleum products in the world. They must serve us, and not the other way.

  • by freddled (544384) on Sunday May 30, 2010 @05:44AM (#32395518) Journal
    Hmm. The problem here is you are asking Brits to fix a leaking pipe. Queue lots of sucking of teeth, scratching of heads and HUGE estimates. There is probably a guy there right now, using the undersea robot to tap the pipe and go, "well your problem, mate, is its all your own fault see, no offence, I've got a bit of twig I broke off a tree in my van. I'll stick that in the hole and wiggle it around while I think of something more plausible but it will cost you..." Call in the Poles. They have great plumbers: quick, efficient, well qualified. They'll have it fixed in a jiffy and clean up the mess afterwards.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      Call in the Poles. They have great plumbers

      Personally, I'd check the Mushroom Kingdom for plumbers. I know a couple of guys there that work pretty cheaply, if you don't mind their use of mushrooms every now and then.

  • by fantomas (94850) on Sunday May 30, 2010 @05:47AM (#32395524)

    ... because your BP shares are going to be worth a lot less ;-)

    Seriously though this accident has thrown up a lot of interesting information - such as how the US imports vastly more oil than it produces on its own territories, and I can only imagine regulation around oil drilling will become more strict rather than less after this has all been sorted out. Given that the USA does love to consume energy I would have thought that the silver lining might be increased investment in alternative energy sources; you've got a huge country with a lot of space for generating wind/solar/wave power. Now might be a time to explore more than pilot projects? Possibly an increased nuclear power plant program as well though I am not too sure about whether this is in political favour at the moment?

    One thing amazes me about the present fiasco is that we don't hear of more accidents like this, how many offshore oilrigs are there round the world? I guess the oil industry is either pretty careful or pretty lucky when it comes to oil extraction (or good on PR cover-ups...)

    • by je ne sais quoi (987177) on Sunday May 30, 2010 @08:37AM (#32396186)

      One thing amazes me about the present fiasco is that we don't hear of more accidents like this, how many offshore oilrigs are there round the world?

      It does happen every few years or so [wikipedia.org]. We just don't hear about it because they aren't usually as large as this one, nor in as deep water, which exacerbates the difficulty of any possible fixes including relief wells (but you can expect more and more deepwater wells in the future). Also, the public and the media have short attention spans, and the oil companies will cover these things up if they can and/or wait for the public outcry to die down. BP tried the same thing here, claiming that the well was only putting out 5000 barrels per day and it wasn't until oil started showing up on shorelines that anyone questioned them. Exxon never paid more than half the money they were supposed to after the Valdez, they just funded an endless stream of lawyers to move it around in court until people gave up trying to get it.

      I can only imagine regulation around oil drilling will become more strict rather than less after this has all been sorted out.

      You'd think that would be the case, but the oil industry lobbyists are already probably in high gear waiting for the news media to switch to some other topic so they can go back to baiting the rabid conservative segment of the population with drill, baby, drill slogans and paying off their favorite politicians and funding their reelection campaigns. On the other hand, after the Exxon Valdez the U.S. did start requiring that oil tankers docked in their ports [wikipedia.org] had double hulls. But I guess that a certain political party will resist any new regulations for drilling in the current political climate.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Black Parrot (19622)

      Seriously though this accident has thrown up a lot of interesting information - such as how the US imports vastly more oil than it produces on its own territories

      According to the media, this well's oil would have been sold on the international market.

      People who think "drill baby drill" will make their gasoline prices drop are living in a fantasy land.

  • Obligatory (Score:5, Funny)

    by JohnnyBGod (1088549) on Sunday May 30, 2010 @05:52AM (#32395554)

    Obligatory link: http://twitter.com/BPGlobalPR [twitter.com]

    We are very upset that Operation: Top Kill has failed. We are running out of cool names for these things.

  • by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Sunday May 30, 2010 @05:58AM (#32395572)

    Here's an idea for how to really motivate BP - and any other company with the potential to cause such massive havoc...

    For every day that the oil continues to gush, the top 10% of their employees, by total compensation, should be required to work for a day on the clean-up crews. Not simply going to meetings and coming up with plans - they are to get down and dirty scraping oil off rocks and washing birds. The kind of work that gets oil under your fingernails and in your hair, with the smell soaked so deeply into your skin that it takes weeks to get it out.

    After all, these guys have so much money in the bank that firing them won't hurt, and fining the company will just translate into higher oil prices. If they had some real skin in the game, I think we would have seen them take the problem a whole lot more seriously from day one.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by blind biker (1066130)

      Here's an idea for how to really motivate BP - and any other company with the potential to cause such massive havoc...

      For every day that the oil continues to gush, the top 10% of their employees, by total compensation, should be required to work for a day on the clean-up crews. Not simply going to meetings and coming up with plans - they are to get down and dirty scraping oil off rocks and washing birds. The kind of work that gets oil under your fingernails and in your hair, with the smell soaked so deeply into your skin that it takes weeks to get it out.

      After all, these guys have so much money in the bank that firing them won't hurt, and fining the company will just translate into higher oil prices. If they had some real skin in the game, I think we would have seen them take the problem a whole lot more seriously from day one.

      BP top execs are corporate psychopaths - that is, psychopaths that happened to be smart enough to manipulate their way into high-paying, high-repsonsibility (without the responsibility) positions. They don't care about you, your family, or just about anyone's lives'.One buck in their pockets is worth more than a human life, for that kind of people.

      Furthermore, psychopathy is NOT curable - all those fancy activities at correctional institutions, like training guide dogs for the blind, do NOT work with psycho

  • by zanderredux (564003) on Sunday May 30, 2010 @06:16AM (#32395640)

    No, really. If Rachel Maddow is right this has happened before and continues to happen in the same way. All same players, all same tactics, all same outcomes.

    Kinda WTF, but check this out:

    http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/c8sqn/rachel_maddow_finds_one_massive_wtf/ [reddit.com]

  • Top Kill (Score:4, Insightful)

    by roman_mir (125474) on Sunday May 30, 2010 @06:45AM (#32395738) Homepage Journal

    I have another idea for an operation with a name 'Top Kill'.

    Here [bp.com] are the details [bp.com].

  • by gestalt_n_pepper (991155) on Sunday May 30, 2010 @08:49AM (#32396240)

    Really. It was just a joke! Guys, OK? Guys? Guys! Hey. Hey! HEY! Whaddya doing with that missile? GUYS!!!!

  • by cnaumann (466328) on Sunday May 30, 2010 @09:37AM (#32396462)

    One article said that the oil flow stopped while they were pumping in the mud. Why not continue the pumping operation with seawater to keep the pressure in the BOP as high as possible?

  • by PPH (736903) on Sunday May 30, 2010 @12:15PM (#32397564)

    ... was supposed to be a 'junk shot' where they jamb the BOP with plastic and rubber to keep the mud from squirting out. So when is BP going to whip out its junk and shove it in the hole?

Parts that positively cannot be assembled in improper order will be.

Working...