Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Earth News

BP Claims Gulf Well Has Been Stopped 601

Posted by timothy
from the ha-ha-only-serious dept.
An anonymous reader writes with word that BP has announced the Gulf oil spill has been stopped. Another reader adds more detail: "The last valve on the new cap has been closed, and the flow of oil and gas into the sea has stopped. That doesn't mean it's over. It is unclear whether the steel casing deep in the well can contain the pressure. The risk is that it could burst, which would eventually cause a rupture on the sea floor that would make things much messier to deal with. However, they're monitoring the pressure buildup carefully and if the pressure holds over the next 48 hours (indicating there is no leak below the sea floor), they'll assess what to do next. If it doesn't hold at the expected readings, then they'll re-attach the pipe used for producing to the surface and start collecting again. Regardless of what happens the relief well still has to be completed to permanently plug the well with cement, which could take a couple more weeks."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

BP Claims Gulf Well Has Been Stopped

Comments Filter:
  • by Kepesk (1093871) on Thursday July 15, 2010 @05:53PM (#32920012) Homepage
    Picture or it didn't happen!
    • by impaledsunset (1337701) on Thursday July 15, 2010 @05:54PM (#32920044)

      Now that they stopped it, let's Slashdot it from the inside.

    • by bhlowe (1803290) on Thursday July 15, 2010 @05:57PM (#32920070)
      Link to multiple video feeds.. [jtnog.org] Looks good to me!
    • by poly_pusher (1004145) on Thursday July 15, 2010 @06:24PM (#32920382)
      Pfffft.... Documentation means nothing. Just look at the amazing work done on the faked moon landing!
    • by catchblue22 (1004569) on Thursday July 15, 2010 @07:05PM (#32920862) Homepage

      Any success that BP may or may not have in this endeavor does not change the fact that they should have had methods to cap a blowout ready before they started drilling. The fact that this well has been gushing for months is simply unacceptable. The keystone cops spectacle of Top-Hat, Hot-Tap, Junk Shot (tm) is strong evidence that BP didn't devote any significant resources to dealing with a deep water blowout. Strong regulation of these rogue corporations is needed. They should not be able to drill without having capping equipment and emergency tankers ready at dock.

      • by cj_nologic (1649427) on Thursday July 15, 2010 @07:29PM (#32921116)

        Any success that BP may or may not have in this endeavor does not change the fact that they should have had methods to cap a blowout ready before they started drilling. The fact that this well has been gushing for months is simply unacceptable. The keystone cops spectacle of Top-Hat, Hot-Tap, Junk Shot (tm) is strong evidence that BP didn't devote any significant resources to dealing with a deep water blowout. Strong regulation of these rogue corporations is needed. They should not be able to drill without having capping equipment and emergency tankers ready at dock.

        sed 's/BP/the oil industry/g'

        I didn't see any of the other large multinationals drilling in the area jumping in and offering their solutions. This gung-ho approach is not restricted to BP, it's endemic in the culture of the oil industry, and all the other companies are looking on grateful it wasn't them that got "unlucky".

        Just wait until this happens in Alaska or somewhere where it's a trifle more difficult to get to with the relief equipment.

        I'm off down to the local planetarium to put a down-payment on a new planet for my kids. They're going to need it.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by lawpoop (604919)

          I didn't see any of the other large multinationals drilling in the area jumping in and offering their solutions.

          Well, you can't really offer to build the well correctly after the fact, now can you?

          Other countries require safeguards to already be in place [wsj.com] before the well goes into production. We could have required an acoustic dead-man switch, or relief wells to be in place, before the well went into production. If they had been in place, we would have already had the solution when the wellhead blew.

          Brazil and Norway require these acoustic switches. If the oil companies don't want to do it on their own, we can just

  • Whew (Score:5, Funny)

    by Kell Bengal (711123) on Thursday July 15, 2010 @05:53PM (#32920018)
    Thank god they got it closed before it became an ecological disaster.

    Oh wait...
    • Re:Whew (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kvezach (1199717) on Thursday July 15, 2010 @05:56PM (#32920062)
      It does seem that they were very focused on being able to extract the oil rather than just stopping the leak. Now, I'm not an engineer, but could their desire for continued extraction of oil have delayed their plans, made the stack more complex?

      In any case, we'll see whether it works. Hopefully it'll at least buy them enough time to drill relief wells.
      • Re:Whew (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Low Ranked Craig (1327799) on Thursday July 15, 2010 @06:01PM (#32920118)

        Now, I'm not an engineer, but could their desire for continued extraction of oil have delayed their plans, made the stack more complex?

        Not based on my understanding since they are continuing with the relief well, the purpose of which is to plug the well with cement.

        Now that they have the cap in place, if it works I don't see why they don't just turn the well into a producing well. Might as well get something out of the disaster...

        • Re:Whew (Score:5, Informative)

          by Rakishi (759894) on Thursday July 15, 2010 @06:37PM (#32920536)

          The well was a write off from the moment the thing started leaking. Everyone knew that. I mean seriously, they can barely cap the thing, how in god's name do you expect them to repair all the damage that was done to it?

          It's orders of magnitude cheaper and easier to just drill another well, they're not some magical things that suddenly shows up in the middle of the ocean, we can make more of them.

        • Re:Whew (Score:5, Informative)

          by x_IamSpartacus_x (1232932) on Thursday July 15, 2010 @06:37PM (#32920542)
          You know, I was going to lament the waste that it seems it will be to pump the relief well and seal off this oil well because of the vastness of the reserve and how much oil and natural gas they could get from it since they can collect it now with the cap on it.

          Before I did that though, I did a little digging to find out how many other projects BP has in the Gulf of Mexico just to see if maybe they have a high percentage rate of success and this is just one of hundreds or something,
          It turns out BP has only 9 (admittedly huge) projects in the Gulf of Mexico. Source [archive.org]
          (count the number of projects in the ride hand column)

          I had to find that in the way back machine because BP took down the page listing their Gulf of Mexico projects. They even still link [bp.com]
          to it (again, look at the column on the right "Gulf of Mexico Facilities) but they broke the link. It's funny, when I peruse that page (via the way back machine) BP brags about their "new and untested" tech that they use to go to "unprecedented depths". It looks like their a little ashamed of it now.

          Anyway, after seeing that they only have 9 facilities in the Gulf maybe this well is better sealed off. I went looking for a reason to trust BP with reopening this well and getting the oil and gas they went there for but a 1 in 9 failure rate is not impressive. Seal that sucker off.

      • Re:Whew (Score:5, Informative)

        by snowraver1 (1052510) on Thursday July 15, 2010 @06:02PM (#32920134)
        If they could have just stopped the leak, they would have one the first day. In fact, they tried that, but the BOP was broken... That is what this whole issue is about.

        The collection of oil was to prevent that oil from going into the water, and also gave them something positive to report on.

        In addition, the collection effort required some stops that made the capping of the well possible at all. As part of the capping process the cut the riser of the well (and eventually removed the riser cap) which is where this cap is installed.

        I'm sure that no one wanted to stop this well leak more than BP.
        • Re:Whew (Score:5, Insightful)

          by spun (1352) <loverevolutionary@@@yahoo...com> on Thursday July 15, 2010 @06:07PM (#32920186) Journal

          BP is a corporation. Corporations don't have empathy or remorse. They could give a rat's ass about the leak. They only wanted to stop the bad publicity and liability, and secondarily, to start producing oil. If they could somehow have all three on the cheap without stopping the leak, they would have.

          • Re:Whew (Score:5, Insightful)

            by RoFLKOPTr (1294290) on Thursday July 15, 2010 @06:22PM (#32920352)

            BP is a corporation. Corporations don't have empathy or remorse. They could give a rat's ass about the leak. They only wanted to stop the bad publicity and liability, and secondarily, to start producing oil. If they could somehow have all three on the cheap without stopping the leak, they would have.

            Corporations aren't the uncaring robot beasts you seem to be convinced they are. Corporations are still run by people. And there's no way that the people running BP would have allowed themselves to continue pumping unthinkable amounts of oil into the ocean without putting up a real effort to stop it, bad press and huge fines or none.

            • Re:Whew (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Omega Hacker (6676) <`omega' `at' `omegacs.net'> on Thursday July 15, 2010 @06:33PM (#32920496)

              > Corporations aren't the uncaring robot beasts you seem to be convinced they are. Corporations are still run by profits.

              Fixed.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Tsiangkun (746511)
              BP is run by a profit driven capitalist terrorist group. Money makes the decisions at BP. To think people run the corporations is just plain silly.
              • Re:Whew (Score:5, Insightful)

                by cjb658 (1235986) on Thursday July 15, 2010 @06:52PM (#32920712) Journal

                Yes, we are all trained to think corporations are evil. But have you ever chosen money or convenience over what's best for the environment?

                Do you drive a car to work?
                Do you buy reusable shopping bags?
                Do you throw recyclable materials in the trash?
                Do you use air conditioning?

                I could go on, but the point is, almost everyone is motivated by cost and convenience.

                • Re:Whew (Score:4, Insightful)

                  by spun (1352) <loverevolutionary@@@yahoo...com> on Thursday July 15, 2010 @06:58PM (#32920788) Journal

                  Thank you for that false equivalency. Destroying a huge region of ecosystem and screwing up hundreds of thousands of lives is not the same thing as not buying reusable shopping bags, and you know it.

                  • Re:Whew (Score:4, Insightful)

                    by victorhooi (830021) on Thursday July 15, 2010 @08:09PM (#32921530)

                    heya,

                    Actually, he's made a damn good point.

                    I know it's really popular and faux-trendy in the west to chant DOWN WITH CORPORATIONS! DOWN WITH GLOBALISATIONS!, but have you actually stopped and considered how idiotic you actually sound. *sigh*.

                    Just stop being sheeple for a second and think.

                    Corporations are just a legal construct - they're run by *people*. They people like money, and they're usually profit-driven. As the parent notes, this doesn't make them evil, it just makes them more concentrated form of what we're like

                    There are few people these days, in our Western nations that aren't driven by cost/convenience. Yet people are all talk, and no action.

                    I mean, jeez, look at the whole Buy Australian/Buy American thing.

                    It was trendy to be all anti-imports, but when it came time for people to put their money where their mouth is...they still buy cheap Chinese imports...lol. (I'm assuming here these people believed in mercantilism over globalisation, or something). They're hypcocrites, plain and simple, as many of these anti-globalisation/environmental trendies are.

                    You get all these faux-greenies, or anti-globalisation wannabes chanting stupid DOWN WITH BP! slogans. They're a frigging company, run for profit. They're not evil, or good, they're just a legal construct, that does things to make money. You can judge each action they do, on a moral scale, but you can't make blanket statements like COMPANIES ARE EVIL. You might as well say, environmentalists ARE EVIL because of all the terrible things Greenpeace or PETA have done. And believe me, there's a lot.

                    If you really want to put your money where your mouth is - go, setup a reserve somewhere, grow your own food, make your own textiles/clothing, and abscond modern conveniences like electricity and petroleum. The fact you're on Slashdot makes me think you won't last long. We'll see how long it is before you come back begging to be let back into society.

                    Cheers,
                    Victor

                    • Re:Whew (Score:5, Insightful)

                      by WNight (23683) on Thursday July 15, 2010 @10:49PM (#32922608) Homepage

                      DOWN WITH CORPORATIONS! DOWN WITH GLOBALISATIONS!, but have you actually stopped and considered how idiotic you actually sound. *sigh*.

                      Wow, that's a particularly stupid strawman you're beating there.

                      Silly me, I thought paying taxes to fund the government to pass regulations for drilling/industry was supposed to reduce risk, letting me buy shopping bags without dooming the planet. Evidently we should have tolerated the drilling for all non-consumer reasons (fuel for war) and yet have known not to ask for luxuries. Bad consumers. Bad. Those bags are what's killed us, not decades of industry lobbying and government corruption and lies.

                      Had it been clear how badly the government has handled the issue before the spill (despite attempted citizen oversight) or how lax BP's safety procedures were, asking for that shopping bag would have been unreasonable. But we were continually assured, by the government and industry, that reasonable steps were being taken - which we now know to be a lie.

                    • Re:Whew (Score:4, Insightful)

                      by tibit (1762298) on Friday July 16, 2010 @01:44AM (#32923386)

                      Corporations are just a legal construct - they're run by *people*. They people like money, and they're usually profit-driven. As the parent notes, this doesn't make them evil, it just makes them more concentrated form of what we're like.

                      You missed the fact that people placed in a corporate environment like that of BPs will adjust their behavior to "fit" within the culture -- the latter having degenerated over the decades. I've personally seen people's whole segments of morality alter almost by 180 degrees simply by spending a decade at a global multinational. It's spooky.

                    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                      by victorhooi (830021)

                      heya,

                      Absolutely, I agree with you.

                      In Australia, we've got Bob Brown, leader of the Greens Party.

                      Now, ideologically, I've got a lot against extremist environmentalists like him.

                      However, I admire and respect the guy for standing up for what he believes. Last time I checked, I believe he lives on his own (or with his male partner) in Tasmania - which is as remote in Australia as you can get =). And I think I read in an interview that he lives quite simply, in a shack-ish sort of place, close to nature, no util

                • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                  I keep seeing this kind of argument, and I just feel is wrong. We don't have many choices when it comes to what we use to transport ourselves, what we use to keep ourselves cool/warm, or to separate trash when no recycling facilities are in the area. Not everybody lives at a walking distance or bicycle distance from work, not everybody lives in a mediterranean weather where summer is not so hot and winter is not so cold, not everybody has the area where they live to put organic trash aside and make it compo
            • Re:Whew (Score:5, Insightful)

              by h4rr4r (612664) on Thursday July 15, 2010 @06:37PM (#32920544)

              Wow are you naive. They would have done whatever would make them the most money. The reason is not because they are so horrible, but because blame is so spread around no one feels guilty for the problem.

            • Re:Whew (Score:5, Insightful)

              by interkin3tic (1469267) on Thursday July 15, 2010 @07:26PM (#32921072)

              And there's no way that the people running BP would have allowed themselves to continue pumping unthinkable amounts of oil into the ocean without putting up a real effort to stop it, bad press and huge fines or none.

              Kind of reminds me of what I told myself about Pfizer when I was working for them: no way would they do unethical things like test their drugs in 3rd world countries without properly informing the test subjects. No way would they have done this just to save a buck or two, or get around stricter regulations in the US. After all, you'd have to be a monster to be okay with that, and additionally to be absolutely horrible at managing PR to risk the parallels to the Tuskegee experiments. And, I told myself, you go into medicine to help people, not hurt them.

              I guess I could still tell myself those things, it's not as if anything conclusive has come out about it. [wikipedia.org] Still, I think it's pretty clear that pfizer is not our friend, corporations are in general not our friends, and those individuals who work for large corporations are able to justify, ignore, or rationalize almost anything their company does. After all, I did it, and I was just a lab grunt who had no real stake in the company.

              You should not be optimistic about good people being in places of power, since power tends to corrupt. That isn't just true for politicians or religious leaders, it's definitely true for corporations.

            • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

              by am 2k (217885)

              Corporations aren't the uncaring robot beasts you seem to be convinced they are. Corporations are still run by people.

              That's technically true, but it has been proven time and again that in order to get into a top management position in a huge company, you have to be mentally disturbed in a way that you'd be in mental hospital if you weren't in that important position. Thus, decisions by large companies tend to reflect that kind of psychological pattern.

            • Re:Whew (Score:4, Informative)

              by adamchou (993073) on Friday July 16, 2010 @01:27AM (#32923294)

              Corporations aren't the uncaring robot beasts you seem to be convinced they are. Corporations are still run by people. And there's no way that the people running BP would have allowed themselves to continue pumping unthinkable amounts of oil into the ocean without putting up a real effort to stop it, bad press and huge fines or none.

              I'd hate to burst your bubble but oil companies don't give a rats ass. Here's an excerpt from this article [guardian.co.uk]. Take note that the article is a bit old though.

              In fact, more oil is spilled from the delta's network of terminals, pipes, pumping stations and oil platforms every year than has been lost in the Gulf of Mexico, the site of a major ecological catastrophe caused by oil that has poured from a leak triggered by the explosion that wrecked BP's Deepwater Horizon rig last month

        • Re:Whew (Score:5, Funny)

          by countertrolling (1585477) on Thursday July 15, 2010 @06:08PM (#32920192) Journal

          I'm sure that no one wanted to stop the news leaks more than BP.

          You're welcome...

      • Re:Whew (Score:5, Interesting)

        by maxume (22995) on Thursday July 15, 2010 @06:12PM (#32920256)

        The primary reason it took a long time is that they had no contingency plan for BOP failure. They had to invent the plan, invent the needed equipment and then build the equipment.

        (They had a notion that they would build a relief well if it blew, but that isn't a short term containment plan, it is a hole in the ground plugging plan).

        So if you want to be outraged, be outraged that they were drilling outside of their technical depth (they clearly did not have a reasonable contingency plan in place, nor a sufficient amount of equipment), there is no need to foment anger about their motivations since the blowout.

        • Re:Whew (Score:5, Interesting)

          by SleazyRidr (1563649) on Thursday July 15, 2010 @06:21PM (#32920346)

          The scary thing is that basically everyone out there is assuming that the BOP will never fail and they don't need any contingency plans. I've done one or two studies with these people (not BP) and whenever anyone raises the question, "What if the BOP fails?" the answer is always, "it won't."

      • Re:Whew (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Sir_Sri (199544) on Thursday July 15, 2010 @06:15PM (#32920276)

        The 'extraction' is more that it's easier to funnel some of the leak somewhere, and it has to go somewhere, than it is to actually stop the leak (which IMO isn't a bad plan really). AFAIK basically they've always needed relief wells or nuclear weapons or a working blowout preventer to get stuff to stop. Imagine an outside tap on your house that won't close, sticking something on there which will actually plug the leak, while under pressure is pretty hard. Screwing on a hose is messy, but once it's on at least you're funnelling the (in this case) water wherever you want it, it'll be leaky, but a lot better than nothing. Fitting on a new tap while there is flow is pretty tough, not impossible though, and if you stick a cap on it, and the cap bursts you're probably further behind than if you'd just left the partially connected hose.

        The whole thing has been to some degree theatre. Dumping dispersant on light oil is dramatically worse than just letting it get to the surface and evaporate, but they had to be seen to be doing something. Building a cap to hold it in was always, at best a temporary solution, and everything they do risks making the problem worse. Funnelling as best they could until relief wells could be made was probably the only viable choice, at this point whether they can cap the leak for a week or two isn't going to make meaningful impact on the overall size of the spill, a useful learning exercise for the next time something like this happens, but not all that useful now.

        The question will be what to do if the relief wells fail in some way, because then the number of options is pretty low.

        I doubt the amount of oil they could get hardly justifies worrying about. Even if they're getting 20K barrels of actual oil a day that they can sell at say 80 bucks a barrel, that's only about 1.6 million bucks a day, for a business that's doing ~690 million USD in revenue a day, and spending probably 20 or 30 billion dollars on this, a few hundred million here or there is unlikely to even make notice on a balance sheet, and risk extremely bad press for very little gain.

    • Re:Whew (Score:5, Funny)

      by Monkeedude1212 (1560403) on Thursday July 15, 2010 @06:09PM (#32920212) Journal

      Try not to think of it as an ecological disaster. Think of it as unproactive redistribution of wealth by giving some of the worlds unwealthiest wildlife a large sum of one of the worlds most sought after resources. They should be able to increase their underwater infrastructure a great deal if they use it all wisely.

  • Great News (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gregrah (1605707) on Thursday July 15, 2010 @05:54PM (#32920026)
    All skepticism aside, this is f-ing great news.

    Seriously.
  • by Kenoli (934612) on Thursday July 15, 2010 @05:54PM (#32920034)
    I was getting rather used to it.
  • How long (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mark72005 (1233572) on Thursday July 15, 2010 @05:55PM (#32920050)
    How long until Washington starts claiming credit for it?
  • by BitterOak (537666) on Thursday July 15, 2010 @05:55PM (#32920056)

    Let's hope the fix holds.

    Actually, this isn't meant as a permanent fix at all. This cap is a temporary solution to prevent excessive leakage in the event that a hurricane prevents them from collecting the oil that does escape. They are still going ahead with the relief valves which are intended to be the permanent solution. That said, I do hope the cap holds the oil for as long as necessary.

    • by lmnfrs (829146) <lmnfrs@gmail.BALDWINcom minus author> on Thursday July 15, 2010 @06:11PM (#32920248) Journal

      Not even close to permanent. The current plan is to monitor "for up to 48 hours before reopening the cap while they decide what to do".

      • by blair1q (305137) on Thursday July 15, 2010 @07:31PM (#32921136) Journal

        here's what I heard:

        1. they capped it.
        2. they closed the cap
        2a. if the pressure suddenly drops, they know the pipe is ruptured below and they are forcing oil into the sea floor, where it will seep up into the sea, meaning the cap is not preventing a leak, just shifting it to the rupture. they will open the cap immediately and work to start pumping oil to the surface.
        2b. if the pressure is high and holding, they will monitor for up to 48 hours it to determine if it is dropping slowly.
        2b(1). if it is, then there is likely a leak below and they will work to start pumping oil to the surface, to keep the pressure in the pipe low while they wait for the relief well to be completed.
        2b(2). if it is not, then the pipe is stable and intact
        2b(2)(i). they may keep the cap in place and wait for the relief well to be completed
        2b(2)(ii). they may work to start pumping oil to the surface while they wait for the relief well to be completed.
        3. when the relief well is completed, they will open the cap, or remove the pumps, and pump concrete into the pipe to cap this wellhead permanently. the relief well will in any case be the production wellhead for this shaft.

        what's really shocking about the whole deal isn't that they had a faulty blowout preventer, it's that they always knew that the pipe and the rock surrounding it were at points not strong enough to contain the pressure in the well. they knew this either before they started drilling or shortly after, and still they drilled all the way to the oil. they knew that there was no way ever to completely cap this well. as soon as they hit the oil, they would have to allow it to flow to keep the pressure low, or it would eventually rupture the pipe and vent the entire oilfield into the seafloor and then to the sea. and, for some reason, they foresaw no reasonable circumstance under which that plan might fail. they believed it not possible that they wouldn't be able to complete the well and pump it continuously, without a problem, without ever having to stop the flow. and they apparently suppressed knowledge of the entire consideration, because anyone looking at the concept would immediately say they were not only courting disaster, but raising it to a high probability of occurring.

        frankly, i think it makes the deaths of those 11 men nothing short of murder.

      • by TopSpin (753) on Thursday July 15, 2010 @07:44PM (#32921282) Journal

        This is correct. The cap WILL be reopened in any case. If the well pressure does not build to about 8000 psi they will reopen the cap because this would indicate a bore containment problem. Even if the pressure does build to the proper level 'they' want to perform seismic tests without pressure in the well bore after 48 hours. Finally, if they then decide the well bore and/or formation does not have sufficient integrity the cap will then remain open permanently, otherwise they'll close it again.

        In all cases the cap will be reopened and gush into the Gulf for some period of time, so don't be surprised when it happens. The best case is that the conclusions made from the seismic tests will allow the cap to be closed again relatively quickly.

        If the cap cannot remain closed for whatever reason another containment plan is then used; four different ships are attached to the new cap in various configurations (kill lines, floating risers, etc.) to attempt to recover and/or burn the entire flow from the well.

        A thoughtful reader may ask; why risk the "shut in" (closing the cap) and possible well bore/formation damage when 'they' can just collect/burn all of the flow without closing the cap? The answer is that ships, even big ships, have to escape hurricanes; if a cane blows through and the collection ships have to leave then the well will, once again, flow into the Gulf until the storm passes and the entire multi-ship apparatus can be reconnected. This could take weeks if the storm is uncooperative.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 15, 2010 @05:58PM (#32920080)

    They didn't fix it, the deposit just ran out.

  • by omar.sahal (687649) on Thursday July 15, 2010 @06:02PM (#32920126) Homepage Journal
    Rubbish get it from the horse's mouth BPGlobalPR [twitter.com]
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Lest anyone is confused, BPGlobalPR is a parody/joke. Not BP. I find it distasteful that they are so angry at BP that they don't even appear to be happy that BP has actually stopped the leak for the time being.
  • Well... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Auto_Lykos (1620681) on Thursday July 15, 2010 @06:09PM (#32920226)
    Seeing is believing: http://mfile.akamai.com/97892/live/reflector:45683.asx?bkup=45684 [akamai.com] Odds are the feed will cut out after a few seconds with how swamped it is now. Oh and if you're really interested here's one of the bottom of the BOP which is being watched so it doesn't explode. http://mfile.akamai.com/97892/live/reflector:31499.asx?bkup=31500 [akamai.com]
  • by fantomas (94850) on Thursday July 15, 2010 @06:18PM (#32920304)

    Back to business as usual then. US government will make noises about it clearly being a British conspiracy to destroy America, demand BP gets sued for quadratrillions, gets banned from US trading, say it wouldn't have happened if it was a good ole US oil company from Texas. Local lawyers sue on behalf of local residents for quintillions, combined wealth of ten planet Earths etc. BP puts lawyers on to the case, forms holding company to take over US operations, carries on drilling, settles for a few million ten years from now. Local fishermen out of jobs, local environment messed up for the next 50 years, local lawyers get rich, politicians get promoted and oil companies carry on drilling and make substantial profits every year, held up by US government as fine examples of free market pioneers who are great examples for the world's entrepreneurs. Rinse and repeat.

    • by blair1q (305137) on Thursday July 15, 2010 @07:39PM (#32921212) Journal

      You're an extremist.

      More likely, Britain will get no blame, BP will get all of the blame and share it with TransOcean and Halliburton. They're already suing each other over it.

      The government will likely have to sue to get the several $billion it has spent on manpower and material to deal with the problem. Many people along the gulf coast directly affected by the problem will likely have to sue as well, since BP has turned over administration of the claims process to a company whose marching orders are to minimize the cost to BP (not "minimize costs due to fraud" but "minimize cost, period").

      Oil drilling will likely resume, but this time it will be under regulations more like the ones used to maintain air safety, and under regulators whose goal is enforcing the regulations, not getting onto private planes with oil men and their teams of hookers.

      What politicians do in their manipulation of public opinion is predictable in scope and unpredictable in magnitude. That's why we have to get new ones ever couple of years.

  • As a contractor... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by awjr (1248008) on Thursday July 15, 2010 @06:28PM (#32920436)

    I still don't get why this is BP's fault and not the sub-contractor. As a software contractor I have a professional duty to deliver sound good quality code. If not I get sued. At what point is Halliburton or one of the other contractors involved not financially responsible for their poor work.

  • Pollution (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Subm (79417) on Thursday July 15, 2010 @06:40PM (#32920570)

    Now we can disperse the oil into the environment through car engines so we won't pollute so much ...

    ... oh wait

I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve immortality through not dying. -- Woody Allen

Working...