Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Earth United States News Technology

BP Permanently Seals Gulf Oil Well 368

Posted by Soulskill
from the for-sufficiently-termporary-values-of-permanent dept.
rexjoec writes "BP has finally plugged the Macondo well. This announcement came yesterday after $9.5 billion (through September 17) in expenditures and five months of continuous effort." From the LA Times: "Of the estimated 4.9 million barrels of oil that gushed from the well, 25% was burned, skimmed or piped to tanker ships. A second 25% has evaporated or dissolved, according to government estimates. Another 25%, classified by the government as 'residual oil,' consisted of light sheens on the water, thick goo on the shore and tar balls. The tar balls, though not harmful to humans, are likely to wash up on shore for some time."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

BP Permanently Seals Gulf Oil Well

Comments Filter:
  • by Pojut (1027544) on Monday September 20, 2010 @03:33PM (#33640520) Homepage

    The "potential" for conflict can raise the cost of oil by 5-10 cents in less than a week. The "potential" for supply problsm can raise the cost of oil by as much as 50 cents over the course of a couple of months.

    Millions of gallons leaking into the Gulf, however, seem to have had pretty much zero effect on gas prices. Am I wrong? Please put some numbers up showing that I am...I'd really be pissed off if I'm right about that.

    • by Pojut (1027544)

      Gah. I meant raising the cost of gas in my first couple of sentences, not the cost of oil itself -_-;;

    • by east coast (590680) on Monday September 20, 2010 @03:41PM (#33640644)
      Assuming that the 4.9 million barrels of oil number can be believed? That's the US consumption in about 6 hours. Pretty much a drop in the bucket when it comes right down to it.
      • by Pojut (1027544)

        My point is that this is a measurable loss of oil, compared to "potential" loss. Why does "potential" loss impact things more than measurable loss?

        Or is this one of those make-no-sense parts of economics I just don't get?

        • When they talk about potential loss it seems that they are talking about in the current flow of oil. This was a new well that, AFAIK, never produced a single barrel of oil that was refined. So if the world's oil producers are pumping 80 million barrels a day and they lose 10% of that it's a drain on the system, when a new and unproven well doesn't produce it doesn't cause harm to the expected daily supply.

          I know where you're coming from and I can understand some of the confusion but I find it reasonable th
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          My point is that this is a measurable loss of oil, compared to "potential" loss. Why does "potential" loss impact things more than measurable loss?

          Or is this one of those make-no-sense parts of economics I just don't get?

          Potential conflict can spiral into large market fluctuations. While a not insignificant portion of it IS speculation, speculation can backfire. But the numbers we see here, while large don't even really get close to the numbers which can be influenced by regional conflict.

          Think about it t

        • Because investors are fearful. Same thing happens in other markets. 1 piece of potentially bad news means people go into a selling frenzy and buy up safer assets. It doesn't have to actually be bad news at all, just has to be "potentially" bad. Its the nature of speculation.
    • by bill_mcgonigle (4333) * on Monday September 20, 2010 @03:45PM (#33640714) Homepage Journal

      Millions of gallons leaking into the Gulf, however, seem to have had pretty much zero effect on gas prices. Am I wrong?

      The Maconodo well was in the process of being converted from exploration to production. A non-producing well didn't come into production, not 'a producing well went out of production'. So, the supply wasn't impacted. If demand was level then the price should have stayed mostly level.

      Only if oil futures had figured in the Macondo production already, or speculators thought that BP's costs would somehow drive up the world market costs (why would Exxon increase its prices?, e.g. - they wouldn't) would this have affected oil prices. The biggest supply risk right now is from the US Government, but it seem unlikely they're going to undertake the draconian options at this point.

      • The biggest supply risk right now is from the US Government, but it seem unlikely they're going to undertake the draconian options at this point.

        If we wanted to see real market panic, an over-response from the US government could have easily sparked it. I'm rather glad that the response was a careful "We are stopping it temporarily for obvious reasons, but once we can establish that this isn't a systematic problem we are going to open it up again." Basically a lot of reassuring of investors to prevent spe

      • by Have Brain Will Rent (1031664) on Monday September 20, 2010 @04:03PM (#33640986)
        And the price of oil seems to have very little to do with the price of gasoline anyhow (In Canada at least). I have oil investments and I see them go up and down and nothing much happens to the price of gas. I've watched the price of a barrel of oil drop almost 20% with *zero* change in the price of gas. Years ago it used to be that when the price of oil went up the price of gas went up pretty much in lockstep and *instantly*. Then when the price of oil dropped the price of gas stayed the same for weeks - the gas companies claimed that they still had to use up all the oil in storage that had been bought at the old price. Curiously that logic never held when the price of oil went up.
        • by thegarbz (1787294) on Monday September 20, 2010 @06:05PM (#33642402)
          This is actually fuelled by panic trading and has nothing to do with the oil price. Oil isn't taken out of the ground and converted to product by the same company. Oil is taken out of the ground then traded on a public exchange. Companies buy this from the public exchange refine it and sell product back to the public exchange. Retailers then buy the product from the public exchange. The end result is that when you buy petrol at a BP service station you're not necessarily going to get BP petrol. Also because of all this trading the typical trading trends happen when something goes wrong.

          Oil price goes up.
          Traders panic and start hedging bets on the retail market.
          The entire thing turns out to be a non-event and the price of oil starts to fall.
          Traders sit on their retail product they now don't want to move at a loss.
          Dropped oil price results in a drop in retail petrol some 6-10 weeks later (since this is your typical refining and transportation delay).
          Traders either move product through fixed agreements, or realise they screwed up and recover costs elsewhere.

          Your typical oil company is also just a pawn in the same process. If petrol can be bought cheaper from the market than from the local refinery (a not at all uncommon occurrence) then they don't buy from themselves. This is why exploration, refining, and retail sections of these companies are so incredibly segregated.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Zeek40 (1017978)
      It's not a 'supply problem' because the oil well was never supplying any oil. The rig was destroyed before the well became operational.
    • Because what was spilled is the raw ingredient. There are levels of refinement that goes on, and other drills being built. Being that it was 1 oil rig. Though Billions of Gallons of oil was spilt it compared to our real consumption of oil it is just a drop in the bucket.

      Political conflicts cause more of a rise because it could effect the supply of hundreds or thousands of oil.

      As these are freely traded Potential means people are worried when people are worried they will hold on to what they have. You ar

  • The last 25% (Score:5, Informative)

    by BostonRob (779771) on Monday September 20, 2010 @03:34PM (#33640528) Journal
    The last 25%, left out of the summary, is the most concerning. From the article: The final 25% of the oil — the equivalent of four Exxon Valdez spills —- is of greatest concern to scientists. It is drifting 3,000 to 4,300 feet below the gulf's surface, in vast clouds of atomized droplets that could alter links in the chain of life.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by h4rr4r (612664)

      Is BP paying those fishermen for the next 40 years of lost work?

      Is it paying the hotels for the next 20 years of lost business?

      It sure seems like dumping a few gallons of oil can get you arrested, dumping millions though is ok so long as you pretend to do something about it.

      • Re:The last 25% (Score:5, Insightful)

        by danbert8 (1024253) on Monday September 20, 2010 @04:03PM (#33640978)

        Is BP paying those fishermen for the next 40 years of lost work?

        No, but BP is paying for those fisherman to go out and clean the oil. Also 40 years=number pulled out of your ass. The effects of the Ixtoc 1 oil spill were not that drastic and shrimp industries returned to normal in 2 years.

        Is it paying the hotels for the next 20 years of lost business?

        The hotels are already doing quite well this year as they are hosting all the contractors that have been brought into the region, as are all the restaurants and such with the per diem the contractors are getting paid. And again 20 years=number pulled out of your ass.

        It sure seems like dumping a few gallons of oil can get you arrested, dumping millions though is ok so long as you pretend to do something about it.

        Yes, dumping millions of gallons of oil is ok (if you consider 20 billion dollars to not be a penalty). That works out to about $95 a gallon, not to mention the additional $1.87/gallon in lost oil revenue.

        • by h4rr4r (612664)

          Considering no one went to jail I consider it getting off quite lightly.

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by Shakrai (717556) *

            Prove that criminal laws were broken beyond a reasonable doubt and people will go to jail. Otherwise it's just political posturing.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by h4rr4r (612664)

              Is dumping not illegal in Florida or at the Federal level?

              Where I live it sure is. The cops don't ask why you did it.

              • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

                by operagost (62405)
                What's the penalty? Fine, right? Justice served.
              • Re:The last 25% (Score:4, Insightful)

                by Shakrai (717556) * on Monday September 20, 2010 @04:39PM (#33641458) Journal

                Deliberately dumping used motor oil is a crime. Having it spill out of your car onto the pavement because a gasket fails is not a crime, though you may still be required to pay clean-up costs.

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by tehcyder (746570)

                Is dumping not illegal in Florida or at the Federal level?

                Where I live it sure is. The cops don't ask why you did it.

                You make it sound like BP dumped the oil deliberately in some sort of gargantuan version of replacing your engine oil and chucking the old stuff at the side of the road.

                I've not (yet) even seen any mad conspiracy theory that thinks BP did this on purpose.

        • No, but BP is paying for those fisherman to go out and clean the oil. Also 40 years=number pulled out of your ass. The effects of the Ixtoc 1 oil spill were not that drastic and shrimp industries returned to normal in 2 years.

          So then fishermen deserve compensation until the fishing industry goes "back to normal" which should be defined as when the fish and shrimp populations return to normal, not based on actual catch since there would be an incentive to under-perform.

          This does not even take into account the long term affect on the region. Oil slicks break up into some nasty stuff. If you strip mine a hill and leave arsenic puddles everywhere, you cause that region to be un-inhabitable and non-arable. You need to pay for that if

      • So, on one hand, I agree with you. What you imply you want to see seems "fair" in an idealistic way.

        On the other hand, this is a lot more confusing. Let's say you own a hotel on a beach, but I own the property between you and the beach. I decide I like trees, so I plant some. They grow. They ruin your hotel's view of the beach.

        Can you sue me for the next X years of losses because of people who don't come to your hotel because it now lacks a view?

        I assume you'll probably say "no." If you say "yes," I'd

        • by h4rr4r (612664)

          I would say no because growing trees is legal and not generally dangerous. Unlike using the gulf of mexico as your personal oil disposal area.

          Personally I think those street cleaners probably have a decent claim. I would like to see BP actually pay for all the damage, it is the only way they would not do it again.

          • I would have to cede the oil vs. trees point. BP was legally drilling though...

            OTOH, to me ... negligence would be a big issue in there, and would cause culpability on BP and other companies that may have also been negligent. And also those that were supposed to be regulating, it seems they were negligent, too.

            Maybe we should make BP pay and make the government/regulatory body actually change, not just rename itself. Oh, and at least fire anyone that was accepting bribes or whatever else. And also at le

            • by h4rr4r (612664)

              I don't care if they were setting up an orphanage they caused the discharge of millions of gallons of oil into the gulf.

              I fail to understand how it matters what they were doing. The end result is they released millions of gallons of oil onto property they did not own.

        • by Korin43 (881732)

          On the other hand, this is a lot more confusing. Let's say you own a hotel on a beach, but I own the property between you and the beach. I decide I like trees, so I plant some. They grow. They ruin your hotel's view of the beach.

          Obvious answer: You own the property between the hotel and beach, BP doesn't own the Gulf of Mexico.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        It's the old if you owe the bank $10,000, it's your problem. If you owe the bank $10,000,000, it's their problem.

      • Re:The last 25% (Score:4, Informative)

        by catmistake (814204) on Monday September 20, 2010 @04:13PM (#33641132) Journal

        Is BP paying those fishermen for the next 40 years of lost work?

        Not speaking for BP, but for myself... and not speaking to family owned and operated fishing enterprises, but to the commercial fisheries: FUCK THEM. Their greed pretty much destroyed the Gulf and the Atlantic stocks of the best fish. Man, I am really going to miss tuna. FUCK THEM TWICE, damn greedy savages.

        Is it paying the hotels for the next 20 years of lost business?

        Not speaking for BP, but for myself... and not speaking to family owned and operated hotels, but the large commercial developers and big corporate resorts: FUCK THEM. They somehow skirted federal wetland laws (DO NOT TOUCH) to destroy miles of coastline so rednecks could have a vacation spot closer to home, instead of traveling to already established resort islands along the coast NC, SC, GA, and FL, like civilized people do. FUCK THEM TWICE, greedy fucking savages.

        It sure seems like dumping a few gallons of oil can get you arrested, dumping millions though is ok so long as you pretend to do something about it.

        Agreed. Trouble is, everyone only cares about their bank accounts, at the expense of the things we need to live, like a habitable environment.

      • I understand there's an ingredient here from BP's own sub-standard practices and negligent risk-taking, but what if it was a hurricane or some other act of god? Or just plain technological progress (like it often does) putting people out of work? At some point people have to move on, as painful as that's going to be.

        BP should get smacked enough to punish them for their insane risks (and discourage anyone else from trying that ever again), but they're not responsible for other people's well being.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 20, 2010 @03:35PM (#33640540)

    That each of these four options accounts for exactly one quarter of the oil is obviously made up or at best a Wild A*sed Guess. They lied from day one about the amount of oil released, and we're supposed to believe this?

  • by H_Fisher (808597)
    And the remaining 25% ...

    ... doesn't matter?

    ... wasn't accounted for?

    ... is about to wash up on our shores next week?

    • See for yourself here [www.vbs.tv].
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The final 25% of the oil — the equivalent of four Exxon Valdez spills —- is of greatest concern to scientists. It is drifting 3,000 to 4,300 feet below the gulf's surface, in vast clouds of atomized droplets that could alter links in the chain of life.

      This "dispersed" oil was broken into droplets, about the width of a hair, either when it shot at high speeds from the well's broken pipe or when it came into contact with the 1.8 million gallons of the controversial chemical dispersant Corexit.

    • by Americano (920576)

      How about you go read the LA Times article linked in the summary, after which you can answer that question for yourself?

  • by LBt1st (709520) on Monday September 20, 2010 @03:37PM (#33640582)

    I love how they make it sound like the oil just went away.
    Hundreds of workers worked 10+ hour shifts every day on the shores cleaning up oil and dead animals for the past months. I'm not sure if that continues even now but the spill is certainly going to have lasting affects on the sea floor and gulf waters.

  • Thank goodness they acted so quickly!
  • by elrous0 (869638) * on Monday September 20, 2010 @03:40PM (#33640622)
    Every fisherman in the Gulf is going to be claiming that BP killed their record season, every cannery is going to complain that the oil spill took a crazy amount of money out of their pockets. etc. I've already heard some fishermen being interviewed saying that BP owed them several YEARS worth of fishing profits (since they were presumptively assuming that they wouldn't be able to fish for years). I'm generally not very sympathetic to big oil companies, but those poor bastards are going to be swamped with lawsuits for the next decade. But, on the upside, I bet they'll damn sure be properly maintaining those blowout preventers from now on.
    • by NevarMore (248971) on Monday September 20, 2010 @03:49PM (#33640782) Homepage Journal

      I'm not saying that the specifics of this case are right, but thats what you have to do if you sue for damages with long term repercussions.

      Lets say I run into you with my car and break your hand. You would need to sue me to recover the following costs:
        - Immediate medical care (ER, ambulance)
        - Surgery to correct your hand
        - Lost wages from the immediate time away from work
        - Cost of physical therapy
      (heres the important part)
        - Cost of long term followup visits
        - Cost of pain meds (even say, Advil) because of long term discomfornt
        - Lost wages from not being able to use your hand 100% ever again
        - Cost of followup visits if your hand flares up again
        - Cost of treating the arthritis that is now likely to develop

      You can only sue me once. You may not come back and sue me again in 15 years when it acts up after feeling fine for a decade.

      Similar thing is going on here. The fishermen just plain don't know whats going to happen in the long term. The legal term is "make me whole". BP did something to harm them and the fisherman isn't made whole again unless all of his costs , short and long term, are recovered. The fisherman doesn't get to go back in 5 years and sue BP again after he finds out his fishing area is a wasteland because the fish are gone.

    • by Xelios (822510)
      I wouldn't be surprised if they steer the whole thing to a federal court for a class action lawsuit, then pull a pretty low judgment out of it.
      • by erroneus (253617)

        That would be just fine. This particular situation has more than enough attention on it that this trick will not work for a great many claims. All one has to do in that case is "opt out" of the class action suit. Then the right to sue will remain intact.

    • by h4rr4r (612664) on Monday September 20, 2010 @03:53PM (#33640828)

      Bullshit. They are going to weasel out of this like all big companies do when something like this occurs. Google "bhopal union carbide", for a great example.

      In a just world they will have to pay every inflation adjusted dime since the fishing industry was damaged to when it fully recovers. In our world they won't.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Vitriol+Angst (458300)

        Just ask the natives who were harmed by the Exxon Valdez -- most of them have died without receiving what the COURT DEMANDED -- and even after Exxon got new politicians to put a cap on penalties.

        The TRUTH of the Exxon Valdez disaster was that Exxon only got rights to be in pristine waters and the only harbor they could use for hundreds of miles for a song because they promised the Indians who owned those lands that they would get the most advanced radar and avoid hitting ground.

        Well, they didn't put in all

    • by amorsen (7485)

      But, on the upside, I bet they'll damn sure be properly maintaining those blowout preventers from now on.

      If past accidents are anything to go by, then no, they won't be properly maintaining anything.

      The oil industry seems to be somehow insulated from the normal process of learning from failure.

  • I have to wonder if, after all that time, they actually let the well empty itself and claim to have plugged it.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Maybe when they say they "sealed" it they mean that they threw a seal at it. Also, maybe it was a baby seal. And maybe it had fur. Those evil bastards...

    • by Americano (920576)

      Today's crude oil price is ~$75 - 80 per barrel. 4.9 million barrels * $80 per barrel = ~ $368 million worth of oil spilled, at today's prices. That's a LOT, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to the revenues the oil producers log.

      If they were spending all that money exploring & drilling at 5k+ meters of depth for a mere 4.9 million barrels, then we're much closer to peak oil & an economic collapse on account of energy crisis than anybody has suggested.

  • by pulse2600 (625694) on Monday September 20, 2010 @03:47PM (#33640762)
    tar -xvf gulf.tar
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Petaris (771874)

      That extracts the tar, we want to bottle it up.

      tar -cvf gulf.tar gulf coastline ;)

  • is there any GOOD reason why they simply didn't repair the blowout preventer, hook up a new dipstick, set up a new rig, and keep on a-pumpin'?

    I mean, I realize that a half billion people would have descended on it in angry, wet mobs, but...it's an oil well. There's hundreds like it still in operation. If they could safely get it back in operation, rather than forgo all the effort to FIND oil and get it drilled, why not....simply continue pumping?

    Maybe it was a lost cause on re-connecting everythi
    • by amorsen (7485)

      is there any GOOD reason why they simply didn't repair the blowout preventer, hook up a new dipstick, set up a new rig, and keep on a-pumpin'?

      It was way too damaged. They tried to attach pipes several times, with fairly limited success.

    • by Sarten-X (1102295)
      My understanding is that it's the re-connecting difficulty. Mangled pipes, broken in several places and mixed in with the remains of a sunken drilling rig, are not very nice to work with. It's easier just to drill a new well a few miles away.
    • by vlm (69642) on Monday September 20, 2010 @04:14PM (#33641146)

      is there any GOOD reason why they simply didn't repair the blowout preventer, hook up a new dipstick, set up a new rig, and keep on a-pumpin'?

      There's two answers:

      1) The legal one is once a well goes out of control, it gets the death penalty. Sounds on the surface as stupid as punishing a gun instead of a shooter... however this "gun" cost BP within an order of magnitude of $100M to drill. Wells are really quite expensive to drill. This lowers the wealth of the world as a whole by $100M but more specifically it lowers the wealth of BP by $100M, thus being very motivating for funding groups like BP to hire drillers (TO) whom don't screw up.

      2) The semi-technical answer is rapid, uncontrolled sand flow pretty much destroys the pipes and other down hole stuff. It would be way faster and cheaper to drill a new well than to repair this one. Its sort of the difference between duct taping something together in a movie plot therefore its possible vs actual business operation. What I'm getting at is testing and certifying casings and hangers and parts is really cheap when its on the surface, and really expensive when its buried in the earth.

  • ...am I reading wrong if I don't see destiny of the last 25% of oil?

    • It was all in the depths of the Gulf. You saw where 75% of it came out of the deeper waters. 100% - 75% equals...

  • tell mee lieeeeees, tell me about the bulk of the oil which you have mixed with sea water by buying 80% of the world's oil dispersant supply and injecting into the gulf ....
  • You should too.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by east coast (590680)
      Cutting oil consumption is the solution. By boycotting BP you only hurt the local station owner who has no fault in this. BP will always have a market for what they're pulling from the ground.
      • by VanessaE (970834) on Monday September 20, 2010 @06:41PM (#33642834) Homepage

        Hey, here's an idea for the poor, unfortunate station owners and their employees who are so downtrodden by the rightful boycotting of BP-supplied stations: go work for or get your fuel supply from SOMEONE ELSE besides BP. I've seen more stations switch brands over the years than I can count, some without changes in management or even significant changes in employees.

        BP is not the only oil company in existence, nor are the various stations they supply the only ones out there which need able-bodied employees. Add to that the fact that there appear to be plenty of jobs to be had elsewhere, despite the slump in the economy.

        To put it bluntly, BP made so many poor decisions that it's as though they set this up to fail. This is the kind of fuckup that bring forth a punishment as damaging to BP as the spill itself is to the environment.

    • That's kinda hard considering what's made from oil (and gas) these days.

      Ok, that's no plastics for you, and no fuel either, and that's just for starters.

    • by vlm (69642) on Monday September 20, 2010 @04:23PM (#33641292)

      You should too.

      A feel good idea. With no, to negative, results.

      1) They're going to change their name in a couple months / years. Guaranteed. Bet you won't notice.

      2) Carried out to the logical conclusion, if everyone shunned BP, our own govt (aka all of us) will have to pay the full costs of cleanup. I'd much rather voluntarily pay my tiny fraction of the costs and in return get a tank of gas in my car, than have the govt forcibly take everyone's money to pay for the full cost of cleanup and we get nothing but a larger national debt...

      3) Gas stations are mostly franchises. So, the only people you're punishing are your local gas station owners whom randomly selected the wrong marketing firm. The guy down the street whom contracts to Exxon for his marketing, will simply buy the excess gas from BP and you'll never be the wiser. Punishing the local station owner is the same bullying mentality as screaming at a supermarket cashier or other McJob personnel, as if they have anything to do with it or as if your actions will have any effect.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mjwx (966435)
      Sigh, why do people not get it. The oil from BP rigs is not sold exclusively to BP refineries and so forth. The oil is traded on a public exchange, this is then purchased by refineries which sell the refined product on another public exchange which is then purchased by a retailer. So if you go to Esso or Mobil you're still buying BP oil. If you go to BP petrol stations you're buy Chevron oil.

      Its done this way because the production of oil wells do not equal the consumption of the same companies oil refi
  • ... until it leaks again, I guess.
  • by nedlohs (1335013) on Monday September 20, 2010 @04:22PM (#33641272)

    Or is in huge underwater clouds of atomized droplets and hence out of sight and mind.

  • by Eternal Vigilance (573501) on Monday September 20, 2010 @04:27PM (#33641340)
    The BP+US statements about this debacle have from the very beginning been utterly fanciful and misleading. Why should anyone suddenly believe this one?

    BP+US has treated the entire disaster as simply a public relations problem. Control the media message, attack and suppress any contrary evidence, and thus define reality. At least until the guilty have escaped any consequences and the gullible are left to pay the real costs.

    And my observation here is to note the similarity to U.S. petro-military operations in Iraq (and the rest of the Middle East). Both were caused by hubris and greed, and the official "solution" to what is clearly a complete and total clusterfuck is just PR "rebranding" - to simply leave and declare victory.

    Without independent observation and analysis, in either the Persian Gulf or the Gulf of Mexico, who has any idea of what's really happening?

    But from the similarities I'll bet this disaster will continue exactly like Iraqistan: lots of smiling photo ops of the CEO's of state, the occasional human interest story about the hardships suffered by the little people (carefully avoiding any link to those responsible), and the suffering and environmental devastation and the death will keep going on and on.

    Gulf of Mexico, Persian Gulf.

    Same hydrocarbons, different day.


    "My fellow Americans, major combat operations in the Gulf have ended. In the battle of Macondo, the United States and our oillies have prevailed."

    "Emission Accomplished"
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by DerekLyons (302214)

      Without independent observation and analysis, in either the Persian Gulf or the Gulf of Mexico, who has any idea of what's really happening?

      Not that you care what's really happening - as your reply makes it clear your mind is already made up. Unless the 'independent' analysis agrees with your existing bias, you'll just claim it to be a product of the "petro-military complex".

  • The tar balls, though not harmful to humans, are likely to wash up on shore for some time.

    Just as rat poison is not harmful to humans, so long as you don't ingest it.

  • by justthinkit (954982) <floyd@just-think-it.com> on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @02:24AM (#33646052) Homepage Journal
    This is less than was spilled in the Gulf War spill [wikipedia.org], about two and a half times more than the Amoco Cadiz [wikipedia.org] and 250 times less than was burned by Saddam [wikipedia.org]. Here are the Top 19 [wikipedia.org] according to Wikipedia.

God made machine language; all the rest is the work of man.

Working...