36
   

Spill baby spill, slippery politics

 
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 11:07 pm
Quote:
CNN) -- BP plans to continue using a controversial subsea dispersant to break up a plume of oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico, saying that the leading alternative could pose a risk over the long term, the EPA indicated Saturday.

The EPA issued a directive on Thursday, ordering BP to find, within 24 hours, a less toxic but equally effective chemical than its current product, Corexit 9500 -- and one that is available in sufficient quantities. The directive also gave the company 72 hours to stop applying it to the undersea gusher.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/05/22/gulf.oil.spill/index.html?hpt=T1

The US Government tells BP to do something, and BP flips us the bird......just an normal day at the office.
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 09:25 am
@hawkeye10,
That is largely the way of American business which is part of the reason why this is not a socialist nor a capitalist country and why the economy went into a nosedive.
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  2  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 10:58 pm
If the government takes over the oil well spill you can forget about BP paying a dime on clean up. We the citizens will assume the cost for the cleanup. This is what BP wanted from the first day of the leak and our stupid politicians are giveing them the out they wanted!
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 05:05 am
@rabel22,
We're gonna pay no matter what. It won't matter who gets the blame.
0 Replies
 
Always Eleven to him
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 06:31 am
@rabel22,
Actually, under the Oil Pollution Act, BP bears the costs of the clean up and damages to others. That liability is currently capped at $ 75 million, unless someone can prove that BP ignored regulations or warnings of problems with the well construction.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 06:43 am
@Always Eleven to him,
The exxon spill cost about 4 Billion dollars, are you a little bit interested in why we wrote a law that caps liability at $75 million?
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 10:02 am
@hawkeye10,
Paid off politicians.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 10:02 am
Reports today of major new eruptions from the seabed around the Deepwater Horizon drill. The underground casing must have totally failed, releasing tons of oil and hydrates to seep up from a variety of areas. Totally, completely not good.

Cycloptichorn
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 10:34 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Reports today of major new eruptions from the seabed around the Deepwater Horizon drill. The underground casing must have totally failed, releasing tons of oil and hydrates to seep up from a variety of areas. Totally, completely not good.

I always wondered why they didn't just torpedo the site and collapse the geological column. But someone said that they were worried about actually causing an INCREASE of the flow by doing something like that.

The whole thing doesn't make much sense to me. The oil chamber must be thousands of feet below the surface with just that little drill hole penetrating it. Why wouldn't they just collapse that drill hole? I must have an inaccurate understanding of the geology in that area or something.
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 02:11 pm
@rosborne979,
Quote:
I must have an inaccurate understanding of the geology in that area or something.


That's a nice way of phrasing it I must say.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 04:18 pm
The reporters who took these images had to sneak onto these beaches, because BP has successfully convinced local LA officials that they cannot allow people onto public lands.

http://mjcdn.motherjones.com/preset_12/macoil300x200.jpg

http://assets.motherjones.com/environment/2010/05/oilbeachbag.jpg

http://assets.motherjones.com/environment/2010/05/oil-beach.jpg

The oil seeps up from beneath the sands on the beaches, so you clean it - and it comes right back. The below picture was an area which was 'cleaned' just a few minutes before.

http://assets.motherjones.com/environment/2010/05/oilbeachrake.jpg

Cycloptichorn
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 05:30 pm
Do these resevoirs of oil never come to the surface naturally like they did in Jed Clampett's Osark back yard?

Gas here is about $7 dollars a gallon. If crude rolled up on our beaches the goverment would intervene to stop us scraping it up and setting up moonshine stills in our back kitchens.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 07:01 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
The oil seeps up from beneath the sands on the beaches, so you clean it - and it comes right back. The below picture was an area which was 'cleaned' just a few minutes before.

That makes sense.

The oil washes ashore, then the tide goes out and it settles on to the sand. Then the tide comes back and covers it with more sand. Over and over again.

There are going to be layer after layer of oil blotches buried on those beaches. They'll never clean that up. Yuck.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2010 05:53 am
It's just one of the inevitable consequences of irresponsible parties bidding in an auction for power.
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2010 07:12 am
Live webcam of oil leak: http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/homepage/STAGING/local_assets/bp_homepage/html/rov_stream.html

No. It doesn't feel better to be able to watch this, BP.

A
R
T
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2010 07:50 am
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:

This is probably a dumb question, but is there any reason they didn't consider sending Navy Subs down there to torpedo the well-head right from the beginning? Couldn't they implode the rock walls themselves and seal the whole thing off that way? When wells are leaking on land, don't they blow them up sometimes to stop the gusher?

Were they worried about actually increasing the flow if they destroyed the surrounding rock?

Hair, Hay & Nukes: The Web's Oil Spill Solutions

Quote:
Let's Just Nuke It

Russian science editor Vladimir Lagowski has written a column in which he claims that the U.S.S.R. used nuclear devices to plug underground fissures several times with success - most of the time. The author cites one failure, where a 1972 gas blowout was not extinguished by a nuke. But at least it was only 4 kilotons.

This peaceful use of nuclear detonations fell under the Soviet Union's Nuclear Explosions for the National Economy program. The Russian Analytical Center for Non-Proliferation lists 67 underground nuclear explosions conducted by the U.S.S.R. in the interests of its national economy between 1965 and 1990.

Lagowski writes that the probability a nuke detonated a mile under the gulf would seal the Deepwater Horizon leak is perhaps 20 percent: "Americans could take a chance."
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2010 08:15 am
@DrewDad,
Science editors in Russia write columns which are thought to serve Russian political interests. How the column referred to might do that is probably best left to the imaginations of outside observers.

Some of us assume a trap even if we can't see it.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2010 09:32 am
@DrewDad,
Well, I wasn't really thinking we should nuke it, but wouldn't a nice little torpedo have a chance of collapsing the hole?
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2010 09:42 am
@DrewDad,
The bottom of the gulf is a thick mud, not a more solid rock, as was the case for the Russian nukes, iirc.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2010 10:10 am
@rosborne979,
I doubt that a torpedo with a conventional explosive would have enough force to do the job.

I doubt that a torpedo is the appropriate delivery device, anyway. Just drop (or bury) a ton of explosives and set 'em off remotely.

Edit: I don't really think explosives are the way to go, though.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/05/2024 at 02:21:26