# Offshore oil drilling, disasters,



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Developments on the Gulf Coast this week make this apropos...







> The oil rig that exploded, caught fire and then sank 36 hours later could lead to a major oil spill, officials said Thursday, and as a result a remotely operated vehicle is surveying the seas and assets ranging from aircraft to containment booms are ready to be deployed.
> 
> At a press conference, the officials also said hope was running out for 11 workers still missing after the blast Tuesday night off the coast of Louisiana. The Coast Guard said its search would probably continue into early Friday.
> 
> Crews searching for the workers have covered the 1,940-square-mile search area by air 12 times and by boat five times. The boats searched all night.


(MSNBC)

*Can you imagine the contamination if this were to happen in Arctic waters?* It's a possibility, now that Obama has opened the waters off the north coast of Alaska to drilling....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> Can you imagine the contamination if this were to happen in Arctic waters? It's a possibility, now that Obama has opened the waters off the north coast of Alaska to drilling....


I wondered if Obama was really offering to do that. It would be the only act of his presidency that would have been a pleasant surprise. A careful reading suggests this is just a ploy to gain mid-term votes and that he knows the actual approvals will never be granted after a large amount of consultation.


----------



## arminia (Jan 27, 2005)

CBC News - Technology & Science - Exxon Valdez oil still found in Alaskan ducks


----------



## DR Hannon (Jan 21, 2007)

Greedy Ducks!!!!


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Who gives a ****, if it means I can drive my big ol' pick up truck where the **** I want. God damn totalitarian fascist lefties tellin' me my truck is bad for the environment because it uses alotta gas. Liberty! HHHHHHHHHHHYyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeeppppp!


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Adrian. said:


> Who gives a ****, if it means I can drive my big ol' pick up truck where the **** I want. God damn totalitarian fascist lefties tellin' me my truck is bad for the environment because it uses alotta gas. Liberty! HHHHHHHHHHHYyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeeppppp!


 Keep swinging for the fences. I'm glad to see you're taking up the challenge and live completely independent of fossil fuels, plastics and dirty energy and in no way contribute to The Problem™.

You are a bright and shining example for us all. :clap: :lmao:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MannyP Design said:


> Keep swinging for the fences. I'm glad to see you're taking up the challenge and live completely independent of fossil fuels, plastics and dirty energy and in no way contribute to The Problem™.
> 
> You are a bright and shining example for us all. :clap: :lmao:


MannyP: you have to cut him some slack. Humour is not his strong suit.


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

arminia said:


> CBC News - Technology & Science - Exxon Valdez oil still found in Alaskan ducks


just another lesson not learned and another way humans will eventually cause themselves to go extinct. The real problem is no one, regular joe humans or corporations don't give a Sh!T really as money is the name of the game and the environment comes in last place. Some people do care but I don't know if it will be enough to change the destruction course were on and fighting against the people who don't care is an uphill battle.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

That filthy oil needs to be pumped out of the Earth and incinerated so that it never causes harm again.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

Macfury said:


> That filthy oil needs to be pumped out of the Earth and incinerated so that it never causes harm again.


Hey, I think someone posted something in a similar vein on here recently (maybe it was the Globe); essentially stating that by extracting oil humans are cleaning up God's mess.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Macfury said:


> MannyP: you have to cut him some slack. Humour is not his strong suit.


God bless you Macfury. If it wasn't for your commitment to liberty and freedom, the world would be a horrible place.

We should all take the intelligent words of Joe:





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Adrian. said:


> God bless you Macfury. If it wasn't for your commitment to liberty and freedom, the world would be a horrible place.
> 
> We should all take the intelligent words of Joe.


Which part of that video did you like the best, Adrian.? Fewer than 200 people have watched that video since it was uploaded over a month ago, so you represent a high percentage of people around the world who were interested enough to watch it.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

So, is it the illegal aliens who are at fault for the drilling disaster, or Joe the Plumber?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*The disaster continues....*





> Response teams were deploying remote-operated submarines in an urgent effort Sunday to stop the flow of oil from the site of the accident in the Gulf of Mexico that destroyed the BP-leased rig, the Deepwater Horizon.
> 
> If the gambit fails, it could take months to stop the leak—now estimated at 1,000 barrels (42,000 gallons/160,000 liters) per day of crude oil, according to the joint U.S. government and oil industry task force.
> 
> That means the scene about 50 miles (80 kilometers) southeast of Venice on Louisiana's tip (map), which the task force believed had been contained as late as Friday night, is on track to becoming the source of a major oil spill.


(National Geographic News)


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

Yeah and who ultimately pays for this stinkin mess? The wildlife and endangered ecosystems. There even talking of more off shore drilling rigs. Wonder when man will e ever learn. We are truely going to screw this planet if the damage we have done isn't reversible already. Yay for us...I can't believe more people don't post their feelings and concerns


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

I'm am rather surprised to see Nat Geo's choice of words for the Headline..
"Oil Spill From Sunken Rig Site May Be Serious"

May be? Is there any doubt? It already is very serious. 11 lives lost, more injured and in harm's way (trying to remedy the situation) while oil is still flowing into the gulf from the deep. 


imactheknife: As long as there is a need/demand for oil, there will be companies exploring and drilling for it and if successful, producing and selling it to those who wish to buy it or the products derived from it.

Events such as this one will undoubtedly result in costly additional measures (such as relief rigs/wells) intending to avoid similar disasters, but as long as the cost of such additional measures can be handled within the project economics and forecasted oil price, the drilling will continue. 

Out of morbid curiosity, I'd love to review the economic model of this well or even the production field. I'm guessing that even if wildly conservative, the economics are soon to be shot (if not already) and any more expenditures will be damage control related, physically and legally. Further investment, if any, will likely be done to recover costs, not profit.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

KC4 said:


> I'm am rather surprised to see Nat Geo's choice of words for the Headline..
> "Oil Spill From Sunken Rig Site May Be Serious"
> 
> May be? Is there any doubt? It already is very serious. 11 lives lost, more injured and in harm's way (trying to remedy the situation) while oil is still flowing into the gulf from the deep.


Just a Freudian slip. Human life is dispensable. Ducks, on the other hand...


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

One correction. We are not going to "screw this planet." We may certainly contaminate the hell out of it, make it uninhabitable for human civilization (at least at the level of development currently enjoyed by some in the North), but the planet will get along just fine. Species will come and go... including ours... and once mother nature has cleaned up whatever mess we make (perhaps over a million years or so), another dominant species will arise. To repeat the same process all over again... though hopefully they'll be a bit more enlightened than are we...


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

Macfury said:


> Just a Freudian slip. Human life is dispensable. Ducks, on the other hand...


There are some that believe that those who derive their livelihood directly from the oil & gas industry are inhuman. (Lord love a duck.)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> One correction. We are not going to "screw this planet." We may certainly contaminate the hell out of it, make it uninhabitable for human civilization (at least at the level of development currently enjoyed by some in the North), but the planet will get along just fine. Species will come and go... including ours... and once mother nature has cleaned up whatever mess we make (perhaps over a million years or so), another dominant species will arise. To repeat the same process all over again... though hopefully they'll be a bit more enlightened than are we...


If the beavers rise to dominance, they will dam the world! Smart lions will eat any meat on sight. The least we could do for them is mark our nuclear contaminants and rid the world of oil.


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

CubaMark said:


> One correction. We are not going to "screw this planet." We may certainly contaminate the hell out of it, make it uninhabitable for human civilization (at least at the level of development currently enjoyed by some in the North), but the planet will get along just fine. Species will come and go... including ours... and once mother nature has cleaned up whatever mess we make (perhaps over a million years or so), another dominant species will arise. To repeat the same process all over again... though hopefully they'll be a bit more enlightened than are we...


Okay. maybe screw is the wrong word but we are doing the damage and people just continue to live life as though their attitude is "oh well, let someone else deal with it..." I am in North Carolina for the week and they don't even recycle at al down here...god is it not 2010? I guess it's the USA where Bush declared that the economy was more important than the environment...I love that attitude...


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

> The silver amoeba shape in the lower right is the still-growing slick of oil spilling from a damaged Gulf of Mexico well at the rate of 42,000 gallons per day. The spidery green and brown patch just to the left of the oil spill is the Delta National Wildlife Refuge.
> 
> This photo was taken Sunday by NASA. Yesterday, officials told the Wall Street Journal that the oil spill is expected to reach land this Saturday, May 1. Clean-up crews are already gathering at multiple spots along the Gulf coast from Louisiana to Florida. Meanwhile, BP technicians are using underwater robots to try and stem the flow.


(BoingBoing)


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

The question I have is to what extent will the billions of profits BP has made be used to help mitigate this disaster. I'm betting that there will be more spent on PR than actually cleaning up, let alone fixing the problem.

In contrast, vast sums of tax money will be spent, providing yet another subsidy for the oil industry.


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

Earth VS Humans - Video

I think it's somewhat relevant...were not all bad of course!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

imactheknife said:


> Okay. maybe screw is the wrong word but we are doing the damage and people just continue to live life as though their attitude is "oh well, let someone else deal with it..." I am in North Carolina for the week and they don't even recycle at al down here...god is it not 2010? I guess it's the USA where Bush declared that the economy was more important than the environment...I love that attitude...


Recycling is largely a crock, costing far more energy and cash than it saves. It makes us feel better about ourselves, but the most efficient way of dealing with trash is to dig a very deep hole and drop it all in there. An abandoned salt mine would be perfect.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Recycling is largely a crock, costing far more energy and cash than it saves. It makes us feel better about ourselves, but the most efficient way of dealing with trash is to dig a very deep hole and drop it all in there. An abandoned salt mine would be perfect.


Nice to see you on the same page as Nova Scotia's NDP! Sad to see all the "pro-business" types in the comments section dumping on the idea...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It's not pro-business. It's pro-rational. Sometimes evidence shows us that the best ideas are not always the ones that seem right to us. If you argue purely from emotion, then expensive recycling is the way to go.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Recycling is largely a crock, costing far more energy and cash than it saves. It makes us feel better about ourselves, but the most efficient way of dealing with trash is to dig a very deep hole and drop it all in there.


This is simplistic, and missing the point. 

In some cases and for some types of waste, digging a deep hole and dropping it in may be the most rational course of action, but it is hardly an optimal strategy in most, let alone all cases.

If recycling metals from scrap metal costs us more than extracting it from the earth's crust, that simply shows that our economy is broken. Money is not real. Energy, matter and ecosystems are real. If monetary constraints are causing us to waste real resources, it's reason to change the economics, not to continue wasting the resources.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> This is simplistic, and missing the point.
> 
> In some cases and for some types of waste, digging a deep hole and dropping it in may be the most rational course of action, but it is hardly an optimal strategy in most, let alone all cases.
> 
> ...


Only metal recycling is economically viable. I hope you're not suggesting that, because the economy does not reflect your value system, it is broken.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Only metal recycling is economically viable. I hope you're not suggesting that, because the economy does not reflect your value system, it is broken.


How about glass and corrugated. Both can be recycled easily and cheaply. Corrugated for example, ends up being the felt paper (among other things) for roofing shingles , been that way for decades.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

kps said:


> How about glass and corrugated. Both can be recycled easily and cheaply. Corrugated for example, ends up being the felt paper (among other things) for roofing shingles , been that way for decades.


On an industrial level all of these things can be recycled, with steel at the top of the list. Municipal recycling programs, on the other hand aren't usually economically viable--unless, like Ontario, you start banning landfill in your own province. You need to stack the deck before it even comes close to looking good.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Yet banning landfill starts to look like a great idea - forces everyone to reconsider our normal routines. Leaching of contaminants into the soil and thence the groundwater can cause health problems which in turn can bring fiscal pressures to bear on the healthcare system. Save money in one arena, bleed it in another; it's all about where specifically you examine the money flow and wide you scan for variables that can (and do) change up the probabilities.

At one time our ancestors thought open sewers in the city were fine and dandy. Open your window and dump that stinky chamberpot! Things change.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Somewhat true. In Toronto's case it costs more to process the recyclables that the revenue generated from the sale of the material, but that's probably due to high labour and administrative costs because it's done by the city government. Much of it still ends up in a landfill. Put garbage collection into the hands of private industry and see how well they can pull a profit out of all that paper, aluminum and plastic. 

In the late 80's I remember hauling bales of scrap paper from Philadelphia to a company up here for processing. Like we didn't have enough of it here.:lmao:


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I hope you're not suggesting that, because the economy does not reflect your value system, it is broken.


If the economy does not reflect real energetic, material and ecological costs, it's broken. My values have nothing to do with it.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

*... meanwhile*



> The oil spill off the coast of Louisiana is much worse than anyone thought. The Coast Guard confirms more than 200,000 gallons of crude are pouring into the Gulf of Mexico every day. That's five times worse than anyone feared.
> 
> Gulf oil spill worse than feared – amFIX - CNN.com Blogs


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> If the economy does not reflect real energetic, material and ecological costs, it's broken. My values have nothing to do with it.


Sure they do. By inflating the ecological cost, you create a false economic model.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)




----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Not that I don't think the spill is a problem, but let's put this in perspective. According to the Smithsonian Institution, natural seepage of oil into the ocean totals about 62 *MILLION *gallons per year. 

Ocean Planet: Oil Pollution

The people behind this spill are pikers compared to Mother Nature.herself.

Global Marine Oil Pollution Information Gateway • Facts • Natural oil seeps



> "One of the best-known areas where this happens is Coal Oil Point along the California Coast near Santa Barbara. An estimated 2,000 to 3,000 gallons of crude oil is released naturally from the ocean bottom every day just a few miles offshore from this beach".


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

Just imagine if humans could bring legal action against Mother Nature....perhaps then she'd think twice about seabed leakage, icelandic volcanoes. tar sand deposits, tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes and the like.....but of course, we should rightfully expect massive countersuits for things related to human nature: pollution, land mass degradation, overpopulation, wars, disease.... etc...

The main ones benefiting would be the legal cleanup crews. I want to represent Mother Nature. She always wins.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Not that I don't think the spill is a problem, but let's put this in perspective.....


*Sure, here's some perspective for ya:*

*Massive oil spill hits U.S. coast*





> A massive and growing oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico began to lap at Louisiana's coastline on Thursday night, with more dark goo expected to move in by Friday.
> 
> Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal said the oil was expected to be propelled by strong southeast winds, would likely hammer Louisiana until Tuesday and would be carried ashore by higher-than-normal tides.
> 
> ...


(CBC)


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> By inflating the ecological cost, you create a false economic model.


You're making a claim: that I'm inflating ecological costs. It is therefore incumbent on you to support that claim with logic and evidence. How would *you* value the ecosystem?

My claim is that our economic model is broken because it does not put value on the ecosystem, when it is trivially obvious that the ecosystem has value. In order to support the current economic system you have to demonstrate that the ecosystem either does not have value, or that its value is so small that the damage being done is of negligible value. Unless you can demonstrate that our current economic system adequately accounts for the value of the ecosystem, you have to agree that the current system is broken.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Actually, *you* need to make a case for increasing environmental costs, since we already have a system that incorporates our regard for the environment. As I see it, your statement is along the lines of a worker claiming that the wages he or she receives don't represent the value of their labour. That's entirely subjective. If there are 1,000 people willing to do the job for less, the price paid for labour will reflect that, regardless of the worker's perception of the value of that labour.

Likewise, if you believe the Earth is being seriously damaged by economic activity, you'll place a high price on environmental costs. To paraphrase KC4, since Mother Nature doesn't send us a bill, we can only imagine that bill, based on our own perceptions. If you believe that a Florida hurricane is the result of Greenhouse Gases, your bill will look astronomical.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Not that I don't think the spill is a problem, but let's put this in perspective. According to the Smithsonian Institution, natural seepage of oil into the ocean totals about 62 *MILLION *gallons per year.
> 
> Ocean Planet: Oil Pollution
> 
> ...


Yep it's "ALL NATURAL". Just like the packaging says on junk food. 

Noted cranial-rectal inversion sufferer Rush Limbaugh made a related point recently:


> Pundit Rush Limbaugh, who has a home on Florida's Palm Beach, suggested that the explosion could have resulted from Earth Day eco-sabotage by one of the rig workers. Limbaugh also said a cleanup was unnecessary.
> 
> "The ocean will take care of this on its own if it was left alone and left out there," Limbaugh said. "It's natural. It's as natural as the ocean water is."


Somebody, needs to send Rush a jug of natural spill water to wash down his meds with.

MF, your "perspective" on the issue is nonsense. Comparing worldwide natural oil seepage numbers to this leak is comparing two entirely different things. Much of the seepage is spread over various sites around the world in smaller amounts. And in areas where there is a large amount of seepage in a particular place, the local ecosystem, wildlife and human settlement have adapted to the conditions over centuries. It's not at all comparable to a large spill hitting areas that have never seen oil and where the sudden ecosystem, wildlife and human economic damage will be massive.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> It's not at all comparable to a large spill hitting areas that have never seen oil and where the sudden ecosystem, wildlife and human economic damage will be massive.


I know that. I'm pointing out that there is a large amount of natural seepage as well.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I'd love to see MF argue with an insurance adjuster....before and after an anthro induced disaster...



> April 28, 2010
> *Climate Change & Insurance – ‘Hope’ Is Not A strategy*
> 
> Ken Wolslegel
> ...


http://www.environmentalleader.com/2010/04/28/climate-change-insurance-–-hope-is-not-a-strategy/

You can bet the gnomes are busy recalculating the cost to insure an off shore platform.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> I'd love to see MF argue with an insurance adjuster....before and after an anthro induced disaster...


Why would I argue? Business is all to happy to tax the fools who buy into GHG hysteria.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

From what I've read and heard the hysteria is coming from the denier fools. The intemperate denier buffoonery set out in the two gruesome 'authoritative' threads here are a testament to that.

Some of the dozy right-wingnut BS which seems aimed at talking down threats of disaster to the ecosystem remind me of the Blessed Margaret Thatcher at the height of her demented rule.
As a jibe at the anti-nuclear lobby she stated that radioactivity is OK - it's natural. This is reminiscent of the fascinating comment that Mother Earth herself leaks crude oil into her own backyard. The gullible are then invited to join up the dots ... man-made leaks ... ummm ... er ... so they're OK, then.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

good illustration..


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sadly, BP will blame it on Haliburton, who will blame it on BP ............... and the US taxpayer will be stuck with the clean up bill. President Obama will try to get the money from the guilty party/parties, but the attempt will be tied up in the courts for my lifetime.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Snapple Quaffer said:


> Some of the dozy right-wingnut BS which seems aimed at talking down threats of disaster to the ecosystem remind me of the Blessed Margaret Thatcher at the height of her demented rule.


Source, please?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Sadly, BP will blame it on Haliburton, who will blame it on BP ............... and the US taxpayer will be stuck with the clean up bill. President Obama will try to get the money from the guilty party/parties, but the attempt will be tied up in the courts for my lifetime.


The bill must be presented squarely to BP--no bail-outs or forgiveness.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Source, please?


Me. Take it or leave it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Snapple Quaffer said:


> Me. Take it or leave it.


Leave it. Thanks.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Leave it. Thanks.


You're welcome. It was wasted on you anyway.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

BP owns up.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BP really had no choice here.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

It seems to have been made abundantly clear, both by BP and Obama that BP will be stepping up to the plate for the costs related to this disaster, including reimbursing the government for costs incurred on their behalf. 

I agree that there will undoubtedly be a lot of protracted wrangling about what costs are reimbursable, whether they were reasonable and whether they should have been incurred and by whom. Everybody and their dog will be submitting bills to BP for years to come. 

Other than making the most basic and necessary of statements, BP is being very closed about details and other information. I do understand the prudence of controlling information to a certain degree until confirmed, but I really can't wait to hear the explanation of how so many safety devices with required built in redundancies all managed to fail at the critical moment. That kind of planetary/circumstance alignment is unimaginable.

Why did the first response crew determine that the best thing to do was to extinguish the fire and in the process capsize the entire rig, breaking it loose and damaging the pipe at depths much more difficult and risky to manage? In my opinion (but I am no well blow out specialist) they should have left it burning. Sure, the rig would have been destroyed anyway but there are a lot more options and equipment available to staunch the flow of oil, even blazing oil, at or near the surface, than there are at the depths that they have now forced themselves to deal with. Plus, it would have likely limited the spill to one instead of multiple points. 

My guess is that this is all going to eventually boil down to lack of adequate training and safety procedures ( i.e testing, maintenance and operation of safety equipment). TransOcean (drilling rig company) would have been required to adhere to BP's safety procedures and protocol at a minimum. Standard operating procedure. Did they? Time will tell. 

Many other oil companies not originally involved with this crisis have mobilized and are assisting where they can by providing resources, equipment and manpower. This is an industry-wide crisis, experiencing industry wide distress.

This disaster is just beginning. If not already, it will soon eclipse the poster boy of oil disasters, the Exxon Valdez in environmental, human and economic impact. At least with the Valdez, there was a finite quantity of oil to spill. Once it was all out, it was finished except for the clean-up (which still in part continues to this day). The Deepwater Horizon site is continuing to flow out under reservoir pressure and will realistically continue to do so for months.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> BP really had no choice here.


Right... but in general, if a multinational polluter can possibly hide their guilt, they will do so - that's the nature of capitalism.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> The bill must be presented squarely to BP--no bail-outs or forgiveness.


Amen, Brother MacFury. Still, BP will claim that the equipment, made by Haliburton will be at fault, Haliburton will blame BP or God, and it will be tied up in the courts until we are six feet under. We shall see.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> Right... but in general, if a multinational polluter can possibly hide their guilt, they will do so - that's the nature of capitalism.


This isn't specifically the nature of capitalism, but the nature of humans when faced with their own guilt.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

BP's official statement regarding claims. 

Sure, I see the weasel words, but in a way I do not blame them. Reports coming in from the gulf state that fishing vessels were documenting then dumping their existing catches due to suspected "contamination" prior to the contaminant reaching the waters they were trawling. Chronic underemployment, unemployment and typically break-even revenues in the gulf fishing industry have temporarily been cured. 

BP is better money for them - the fishing/shrimping industry in the gulf has been suffering for more than a decade. Though their "Vessels of Opportunity" plan, BP has offered all fishing vessels financial compensation for their assistance with transporting and deploying booms, rescuing wildlife, monitoring the spill etc. 

Vessels of Opportunity, Indeed. Human nature in action yet again. Anthroapology anyone? 

More documentation here. on the TransOcean site.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

> BREAKING: Large Air Spill at Wind Farm. No threats reported. Some claim to enjoy the breeze.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

> BREAKING: Large Air Spill at Wind Farm. No threats reported. Some claim to enjoy the breeze.


Not much energy either!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It's interesting to see how harsh the media was in its assessment of George Bush's response to Hurricane Katrina, as opposed to Obama's leaden response to the oil spill.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> It's interesting to see how harsh the media was in its assessment of George Bush's response to Hurricane Katrina, as opposed to Obama's leaden response to the oil spill.


Only in your Obama-blinkered eyes, M. 

Or maybe you should give the media moguls a stern lecture and set them on the One True Path.


----------



## Laptop Surgeon (Mar 4, 2004)

BP will end up settling all the lawsuits and penalties for penny on the dollars. US taxpayers will bear the brunt of the cost of rehabilitation. This is actually a good thing in the end that it happened where it did. People will "feel" the actual cost of fossil fuel, right in the pocket book, in the form of higher taxes, damage to the tourist, and fishery business, and the lost of habitat for the wildlife. 

If the accident happen in a less commercially significant part of the world, we would certainly not be transfixed to it as we do. A good example, would be the tanker breaking apart on the barrier reef, we heard news about the catastrophe for about 3 or 4 days in a row. Then, nothing.


----------



## arminia (Jan 27, 2005)

*Hopefully BP will pay more than Exxon did*

Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Settlement: Exxon to pay $507.5 million | NowPublic News Coverage


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I know that. I'm pointing out that there is a large amount of natural seepage as well.


Your mention of it, declaring that natural oil seepage put the Gulf of Mexico oil geyser "in perspective" indicates that you were making some kind of equivalency argument, when you were comparing two different kinds of things. In other words, you were indicating that the event wasn't a big deal, but it clearly is.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

arminia said:


> Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Settlement: Exxon to pay $507.5 million | NowPublic News Coverage


I'm guessing they're tracking down Exxon's former lawyers as I type this.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*So, BP claims this was just "an error" ....sure it was, corporate giant...*



> ...there is nothing these fishermen would hesitate to do to save the bayous, canals and rivers where they and their families have made a living for generations - except this: Sign a contract with BP saying they will "hold harmless and indemnify … release, waive and forever discharge the BP Exploration and Production, Inc., its subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors, regular employees, and independent contractors … from all claims and damages" arising from helping to clean up the mess that BP has made.
> 
> No one wanted to waive the right to sue BP, but some fishermen, desperate for cash, signed the waiver anyway.





> "I was 8 or 9 years old when I started on a shrimp boat. I quit school. I can barely read or write," said Darrell Moreau, a shrimp boat captain. "Who's going to pay my bills? I got bill collectors calling."


(PalmBeachPost)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Your presentation of the story gives people the impression that those who signed the contract could not sue for damages related to the spill. It was a waiver for work on cleaning up the spill.



> David Kinnaird, BP's liaison to Plaquemines Parish, spent Saturday night ripping up the contracts that hundreds of local commercial fishermen had signed to work for BP cleaning up the slick that could wipe out the local seafood industry....
> 
> BP never intended for them to relinquish their right to sue the company. That is not what the document said. The document was merely a standard safety waiver - not a work contract, Kinnaird said.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

Macfury said:


> Your presentation of the story gives people the impression that those who signed the contract could not sue for damages related to the spill. It was a waiver for work on cleaning up the spill.


Agreed. Exactly. Nothing more intended or even implied.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

That's a misrepresentation of my post. As I noted, BP says they made an error in giving the fishermen the contract which appeared to exempt them from damages / responsibility. The rest of the article is there to read as well.

The point of this is simple: corporations will usually do whatever they can to avoid responsibility for their actions (or accidents) - protecting the bottom line is the prime imperative of capitalism. One need only look to the classic example of Bhopal, India.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Oddly enough, people are also known to do whatever they can to avoid responsibility for their actions. C.Y.A. as it were.

Is this somehow surprising? Perhaps unique to capitalists?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> The point of this is simple: corporations will usually do whatever they can to avoid responsibility for their actions (or accidents) - protecting the bottom line is the prime imperative of capitalism. One need only look to the classic example of Bhopal[/URL], India.



The description of what happened in the article is not an illustration of that. It is a standard contract for use of boats. Comparing Bhopal to the waiver BP supplied for the hiring of boats is ludicrous.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

CubaMark said:


> *So, BP claims this was just "an error" ....sure it was, corporate giant...*
> 
> 
> 
> (PalmBeachPost)





CubaMark said:


> That's a misrepresentation of my post. As I noted, BP says they made an error in giving the fishermen the contract which appeared to exempt them from damages / responsibility. The rest of the article is there to read as well.
> 
> The point of this is simple: corporations will usually do whatever they can to avoid responsibility for their actions (or accidents) - protecting the bottom line is the prime imperative of capitalism. One need only look to the classic example of Bhopal, India.


CM - Please point me to where BP claimed "it was just an error" .. I've read it two times and I can't see it. Am I blind? Where is it? 

Nothing I read in the wording to that agreement would prevent anyone who signed it from participating in any legal suit over the damages caused by the spill itself. 

What I get from the article you linked is that BP is trying to resolve people's concerns/regret over signing the standard waiver by destroying the contracts. (i.e there - you're off the "hook"...we won't hold you to anything you feel uncomfortable about) These citizen concerns are one part general suspicion and contempt for corporate giants and two parts a result of outside lawyers trying to get a piece of the action by telling people not familiar or comfortable with legal agreements not to sign anything without legal advice. 

Gee, there's that inglorious human nature in action again. This whole thing is getting uglier by the minute and it's not just the spill.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Moving on ...

Arnie terminates his support ...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I suspect that Arnold has achieved what few politicians could be capable of--making people nostalgic about Jerry Brown.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

ouch - excellent pics tho what a disaster ..

Oil spill approaches Louisiana coast - The Big Picture - Boston.com


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

KC4 said:


> CM - Please point me to where BP claimed "it was just an error" .. I've read it two times and I can't see it. Am I blind? Where is it?
> 
> Nothing I read in the wording to that agreement would prevent anyone who signed it from participating in any legal suit over the damages caused by the spill itself.


In my reading of the article, this part seemed to hold broader implications:


> But who wanted to sign away their right* to be part of a class-action lawsuit against BP*? Many fishermen already have been contacted by lawyers who want to represent them in lawsuits against BP.


The question is whether signing those contracts would have ramifications on any possible lawsuit relating to the damage done by the accident to the regional fishery.

As to the error:


> "I am sitting her right now tearing them up and putting them in the trash," Kinnaird said. More than 400 captains had signed documents allowing BP to lease their vessels. "It was just a standard waiver, something the lawyers like. But it just caused so many problems."


What, he's tearing up the contracts because they were correct?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*How the Gulf Oil Spill Will Extend Far Beyond the Gulf*





> The recent BP oil spill in the Gulf Coast is shaping up to be a disaster of historical proportions--bigger, even, than the legendary 1989 Exxon Valdez incident, which saw 11 million gallons of oil dumped off the Alaska coast. And while news reports are pouring in about the immediate environmental and economic impacts, we will be feeling the effects of this spill far and wide for months--and years--to come.
> 
> Migratory birds will be among the hardest hit by the spill. Hundreds of species come from around the world to breed, winter, and rest on the Gulf Coast, and as a result, the spill could affect birds all the way from Canada to South America.


(Read more at Fast Company)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> What, he's tearing up the contracts because they were correct?


No, he's tearing them up because people are misreading them as you have. They are rewriting them as clarification for the people who don't understand what they entail. In the meantime, there are boats that could be heading for the water, but are not--because contracts are being torn up and rewritten.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

A far greater concern should be how this will effect BP's quarterly profit report. If they have to pay out to clean up this mess, how will they survive as a company until their next quarter?????


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> A far greater concern should be how this will effect BP's quarterly profit report. If they have to pay out to clean up this mess, how will they survive as a company until their next quarter?????


Their quarter will suck, but with assets approaching US$236 billion, I think they will pull through.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

Snapple Quaffer said:


> Moving on ...
> 
> Arnie terminates his support ...


Yup. I've also heard that new drilling permits are on hold in the Beaufort Sea pending further investigation. 

Regarding Arnie's question, "Why would we want to take that risk?" 
You know somebody will eventually come up with a palatable (if swallowed with a lot of $$$) answer. Oh...was that a rhetorical question? 



CubaMark said:


> In my reading of the article, this part seemed to hold broader implications:
> 
> 
> The question is whether signing those contracts would have ramifications on any possible lawsuit relating to the damage done by the accident to the regional fishery.
> ...


While I have not seen the entire contact that was signed then destroyed, the excerpts I saw would certainly not have prevented any signatories from exercising any kind of legal rights in regard to damages incurred as a result of the spill. I'm not ready to call it an accident yet.

Bp is tearing up contracts to assuage people fears that they have made a mistake by signing it, not because the contract was erroneous or unfair. 

Have you seen the photos of fishermen preparing their boats for oil spill relief deployment? Many are dry docked. They are dry docked because the poor fishing /shrimping industry in that region has been going through death throes for at least a decade. There are a lot of dilapidated boats and equipment that have been out of service for years that should probably never be put on water again.....but if they can get $3000/day to do it....

That's just one of the reasons why that waiver is in there.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Their quarter will suck, but with assets approaching US$236 billion, I think they will pull through.


If not, I think that the federal government, and the American taxpayer, should step up to the plate and help them out through these hard times. After all, "the business of America is business."


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Some small progress



> NEW ORLEANS, May 5, 2010 *1 of 3 Oil Well Leaks Capped; Dome Heads to Gulf*
> 
> *Rate of Oil Gushing into Ocean Not Expected to Change, However; Crews Hope Containment Dome will Reduce Damage*


1 of 3 Oil Well Leaks Capped; Dome Heads to Gulf - CBS News


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

> "This is exactly what they want, because now [President Obama] can pander to the environmentalists and say, 'I'm gonna shut it down because it's too dangerous.'"​-- Katrina-era FEMA head Michael Brown,
> on the oil slick approaching shore and
> possibly moving up the east coast​


(from the 4 May 2010 Doonesbury)


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Just watch, the dome will end up on its side forty-five feet away from the leaking wellhead.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*BREAKING: Large Air Spill At Wind Farm. No Threats Reported. Some Claim To Enjoy The Breeze.*



(HuffingtonPost)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

If we build another million of those windfarms, we could have clean energy at a thousand dollars a kilowatt!--when the breeze is blowing.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Two items of relevance...*

1*/ Dick Cheney to blame for the Louisiana Oil Disaster?*



> The U.S. considered requiring a remote-controlled shut-off mechanism several years ago, but drilling companies questioned its cost and effectiveness, according to the agency overseeing offshore drilling.





> ...it was Cheney's energy task force - the secretive one that he wouldn't say much about publicly - that decided that the switches, which cost $500,000, were too much a burden on the industry.


(The Guardian UK)​
*2/ Planned oil well off Newfoundland lacks safeguards to avert disaster*





> The Canadian subsidiary of an American petroleum giant is preparing to drill one of the deepest offshore oil wells in the world off the coast of Newfoundland – amid fears there are not enough safeguards to stop a mass spill like the one in the Gulf of Mexico.
> 
> Chevron Canada is deploying a rig 400 kilometres northeast of St. John’s to drill 2,600 metres below the ocean surface in search of crude. The well, located in an area known as the Orphan Basin, would be almost a kilometre deeper than the one that has ruptured off the southern U.S. coast.


(Globe & Mail)​


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The dubious history in the Gulf

Gulf of Mexico has plenty of familiarity with oil spills | al.com


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Some interesting data on accidental oil spills from tankers, combined carriers and barges dating back to 1970.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> Dick Cheney to blame for the Louisiana Oil Disaster?


Barack Obama to blame for the Louisiana Oil Disaster?

washingtonpost.com



> U.S. exempted BP's Gulf of Mexico drilling from environmental impact study
> 
> Wednesday, May 5, 2010
> 
> ...


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

I know I'm late, again, for these type of discussions, but I am constantly amazed at how many times a disaster has befallen the 100% "safe" technology. Whether it is oil rigs, ships, planes or trains, if it is man made it can have flaws. The real danger now is the thought of using the Russian technique to plug the thing if the big box doesn't work. That technique is exploding a small atomic bomb to seal the well. Don't laugh they've used that many times before. Might be the interesting if the "box" doesn't work.... after all it's fool-proof.........


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Rps said:


> That technique is exploding a small atomic bomb to seal the well. Don't laugh they've used that many times before. Might be the interesting if the "box" doesn't work.... after all it's fool-proof.........


Seriously? I've never heard of this before!


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Yep tis true .... they had many oil rig fires they couldn't put out so .......................... now that is really scary ... if the box doesn't work look out.....


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

Interesting article: 
This Land - As the Oil Threatens, Lowering the Boom - NYTimes.com



> For the last several days, the Venice Marina at the bottom of Plaquemines Parish has been a fishless stew of whisper, resentment and opportunity. Here, a lawyer from Mississippi, looking to sign up charter-boat captains interested in suing somebody. There, a denizen of the marina, scolding a foreign journalist for killing the local business with unnecessarily dire reports.
> 
> And everywhere, reporters, scientists and environmentalists paying idle captains for boat rides in pursuit of the latest tip that oil has been seen near the Chandeleur Islands, or down by Breton Sound.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *May 5, 2010*
> 
> Aerial images of the oil spill
> 
> ...


unreal photos


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Interview - blog did not give source



> >>Subject: Horizon Incident
> >>
> >>Good description of what happened from an interview....
> 
> ...


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Barack Obama to blame for the Louisiana Oil Disaster?
> 
> washingtonpost.com


Socialist SOB!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Fingers crossed

Custom box readied at oil leak scene - thestar.com

and toes


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Caught a headline this morning that says the disaster was caused by a methane bubble...

...but this is interesting too:

*BP Was Drilling In A Mine Field! Gulf of Mexico Is Major Dumping Ground For Unexploded Bombs.*





> You learn the darnedest things on the internets. For example, I just found out that the Gulf of Mexico is the primary disposal site for unexploded military munitions - *over 30 million pounds of bombs, projectiles and chemical ordnance*.
> 
> And because records are spotty and incomplete, we don't know exactly where these dumps are.


(Crooks & Liars)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Why don't you open a special Susie Madrak fan club thread, CubaMark?

I love the part where she gets excited about the people who attempted to drag a TORPEDO to shore and got their boat blown up!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Wow...more photos of the explosion










more 

Amazing Photos Of The Deepwater Oil Explosion


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Why don't you open a special Susie Madrak fan club thread, CubaMark? I love the part where she gets excited about the people who attempted to drag a TORPEDO to shore and got their boat blown up!


..... Gee, sorry that my posts are not sufficiently informative. I found it rather interesting that the Gulf is a munitions graveyard, since we have the same problem in Halifax, with a ridiculous amount of unexploded bombs littering the harbour (they get pulled up every once in awhile, the navy shuts down the area and sends in a demo team).

But hey - feel free to add me to your ignore list. _Sheesh!_


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> But hey - feel free to add me to your ignore list. _Sheesh!_


If I put you on my ignore list, I wouldn't be able to set you straight! Madras is taking common knowledge and attempting to create some sort of crazy scenario involving oil companies unknowingly drilling around live explosives. 

Having an unexploded mine wash up on _Gilligan's Island_ made for a funny half-hour, but doesn't translate well into real life.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Crystals foil long-shot attempt to plug oil leak with giant concrete box - The Globe and Mail


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)




----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Har! That Farleftside is a knee-slapper!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Not like the industry was unaware.....


> *Oil industry failed to heed blowout warnings*
> 
> * 17:57 10 May 2010 by Phil McKenna
> 
> ...


continues

Oil industry failed to heed blowout warnings - tech - 10 May 2010 - New Scientist


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Not like the industry was unaware.....


Not like the government department responsible for policing this was unaware:



> Despite these reports, in 2009, the MMS granted BP's Deepwater Horizon drilling operation a "categorical exclusion" from all environmental reviews under the US National Environmental Policy Act. Such exclusions are meant for projects where, if any problems occur, environmental damage is likely to be minimal or non-existent.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Gee, MF, I'm confused... are you saying there's_ too much_ gummint, or _not enough _gummint? 

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> Gee, MF, I'm confused... are you saying there's_ too much_ gummint, or _not enough _gummint?


Don't be confused. When the government does its usual crap job of blessing these projects, it frees companies of much of the liability of operating a risky enterprise. Companies operating in "The Commons" need to be held fully responsible for the damage they cause, and to post bonds commensurate with risk. Set a per barrel spill price set by actual experience and let them drill.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

HIPPIES TO THE RESCUE!

_...and all you establishment types thought long hair was an indulgence...!_


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

You've got it wrong CB: the hippies are keeping their hair--it's the squares who cut it regularly who are providing the stuffing for these hair booms.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I guess the solution only seems obvious if you're from another planet.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> I guess the solution only seems obvious if you're from another planet.


I think it looks more obvious if you get an idiot to describe the oil economy to the little green man.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Study: Air Near Oil Spill Contains 100 Times the Safe Amount of Toxins*





> Louisiana residents have enough problems to deal with from the recent Deepwater Horizon oil spill without worrying about breathing. But they might have to. The Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN) recently evaluated the EPA's air content and quality testing results in Venice Beach, Louisiana and found that the level of some airborne toxins is greater than 100 times the quantity considered safe to humans.
> LEAN's claims are beyond disturbing. The group reports that the hydrogen sulfide content at Venice Beach, Louisiana is up to 1,192 parts per billion. People start experiencing physical symptoms at 5 to 10 parts per billion.


(FastCompany)


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Expert: Oil Leak 5X Greater Than Disclosed*



> The amount of oil gushing from BP's Deepwater Horizon oil disaster is five times more than what the oil company and the U.S. Coast Guard are currently estimating, said a Florida State University oceanography professor on Saturday.
> 
> At an oil spill environmental forum at the Hilton Pensacola Beach Gulf Front, Ian MacDonald said *the blowout is gushing 25,000 barrels a day.
> 
> ...


(Crooks and Liars)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Well, Susie, I think this is like saying that an atomic bomb was dipped in chlorine gas before lobbing it--it doesn't make much difference at this point how much oil has been getting out unless companies are charged by the barrel for their spills.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

It will be impossible to definitively quantify the oil spilling or eventually spilled. How big is that reservoir? What are the reservoir conditions? Before explosion? After explosion? How much of that slick is dispersant? 

Where the dart lands is always influenced by the thrower's point of view.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Gulf Oil Leaks Could Gush for Years*





> "*We don't have any idea how to stop this*," Simmons said of the Gulf leak. Some of the proposed strategies—such as temporarily plugging the leaking pipe with a jet of golf balls and other material—are a "joke," he added.
> 
> "We really are in unprecedented waters."
> 
> ...


(National Geographic News)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Except that drilling the second well will effectively prevent that from happening a few months from now at worst. This is a major tragedy, but what is the point in speculating on the entire well blubbering oil into the Gulf until the well is dry?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sad, but the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador was just turned down to provide electricity from the Lower Churchill Hydro Plant to users in Ontario and the US. Quebec said that they did not have any more capacity ............. unless NL sold them the power for two cents a kilowatt so they could sell it to ON and the US. Strange that there was no capacity for us, but there is capacity for them.

Still, this might have helped get homes in ON off of heating oil and on to hydroelectric power. Sad, but now everyone loses.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Except that drilling the second well will effectively prevent that from happening a few months from now at worst. This is a major tragedy, but what is the point in speculating on the entire well blubbering oil into the Gulf until the well is dry?


*From the aforementioned article:*


> ...slant drilling—a technique used to relieve pressure near the leak—is difficult at these depths, because the relief well has to tap into the original pipe, a tiny target at about 7 inches (18 centimeters) wide, Simmons noted.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

This is Simmons' opinion, but I have seen other sources that indicate this will seal the deal, so to speak. Simmons' expertise lies in analyzing quantities of oil and financing oil wells.


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

Gulf oil spill – A U.S. congressman said he will launch a formal inquiry Friday into how much oil is gushing into the Gulf of Mexico after learning of independent estimates that are significantly higher than the amount BP officials have provided. BP officials have said 5,000 barrels per day of crude, or 210,000 gallons, have been leaking for the past three weeks. But after analyzing videos of the spill, a researcher at Purdue University has predicted that about 70,000 barrels of oil per day are gushing into the Gulf.


Got to love corporations that lie and cover up and most likely get away with it..


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

And do we know for a fact that the gentleman from Purdue is correct?

Who cares how much is leaking into the Gulf. It's a freakin' disaster and there's no sign of it ending. The companies involved are busy evading responsibility and playing the blame game. Isn't BP set to drill a much deeper wellhead somewhere off of the Maritimes?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Obama: No More Irresponsibility in Deepwater Drilling*



> Obama ripped into oil company executives this morning in a speech, accusing them of making a "ridiculous spectacle during the congressional hearings in this matter" on Wednesday, with "executives of BP and Transocean and Halliburton falling over each other to point the finger of blame at somebody else." Harsh words, but not unexpected. After all, these three companies are attempting to dodge blame at the same time that the public demands accountability from them.
> 
> More surprising were Obama's words for the Minerals Management Service, a federal agency that the President lambasted for having a cozy relationship with the oil companies. "It seems as if permits were too often issued based on little more than assurances of safety from the oil companies. "That cannot and will not happen anymore," he said. Yes, that is the President of the United States admitting that a federal agency screwed up in a big way. We're impressed.


(FastCompany)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Obama is just trying to divert anger outward, after it was discovered that his administration has handed out many permits for similar drilling since he took office, some as recent as a few weeks ago. Grandstanding, blubbering BS artist.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Agreed. He is reacting after the fact. These problems stem from a long-term attitude towards risk-taking when exploring for new sources of oil. Every administration and industry player has been playing the same lax game.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> Agreed. He is reacting after the fact. These problems stem from a long-term attitude towards risk-taking when exploring for new sources of oil. Every administration and industry player has been playing the same lax game.


There should be a per-barrel price for spilling oil set before any drilling, with a large deposit set aside before drilling can begin. It's ludicrous that BP is only now inventing ways to stop the spill--as it is ludicrous that the federal government was willing to rubber-stamp these projects as little as a few months ago.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

> A dead dolphin lies on the beach on Horn Island, Mississippi, on May 11. Officials say that at least six dead dolphins have been found along the Gulf of Mexico coast since May 2.


(NationalGeographic)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The oil spill hadn't done anything expected of it by the media. I would have expected huge waves of the stuff to hit the shores by now, based on what I was hearing. Don't get me wrong, the spill is inexcusable, but I have seen a few articles like this one that suggest the spill will be manageable:

The Associated Press: Where's the oil? Model suggests much may be gone


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

You've become quite predictable. As I was posting that photo, I _knew_ that you would attempt to minimize this disaster...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> You've become quite predictable. As I was posting that photo, I _knew_ that you would attempt to minimize this disaster...


I'm not minimizing it. I said it was inexcusable. But I'm surprised that I haven't seen large volumes of oil coming ashore as it appeared was imminent a few weeks ago.

I wasn't trying to lessen the emotional impact of your dolphin picture.


----------



## zlinger (Aug 28, 2007)

BP, you can go stick your top hat, junk shot, and tube fix up your CEO's and shareholders asses. Thanks for ruining the Gulf of Mexico.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Good *60 minutes* bit tonight on the lead up to the problem and the scale..BP comes out looking very very bad. 

•••

Just because they've been lucky with the wind doesn't mean it's not arriving..



> *Louisiana oil spill: toxic chemical fear over BP's clean-up efforts*
> 
> Officials, scientists and fishermen warn of threat to sealife in the Gulf of Mexico
> 
> ...


Some success maybe...finally



> *BP marks first success in containing oil spill*
> 
> By Chris Baltimore and Steve Gorman, Reuters May 16, 2010 4:38 PM


BP marks first success in containing oil spill

I found it rather ironic that they had the pipe in and then managed to pull it out accidentally.....

Now THERE'S a gap.....



> Estimates of the rate of escaping oil range widely from the official BP figure of *5,000 barrels per day (210,000 gallons) , adopted by the government, to 100,000 barrels (4.2 million gallons) per day.*


 :yikes:


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Good coverage from the Globe

Siphon is working, BP says, but plan isn't a panacea for Gulf spill - The Globe and Mail


----------



## zlinger (Aug 28, 2007)

Corexit 9500.. Nasty stuff. Oil/dispersant shrimp dipping sauce anyone?

Spill's Ills Could Be Worse Under The Water - WSJ.com


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)




----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

> "It's a relatively small leak compared to the volume of water in the Gulf... Come on, this is America, there will be frivolous lawsuits."
> _-- BP CEO Tony Hayward_​


(from Tuesday's Doonesbury)


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*So... is MacFury the source for Brit Hume, or vice-versa?*





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.






Credit to *Roger Ebert* and his Twitter feed for the tip-off to this video. As Roger said, in his alloted 140-characters-or-less:


> *Brit Hume:* _"Where's the oil?"_ *Me:* _"Where's your brain?"_


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Hume may be saying there is no oil.

I am saying, "Where IS the oil?"


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Well... at 14 seconds into that video clip, Brit Hume is clearly heard to say "*Where's the Oil?*".

BP, meanwhile, claims their "long pipe" is sucking up some 2,000 barrels of oil from the broken wellhead... now, out of the 5,000 barrels originally claimed to be spilling, that would seem like a good start... but other estimates are putting the daily spillage at much higher levels.

I'd invite Mr. Hume to take a swim along the Louisiana (or Floridian) coast if he's so willing to suspend his belief of reality....


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Fox News Host Claims ‘Natural Seepage’ Actually Worse Than Oil Gusher*





> Hume’s response completely reveals him as either an outright shill for oil interests or someone who has truly bought into BP’s laughably false estimate of 5,000 barrels spewing out per day.
> 
> It’s more like 70,000, according to scientific analysis of the footage from the sea floor. BP was very reluctant to release video of the main underwater oil gusher, even lying about it’s mysterious delay. This is why.
> 
> ...


(via True / Slant WARNING: Language NSFW or Children)


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*From The Guardian*



> Ocean scientists in the Gulf of Mexico have *found giant plumes of oil coagulating at up to 1,300 metres below the surface*, raising fears that the BP oil spill may be larger than thought – and that it might create huge "dead zones".
> 
> Members of the National Institute for Undersea Science and Technology have been traversing the area around the scene of the Deepwater Horizon, the rig that exploded and sank on 20 April.
> 
> Using the latest sampling techniques, they have identified plumes up to 20 miles away from the Deepwater Horizon well head that continues to spew oil into the water at a rate of at least 790,000 litres a day. *The largest plume found so far was 90 metres thick, three miles wide and 10 miles long*.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Cuba at risk in Gulf oil spill*



> Typically, we Americans figured that Cuba might screw up and our beaches might be contaminated by a mistake in their oil drilling program.
> 
> “No one really imagined that Cuba would be on the receiving end,” the Environmental Defense Fund’s Dan Whittle told the Herald, now that the Gulf oil spill – an American screw-up – has entered the Loop Current, putting Florida and Cuba at risk.
> 
> ...


(Phil Peters, The Cuban Triangle)

_Also:_ *Cuba on Gulf OIl Spill Alert.*


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The Governor of Louisiana just announced that oil was seen in the mouth of the Mississippi River.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Ah.... so there's the oil.... *


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BP touts containment efforts; heavy oil reaches Louisiana wetlands - CNN.com



> New Orleans, Louisiana (CNN) -- BP said Wednesday that efforts to contain and clean up oil gushing from a ruptured pipe in the Gulf of Mexico have made a "measurable difference" even as Louisiana's governor announced that thick, heavy oil has begun polluting the state's wetlands and estuaries.


----------



## zlinger (Aug 28, 2007)

*Live view of BP oil leak*

An underwater camera provides a live view of the BP oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico.

CNN.com

Watch the fish swim while the oil leaks!


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Oil inspectors let companies fill in own audits, while one admitted getting high on meth, report says.



> None of the reports findings directly address the lead-up to the spill from the sinking of Transocean's Deepwater Horizon rig in April, but they certainly draw a picture of a watchdog asleep -- or high -- at the wheel.


Nice...


----------



## zlinger (Aug 28, 2007)

If BP's top kill does not work, why not just detonate an atomic bomb in the ocean?


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Funny you should say that. That technique has been used by the U.S.S.R. and is called the Russian Solution. They use limited range warheads to extinguish oil well fires.... don't be surprised if this is suggested [ I know I suggested it many posts ago ] When that happens, look out..... at a mile down it may be the only solution they have.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

...and since BP announced today (Saturday) that the top-fill thingy didn't work, oil continues to spew unabated into the Gulf, one never knows. The next step might well be atomic.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

BP bused in 100s of temp workers for Obama visit, state official says



> Jefferson Parish Councilman Chris Roberts, whose district encompasses Grand Isle, told Yahoo! News that BP bused in "hundreds" of temporary workers to clean up local beaches. And as soon as the president was en route back to Washington, the workers were clearing out of Grand Isle too, Roberts said.


Nice...

Photo Op, much?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It's all about the photo op. Perhaps Obama requested this.

BO just needs to answer the governor's requests to build up sand banks around the beaches. No answer yet.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

BP Stock Plummets

Transocean's is doing the same, especially with the announcement of a bill that will not allow them to limit their liability.

A major step change has come for the entire industry.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

KC4, the limited liability laws should have been dropped years ago. Covering the cost of potential damage should be part of the sticker price.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

Yup.

BP's stock price hasn't been this low for 14 years.

Very interesting times.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

just to add to the mix



> *US predicts busy hurricane season*
> 
> Page last updated at 16:28 GMT, Thursday, 27 May 2010 17:28 UK
> 
> ...


BBC News - US predicts busy hurricane season

and the hurricane season begins RIGHT NOW!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Hmmm, haven't the climate guys been wrong about the number of hurricanes every single year since they tried to alarm everyone? A pee poor track record at forecasting as I recall. Not more as they told us, but less. Then again, it's a climate change driven forecast, so what else would one expect?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Latest news... BP's new attempt is to cut off the riser pipe (doing so will substantially increase the flow of oil), and then attempt to put a dome in place to capture the flow. Making it worse before making it better.

Problem: As of Wed. morning, the diamond cutting saw is jammed in the pipe. Sigh.

The only "solution" they have, if this latest method doesn't work, is the completion of a second well (noted here before) - and it won't be ready to go (*if* it is successfully drilled) until sometime in August.

Meanwhile... oil is now approaching Florida coasts....


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Shows how little you pay attention or understand Sinc.

There have been more cat 4 and cat 5 hurricanes *as expected.*

Not more quantity - 

and you are incorrect about the accuracy....the one variable they cannot anticpate is ENSO influence....

You want to argue with this...



> How active was the 2007 hurricane season?
> 
> The Climate Prediction Center predicted much above normal hurricane activity for 2007:
> 
> ...


You as with the other deniers like to snipe with ZERO basis in fact....just for the sake of **** disturbing..no other reason at all.
La Nina and El Nino are hard to predict and do affect hurricanes.

Stronger storms - not more storms...got it?



> *Study: Man-made Climate Change Causing Stronger Hurricanes*
> By Ker Than, LiveScience Staff Writer
> posted: 15 August 2006 02:31 pm ET


Study: Man-made Climate Change Causing Stronger Hurricanes | LiveScience

There is no linear relationship with number of storms as hurricanes require specific conditions..
There is a relationship with SST which fuels storms that do develop creating favourable conditions for not only stronger wind speed storms but also, as with Taiwan, *storms carrying much more moisture.*

Y'know....stuff like this that kills people.....



> *First named storm of 2010 Pacific hurricane season hits central Ame*rica
> Author: Katherine Blackler
> Source: Reinsurance |* 02 Jun 20*10
> Categories: Reinsurance | Claims
> ...


http://www.postonline.co.uk/reinsur...pacific-hurricane-season-hits-central-america


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

See, SINC--they were wrong because of forces they could not anticipate.tptptptp

A much more plausible theory:

Sunspots may predict hurricanes as well as global warming and coooling | FP Comment | Financial Post


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Yeah, I think I get it now MF, "they're right even when they're wrong". Is that it?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> Yeah, I think I get it now MF, "they're right even when they're wrong". Is that it?


You got it SINC. Up is down and wrong is right.

By the way, did you hear that Big Brother raised MacDoc's chocolate ration from 20 grams to 15 grams this week!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

a bit more on hurricane predictions from the folks in Florida that have some serious interest in getting it correct...and they are certainly on track....

Some info on the oil spill as well....



> The model's 2009 forecast, plus its hindcasts of the previous 14 hurricane seasons -- that's when the data that existed prior to each season is plugged into the model to reforecast the season and then compared to what actually occurred -- really show the model's precision.* From 1995 to 2009, the model predicted a mean of 13.7 named storms of which a mean of 7.8 were hurricanes. In reality, the average during this period was 13.8 named storms with a mean of 7.9 hurricanes.*
> 
> How the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico will affect the development of tropical storms this year is a question that scientists are still trying to figure out, LaRow said. The oil on the ocean surface can diminish the amount of surface evaporation, which would lead to local increased ocean temperatures near the surface, but LaRow said he's made no adjustments to the model to account for the oil that continues to gush from an underwater well.


Unique computer model used to predict active 2010 hurricane season


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> a bit more on hurricane predictions from the folks in Florida that have some serious interest in getting it correct...and they are certainly on track....


Like the new computer model I can accurately predict the number of hurricanes in any given year too--provided that year has already passed. 

Pure brilliance.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

How extensive is the spill.....











> Web mapping guru Andy Lintner has created a *map* showing the Gulf oil spill centred on Toronto, on its real location - or anywhere else in the world you choose. Click on the map to start.





> *Oil spill would cover much of southern Ontario*


Oil spill would cover much of southern Ontario - thestar.com

Map on the article is interactive

IfItWasMyHome.com - Visualizing the BP Oil Disaster


----------



## zlinger (Aug 28, 2007)

*BP oil spill graphics*

This is an oil spill graphic of the situation 5,000 feet under the surface.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I like that graphic, zlinger. Successfully does the job. Would that we could say the same about BP's efforts. Well, at least they're still making tons of filthy money. _Huzzah!_


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> I like that graphic, zlinger. Successfully does the job. Would that we could say the same about BP's efforts. Well, at least they're still making tons of filthy money. _Huzzah!_


Yeah, but it's not to scale, eh.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

I wonder if Brit Hume has been subject to any further scrutiny after his idiotic "where's the oil" comment... The new projections for the movement of the oil spill through the Florida Strait are particularly depressing. Florida is going to suffer hugely... and it appears some very important feeding grounds are about to be direclty hit. Sadly, Cuba now looks like it's going to be receiving an (un)healthy dose along its northern coast - the heart of the country's hugely important tourism industry.



> Tests conducted by scientists at the University of South Florida show one of the plumes is nearing a large underwater canyon whose currents fuel the food chain in Gulf waters off Florida.
> 
> On Friday, Ernst Peebles, a USF biological oceanographer and chief scientist aboard the Weatherbird II research vessel, said samples were drawn from two layers of oil. One measured 30 metres thick at a depth of about 400 metres.
> 
> It's believed the other layer is thicker, at a depth of 975 metres. *(CBC)*


This Globe & Mail story from yesterday notes the extensive reef system, which extends to Cuba, is threatened with devastation.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I pray that nobody allows BP to escape the full cost of this nightmare, even if it means the company's bankruptcy and sale of its assets,


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

A sad perspective as to the size of the disaster. Now, a second plume has been spotted.

If It Was My Home - Visualizing the BP Oil Disaster


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)




----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Meanwhile, back at the Oval Office:


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Meanwhile back among the GOP faithful:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Meanwhile back among the GOP faithful:


Well, it's nice that you can blame Obama's response to the BP spill on Bush, Gratuitous. If anything, Bush taught Obama how NOT to handle a Louisiana emergency--and Obama has learned his lessons well.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Well, it's nice that you can blame Obama's response to the BP spill on Bush, Gratuitous. If anything, Bush taught Obama how NOT to handle a Louisiana emergency--and Obama has learned his lessons well.


I thought you libertarians didn't expect the gubbmint to bail you out of problems? So your shots at Obama are nothing more than convenient shots, I guess. 

I wouldn't blame Obama for the regulatory failure that precipitated the issue, he could hardly be expected to have changed the agencies involved prior to the problem, but I would agree his current lack of aggressive action against BP is a disappointment. 

I'd say the US government should put the company under receivership, cancel their expected $10 billion dividend gift to their stockholders and treat BP like the unrepentant corporate psychopaths that they are. I think if he could somehow do something like this he would become a populist hero, while the GOP who are criticizing him for not doing anything would be bitching like crazy that the poor stockholders shouldn't be made to suffer. But it's the corporate elites that own and rule the US of A, not the citizens or their government, so I'm not holding my breath on that.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I thought you libertarians didn't expect the gubbmint to bail you out of problems? So your shots at Obama are nothing more than convenient shots, I guess.


The federal government, in the opinion of Libertarians, has few roles. One of them is to protect "The Commons" which includes the Oceans not otherwise owned by anyone else. Obama and his administration have failed in this. It has also failed in its efforts to get BP to mount effective clean-up efforts.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has repeatedly asked for permission to dredge sand barriers to protect the coastline, while Obama hems and haws. Time for Barry to get off the pot.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> The federal government, in the opinion of Libertarians, has few roles. One of them is to protect "The Commons" which includes the Oceans not otherwise owned by anyone else. Obama and his administration have failed in this. It has also failed in its efforts to get BP to mount effective clean-up efforts.
> 
> Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has repeatedly asked for permission to dredge sand barriers to protect the coastline, while Obama hems and haws. Time for Barry to get off the pot.


You're purposely conflating the cause of the problem with the response because you don't like Obama. Jindal's part of that cause too, remember "Drill, Baby, Drill"?

I've agreed the response is not great and that I'd like to see our elected politicians of every stripe stand up and face down corporations who are repeated criminals. I've never expected any POTUS will ever be that guy nor do I think any US administration or Congress would ever take on the role in any way except as window dressing. But really MF, seriously now, what would old fossil McCain and Wasilla Barbie have done or any other Republican? No better than Obama, probably less.

I haven't read much about the sand dredging. Is this really much of a solution or something Jindal has latched onto to make it look like he has an idea, now that he's implicated in being asleep at the wheel while the oil industry was pushing its way into deep water drilling? If it really offers some hope of helping then it should be pursued.

Essentially we're all to blame, for demanding dirt-cheap oil, while letting the oil companies get away with all manner of cost-cutting to safeguards and environmental standards, while the second half of the world's remaining oil has become more dangerous and environmentally costly to bring to market. 

Yeah, you can try and pin it on Obama and Democrats in general (who are not blameless) but if you think that a bunch of teabagger GOP are going to fix the problems, you'd be dreaming.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> You're purposely conflating the cause of the problem with the response because you don't like Obama. Jindal's part of that cause too, remember "Drill, Baby, Drill"?


I have no problem with "Drill Baby Drill." I have plenty of problem with the type of cozy crony capitalism being practiced. If anyone had the goodwill of the public to brek tht model it _was_ Obama--and I use that in the past tense.



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> But really MF, seriously now, what would old fossil McCain and Wasilla Barbie have done or any other Republican? No better than Obama, probably less..


I have no idea. But I can only judge Obama on this one, because it's all his. 



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I haven't read much about the sand dredging. Is this really much of a solution or something Jindal has latched onto to make it look like he has an idea, now that he's implicated in being asleep at the wheel while the oil industry was pushing its way into deep water drilling? If it really offers some hope of helping then it should be pursued.


Jindal asked for it almost immediately. And while he wanted oil drilling, it's the responsibility of the federal government to police it. 



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Essentially we're all to blame, for demanding dirt-cheap oil, while letting the oil companies get away with all manner of cost-cutting to safeguards and environmental standards, while the second half of the world's remaining oil has become more dangerous and environmentally costly to bring to market.


I ask for oil that reflects the cost of getting it out of the ground. That includes the cost of making the drilling safe. I do not demand it be "dirt cheap."



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Yeah, you can try and pin it on Obama and Democrats in general (who are not blameless) but if you think that a bunch of teabagger GOP are going to fix the problems, you'd be dreaming.


I did not promise HOPE or CHANGE. Unfortunately, Barry has to live with the consequences of his promises to bring intelligence and competence to the office.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

I erroneously assumed MacFury was repeating some crap that Glen Beck had broadcast on his program. I was wrong - the post is now deleted. My apologies for the error.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Beck is an @ss. I wonder if he could spell "hypocrite."


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I heard Obama use that phrase in one of his speeches. What an embarrassment.

Obama: Malia Asked "Did you Plug The Hole Yet, Daddy?" - Political Hotsheet - CBS News



> President Obama turned personal at the end of his press conference today, saying his daughter Malia asked for an update this morning on the oil leak in the Gulf.
> 
> "You know, when I woke up this morning and I'm shaving, and Malia knocks on my bathroom door and she peeks in her head and she says,* 'did you plug the hole yet, Daddy?'"* he said.
> 
> ...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Not only have I never seen this Beck guy's show, I wouldn't recognize him if I met him on the street.

I never watch any US news. In my Canada, the CRTC allows Global and CTV and CBC to broadcast over US networks and insert their Canadian ads and news instead and we are not close enough to the border to see real US television.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

MacFury - my apologies. I hadn't heard the speech in which Obama mentioned Malia's quote. I had erroneously assumed that you pulled that from Beck's program. My bad - I'll delete my post.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

That's cool CM. Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Just wondering..... with the size of the oil flow in the Gulf of Mexico, and I'm sure there must be other areas that leak oil, not to mention ships..... I wonder what the critical mass is to destroy the ecological balance. In group dynamics, you only need about 1/3 of a population to sway an entire population ..... I wonder if that is the same for oil damage........


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Read This Before You Volunteer to Clean Up the BP Oil Disaster*



> Merle Savage has a wheezy, guttural smoker's cough. But the 71-year-old former Alaska resident and author of Silence in the Sound never smoked a day in her life. She did, however, spend four months as a general foreman during the Exxon Valdez oil spill recovery project in 1989. And she has a message for anyone working at the BP oil disaster sites: "You've got to use your common sense. Breathing crude oil is toxic."
> 
> Savage moved to Alaska in 1988--just one year before the Exxon Valdez oil spill ravaged Prince William Sound. After the spill, Savage decided to take action. She was assigned to clean oil-coated rocks on the beach, but says that Exxon never provided legitimate safety training. And since Exxon never told her that breathing crude oil was toxic, she didn't think twice about spraying hot water onto the oily rocks.


Read more at Fast Company


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I have no problem with "Drill Baby Drill." I have plenty of problem with the type of cozy crony capitalism being practiced. If anyone had the goodwill of the public to brek tht model it was Obama--and I use that in the past tense.


I was hoping for better from the man myself, but I never expected Obama to take on "crony capitalism" face on. Although I personally have no idea of what really goes on inside the halls of real power in Washington, I've often suspected that any President who dared to go head to head might find his career ending in an unfortunate "accident". I recognized "hope and change" were campaign fodder, and I'm sure you did as well, — Obama IS a politician after all. 

Has there ever been a politician who has lived up to the hype they've generated during their campaigns? Certainly McCain and Palin never could have, and I can only imagine the boneheaded decisions that they would have made in Obama's stead had they won the election. 

Yes, Obama deserves criticism but pretending that there is some reserve of leaders out there who would be managing this correctly if he had not won the Presidency is ludicrous. They're all part of the same system that has failed.

Again, rather than addressing the issue at hand you are engaging in an opportunity to slag Obama because you don't like him. It's quite obvious.



Macfury said:


> I have no idea. But I can only judge Obama on this one, because it's all his.


As every day goes by, Obama must accept more blame for omissions and mistakes under his watch. But it's nothing more than political opportunism to blame his administration for things where the roots go back decades. The less he dares to do the more he becomes part of the same problem along with Bush and every President who has preceded him.



> Jindal asked for it almost immediately. And while he wanted oil drilling, it's the responsibility of the federal government to police it.


 Again, I have no idea whether sandbar dredging is a good idea or not.



> I ask for oil that reflects the cost of getting it out of the ground. That includes the cost of making the drilling safe. I do not demand it be "dirt cheap."


 Well, you would be a rare exception. I also share your view that the cost of making oil environmentally safe must be included in the price. But the oil companies have exerted massive pressure to have these costs remain externalities. 

As you know the Exxon spill still has never had a fraction of the clean up costs or financial and health costs to the areas citizen's paid for. Exxon appealed in court for years to have the judgements whittled down to $0.5 billion and still hasn't paid even that. And at some point after the spill, the GOP dominated Congress enacted legislation that capped liability at a mere $75 million to protect their crony capital benefactors, thereby transferring the cost of oil company negligence to the public.

Which is why I say "we all are to blame". Any politician who had the guts to stand up and say that oil will have to get more expensive (or the oil company shareholders will have to accept smaller returns) to keep the commons safe, will find their career to be very, very, very short. As a society, we don't want to pay the real cost of keeping our environment safe, and by extension even our own economy which is ultimately dependent on a healthy environment.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I am curious. Those who condemn Pres. Obama's handling of this situation, what would you have had him do in this crisis? He could have nationalized BP's US assets to clean up this mess, and taken over the entire cleanup, at the expense of the US taxpayer as the expropriation went through the court system. He could have ignored it much like Bush ignored Katrina's destruction until there was such an ourcry that it could not be ignored. Under the circumstances, I think that he did and is doing the best he can without letting BP off the hook for paying for the destruction to the environment and the jobs of thousands upon thousands of people.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> I am curious. Those who condemn Pres. Obama's handling of this situation, what would you have had him do in this crisis? He could have nationalized BP's US assets to clean up this mess, and taken over the entire cleanup, at the expense of the US taxpayer as the expropriation went through the court system. He could have ignored it much like Bush ignored Katrina's destruction until there was such an ourcry that it could not be ignored. Under the circumstances, I think that he did and is doing the best he can without letting BP off the hook for paying for the destruction to the environment and the jobs of thousands upon thousands of people.


I would:

1) Not have allowed the Coast Guard to handle the early part of the crisis, as it has a too close a relationship with the oil companies
2) Have sent out the Army Corp of Engineers almost immediately to build sand dredges. 
3) Appointed an oil spill co-ordinator with the power to make in-the-field decisions
4) Threatened to cancel the oil leases of BP unless they quickly stopped the oil leak.
5) Frozen a portion of the assets of BP through the courts as future payment for clean-up.
5) Fired the Homeland Security and FEMA directors.
6) Since creating false employment numbers through the hiring of 400,000 census workers seemed to be an easy task for the Administration, employ 100,000 Louisianans to perform the real work on shore clean-up efforts.
7) Ban the use of dispersants.
8) Bring in a flotilla of skimmers, which appear to be somewhere else right now.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Guys, this is an unprecedented accident, [ or flaw of risk management you choose ] the reason there is such vitriol toward the U.S. Administration is that no one know what to do, so target the boss. They are flying blind here and the news media aren't helping. They continuously bring up the " they should be doing this" or "here's what this expert said" or " they should use this product". I'm surprised that Jo Jo's psychic network hasn't risen to guide the government to the answer.

Calm is the way to go ........ inappropriate action is often worse than no action at all.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I was hoping for better from the man myself, but I never expected Obama to take on "crony capitalism" face on.


I didn't expect him to embrace it like a long lost brother.



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Has there ever been a politician who has lived up to the hype they've generated during their campaigns? Certainly McCain and Palin never could have, and I can only imagine the boneheaded decisions that they would have made in Obama's stead had they won the election.


They had no hype--which is why they lost. I can't imagine them doing much worse though.



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Yes, Obama deserves criticism but pretending that there is some reserve of leaders out there who would be managing this correctly if he had not won the Presidency is ludicrous. They're all part of the same system that has failed.
> 
> Again, rather than addressing the issue at hand you are engaging in an opportunity to slag Obama because you don't like him. It's quite obvious.


It is obvious because I make it obvious. I don't like him. See my suggestions about how he could have done better above, however.



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> As every day goes by, Obama must accept more blame for omissions and mistakes under his watch. But it's nothing more than political opportunism to blame his administration for things where the roots go back decades. The less he dares to do the more he becomes part of the same problem along with Bush and every President who has preceded him.


Obama has, more than any president I've seen, chosen to slag his predecessor for problems that go back decades. Now he needs to eat that same crow.



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Well, you would be a rare exception. I also share your view that the cost of making oil environmentally safe must be included in the price. But the oil companies have exerted massive pressure to have these costs remain externalities.


Since we end up paying for it out of taxes or higher prices of other goods, it may as well be part of the price of oil. However, don't expect me to extend this acceptance to "carbon markets" or any other environmental cost that can't be adequately demonstrated.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Rps said:


> Guys, this is an unprecedented accident, [ or flaw of risk management you choose ] the reason there is such vitriol toward the U.S. Administration is that no one know what to do, so target the boss. They are flying blind here and the news media aren't helping. They continuously bring up the " they should be doing this" or "here's what this expert said" or " they should use this product". I'm surprised that Jo Jo's psychic network hasn't risen to guide the government to the answer.
> 
> Calm is the way to go ........ inappropriate action is often worse than no action at all.


Very valid points, Rps, which is why I posed my question earlier. I believe that Pres. Obama is doing what is possible in a very difficult situation.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Rps said:


> Guys, this is an unprecedented accident, [ or flaw of risk management you choose ] the reason there is such vitriol toward the U.S. Administration is that no one know what to do, so target the boss. They are flying blind here and the news media aren't helping. They continuously bring up the " they should be doing this" or "here's what this expert said" or " they should use this product". I'm surprised that Jo Jo's psychic network hasn't risen to guide the government to the answer.
> 
> Calm is the way to go ........ inappropriate action is often worse than no action at all.


This guy set himself up as the man who said his nomination was: ". . .the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal . . ." He is being judged by his own measuring stick.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

He actually claimed that pseudo-biblical stuff, MF? Geez, it's a bit much.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> He actually claimed that pseudo-biblical stuff, MF? Geez, it's a bit much.


That was part of Obama's acceptance speech after winning the Democrat primary in St. Paul. It put a lot of people off and earned him the nickname "The messiah" among his detractors.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

It strikes me as just a teensy bit delusional and self-serving. But I remind myself that it's a nation which historically likes to think and act large, so it's certainly not unusual in that sense.

Well, in any case I'm sure he's not feeling quite as magisterial and all-seeing just now.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> Well, in any case I'm sure he's not feeling quite as magisterial and all-seeing just now.


My belief is that he thinks people are just treating him terribly, considering that the healing of the Earth is already underway.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Macfury said:


> My belief is that he thinks people are just treating him terribly, considering that the healing of the Earth is already underway.


Not wanting to sound like I'm trying to highjack the thread, but this whole Obama / Bush episode reminds me of the classic Liberal / Conservative election technique. The Liberals ran the country for years [ some might suggest into the ground ] and when things got so bad, we voted them out leaving the Conservatives to try and fix it, only to have them thrown out as being ineffectual. I see this happening here. Bush screwed up the country so badly that no one could "fix" all the major issues. First the economy, then health care, Iraq, Afghanistan, and now this...... no one could handle this mess, so I see him as a "one-termer". During these times we always look for "fault" who did this, or he didn't do this .... in fact I've done so in my post. But, the real problem that I see is a societal disregard for common sense when it comes to economic gain. BP is no different and is only acting within the generally accepted guidelines of the culture of the day ....check out China if you think this is only applicable to North American. Whats needed is calm, rational thought to fix this disaster [ which I think Obama is trying to do ] then a rethink of how we wish to operate as an economic society. I cant see the Democrats having the political will or time to do that. 2012 will be the end of Obama's reign ... and its too bad, really. If given time and normalcy of issues, he might have been a great President .... now all we'll get is Sarah....


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Whats needed is calm, rational thought to fix this disaster [ which I think Obama is trying to do ] then a rethink of how we wish to operate as an economic society. I cant see the Democrats having the political will or time to do that. 2012 will be the end of Obama's reign ... and its too bad, really." Rps. O agree with your first part, but not with your second part. I think that Obama will get elected, especially if the Republicans nominate Palin. We shall see. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

dupe


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I am looking solely at the issue of the BP oil spill. Since everyone jumped on Bush during Hurricane Katrina, I see no reason to spare Obama now. In crisis, he is a steady president--so steady he's almost motionless. The fact that Obama has attempted to blame Bush for the oil spill means that he needs to take it on the chin now, while he's flailing and doing a little dance instead of leading the way out of this mess.

I don't want a Palin presidency, but Obama's gross incompetence and inability to read the public he pretends to serve is almost guaranteeing that. 



Rps said:


> Not wanting to sound like I'm trying to highjack the thread, but this whole Obama / Bush episode reminds me of the classic Liberal / Conservative election technique. The Liberals ran the country for years [ some might suggest into the ground ] and when things got so bad, we voted them out leaving the Conservatives to try and fix it, only to have them thrown out as being ineffectual. I see this happening here. Bush screwed up the country so badly that no one could "fix" all the major issues. First the economy, then health care, Iraq, Afghanistan, and now this...... no one could handle this mess, so I see him as a "one-termer". During these times we always look for "fault" who did this, or he didn't do this .... in fact I've done so in my post. But, the real problem that I see is a societal disregard for common sense when it comes to economic gain. BP is no different and is only acting within the generally accepted guidelines of the culture of the day ....check out China if you think this is only applicable to North American. Whats needed is calm, rational thought to fix this disaster [ which I think Obama is trying to do ] then a rethink of how we wish to operate as an economic society. I cant see the Democrats having the political will or time to do that. 2012 will be the end of Obama's reign ... and its too bad, really. If given time and normalcy of issues, he might have been a great President .... now all we'll get is Sarah....


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

MF, not sure I agree with the comment on "his inability to read the public" ... I think he can, what he can't do is pull a solution out of some magical hat. Unlike other "disasters" this one, at least to my knowledge, has never happened before. So, no one knows what to do. I think that is the real reason there is so much disaffection with him .... not that he can't read the public. Remember also, leaders don't always follow the public, but lead them, whether they like it or not.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

Comparisons are inevitable:

Bush did a better job with Katrina! Obama's popularity slumps over handling of BP oil spill | Mail Online



> Barack Obama’s popularity is slipping in the wake of America’s worst oil spill.
> More Americans - 69 per cent - are unhappy about the U.S. president’s administration's response to the BP disaster than disapproved of George Bush's botched handling of Hurricane Katrina five years ago, according to a poll.


Even Spike Lee has been critical of Obama's response.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Rps said:


> MF, not sure I agree with the comment on "his inability to read the public" ... I think he can, what he can't do is pull a solution out of some magical hat. Unlike other "disasters" this one, at least to my knowledge, has never happened before. So, no one knows what to do. I think that is the real reason there is so much disaffection with him .... not that he can't read the public.


Of course he can't solve the oil spill. Unfortunately, he is not using the powers he has to effect a solution. He isn't even mounting an effective clean-up and the federal government has the power to do that. He has lost the confidence of the people for failing to do what CAN be done. Let Jindal start the dredging, even if it only restores the confidence of the people in their government. Where is the flotilla of skimmers?



Rps said:


> Remember also, leaders don't always follow the public, but lead them, whether they like it or not.


He isn't leading the public, he's smooshing a half-grapefruit in their faces as he goes about his personal agenda.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

Rps said:


> Guys, this is an unprecedented accident, [ or flaw of risk management you choose ] the reason there is such vitriol toward the U.S. Administration is that no one know what to do, so target the boss. They are flying blind here and the news media aren't helping. They continuously bring up the " they should be doing this" or "here's what this expert said" or " they should use this product". I'm surprised that Jo Jo's psychic network hasn't risen to guide the government to the answer.
> 
> Calm is the way to go ........ inappropriate action is often worse than no action at all.


After this, then why not Jo Jo?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

KC4 said:


> After this, then why not Jo Jo?


Maybe a concert by the Dixie Chicks would lighten the mood?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Oil in gulf may be double initial estimate*



> Oil that has spewed out of the blown-out well in the Gulf of Mexico may amount to twice as much as previous estimates, scientists said Thursday.
> 
> A government-created task force, known as the Flow Rate Technical Group, said between 20,000 and 40,000 barrels of oil a day may have spilled out before a cap was installed on June 3.
> 
> Scientists had previously estimated about 12,000 to 19,000 barrels of oil a day had been leaking from the well since an oil rig exploded Aprill 20. The U.S. government had put the estimate lower, at about 5,000 barrels per day.


(CBC)


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> *Oil in gulf may be double initial estimate*
> 
> 
> 
> (CBC)


I have done the math on this several times. 5000 barrels a day would move out of that 20" pipe at a rate of less than 2" per second. This is at best just a guess, based on trying to time the cloud movement in the video, but it would appear that oil was flowing out of that pipe at at least 10 times that rate and possibly as much as 20.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

This was eMailed to me and as usual this individual failed to provide a direct link to the source. Still it does make for a terrifying read. The estimate of 80-100,000 Barrels a day, does match my own very crude and admittedly unscientific guess. The rest is pure horror movie. I do hope his views are overly pessimistic. We shall know for sure over the next few months.



> Oil Volcano Pressure Too
> Strong For Containment
> Dr. James P. Wickstrom
> 6-9-10
> ...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Well, Obama just delivered another clinker of a speech. Now that the nation is energized to accept new taxes, all will be well in the Gulf. 

Sheesh!


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

Macfury said:


> Well, Obama just delivered another clinker of a speech. Now that the nation is energized to accept new taxes, all will be well in the Gulf.
> 
> Sheesh!


The feigned outrage displayed by the enviro-nuts is tiring; this has played right into their hands and they can barely contain their glee.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

eMacMan, without knowing the name and nature of the source, that reads like an enviro-terror screed. I just don't buy it. Sounds far too doomsday scenario for me. Doubtless this spill is obscene and terribly destructive. But the extent of the damage as predicted by this anonymous source? It's biblical.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Max said:


> It's biblical.


As is the author so it seems.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Oh, great, a nutbar. Well, it sure had that ring to it.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

Yeah, good find Doug. The author's credibility has just been eviscerated..


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

o


KC4 said:


> Yeah, good find Doug. The author's credibility has just been eviscerated..


I never gave him any. Still would make for a great calamity movie. I will admit to being far too lazy and disinterested to track him down.

One interesting thing though. I did peg the leak at an absolute minimum of 60,000 BPD and the latest figures are now matching that number. Given the history so far we can expect that number to continue to escalate. Perhaps 100,000 at the well head and an equal amount from the obviously damaged casing, which BP very quietly finally admitted over the past few days.

Even if this thing does get stopped fairly quickly the damage already far exceeds any of man's environmental disasters to date.

Don't see how carbon taxes or funneling money to the Great Gore will help here.

We do need to force BP to compensate everyone that has lost their income. I do not mean $2500 to replace $100,000 in lost income. I mean dollar for dollar. The fact that what BO says and what he does almost never match, probably means that BP will escape with far less fiscal damage than is appropriate.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

You can't really adequately compensate people and companies alike for this kind of damage. You can certainly try to apply various models of compensation but they all fall short. Any dollar figure assigned to 'fixing' this will almost certainly be arrived at more or less arbitrarily. The damage, in its fullest sense, remains incalculable.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

Max said:


> You can't really adequately compensate people and companies alike for this kind of damage. You can certainly try to apply various models of compensation but they all fall short. Any dollar figure assigned to 'fixing' this will almost certainly be arrived at more or less arbitrarily. The damage, in its fullest sense, remains incalculable.


I think adequate is possible, it's accurately that's the crap shoot. The environmental and economic damage will continue to evolve and impact decades after this well bore is plugged. When does one stop gathering data for a final assessment? 

Some crafty method of extrapolating income and economic conditions based upon pre-disaster data will likely be used to establish a base line. Then it will be compared to actuals. Over simplified, Delta = compensation. Then the attempt will be made for simplicity's sake to apply it in a standard way across the board. 

While this should be reasonably fair to many, because of so many individual variables, it will be grossly unfair (inadequate or overcompensating) for others.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

KC4 said:


> I think adequate is possible, it's accurately that's the crap shoot. The environmental and economic damage will continue to evolve and impact decades after this well bore is plugged. When does one stop gathering data for a final assessment?
> 
> Some crafty method of extrapolating income and economic conditions based upon pre-disaster data will likely be used to establish a base line. Then it will be compared to actuals. Over simplified, Delta = compensation. Then the attempt will be made for simplicity's sake to apply it in a standard way across the board.
> 
> While this should be reasonably fair to many, because of so many individual variables, it will be grossly unfair (inadequate or overcompensating) for others.


Placing all of the pay-outs in the hands of a third party is a gross miscalculation on Obama's part. As much as BP needs to take responsibility, it also needs to be able to exercise due diligence in how the compensation is handled. It would be a shame to see A Democrat Party croney pissing away the money instead of ensuring actual damages are compensated.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Placing all of the pay-outs in the hands of a third party is a gross miscalculation on Obama's part. As much as BP needs to take responsibility, it also needs to be able to exercise due diligence in how the compensation is handled. It would be a shame to see A Democrat Party croney pissing away the money instead of ensuring actual damages are compensated.


Yep! Every bit as bad as a BP crony pissing it away.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> Yep! Every bit as bad as a BP crony pissing it away.


It needs to be done within a judicial framework--but an accelerated one. Handing it over to one man, Ken Feinberg, is a mistake.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Watching the oil gushing out of the underwater pipe, day in and day out, I was reminded of Disney's "The Sorcerer’s Apprentice". The original story was a poem written in 1797 by Goethe. Der Zauberlehrling is well-known in the German-speaking world. I recall the story and especially the line Die Geister, die ich rief ("The spirits that I called"). Underlying the story is the maxim “Be Prepared”. “Don’t start something you can’t stop”.

YouTube - Fantasia 1940 - The Sorcerer's Apprentice


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

The Disney animation of that tale is a great one, too... Mickey Mouse as the hapless apprentice. You're right, Dr. G.... it's an uncanny, discomfiting parallel.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Max said:


> The Disney animation of that tale is a great one, too... Mickey Mouse as the hapless apprentice. You're right, Dr. G.... it's an uncanny, discomfiting parallel.


Sad, but all too true, Max. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I thought I saw a hippopotamus doing ballet on the bottom of the Gulf.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

That was a Rorschach oil blob... the gulf is lousy with 'em these days.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> That was a Rorschach oil blob... the gulf is lousy with 'em these days.


You're the one drawing all the dirty pictures.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Meanwhile, half a world away...





> Forest and farmland were now covered in a sheen of greasy oil. Drinking wells were polluted and people were distraught. No one knew how much oil had leaked. "We lost our nets, huts and fishing pots," said Chief Promise, village leader of Otuegwe and our guide. "This is where we fished and farmed. We have lost our forest. We told Shell of the spill within days, but they did nothing for six months."
> 
> That was the Niger delta a few years ago, where, according to Nigerian academics, writers and environment groups, oil companies have acted with such impunity and recklessness that much of the region has been devastated by leaks.
> 
> 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.


(The Guardian)


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Macfury said:


> You're the one drawing all the dirty pictures.


Yeah, you're right. The oil spill is hunky-dory. Much ado about nothing. Capitalism will save the day!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> Yeah, you're right. The oil spill is hunky-dory. Much ado about nothing. Capitalism will save the day!


The Rorschach joke:



> A man goes to see a psychologist who decides that she will administer the Rorschach Inkblot test. She shows the man the first inkblot and he says he sees a man and a woman making love at the beach. In the second, a man and a woman making love in a hot-tub. The third, he says, has a man and a woman making love in a park. In all of the inkblots, the man sees a couple making love. At the end of the test, the clinical psychologist looks over her notes and says, "You seem to have a preoccupation with sex." The man replies, "You're the one with all the dirty pictures."


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Ahhhhhhhh.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

Forgive me if this has been posted before. I haven't read every post in this thread.

This same scenario happened 31 years ago. While it made the news, it wasn't a hot topic at the time like it is now. Mexico had their disaster. It didn't affect the USA so the media gave it barely a nod. I do remember the incident but it wasn't daily headline news.

Mexican oil rig explosion June 3 1979

Make sure to watch the video for full impact.

You'd think the oil companies would have learned something from it. Apparently not.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Completely different ball game here. BP has finally admitted to a figure of about 60,000 BPD and that figure may still be only a third of the actual flow rate. Also this is about 5000 feet deeper than the previous well. Well head pressure is probably at least 20,000 psi and could be as high s 70,000 psi which will make stuffing this leak a very long and arduous battle.

Scary part is, should the relief well fail to do the trick in late August, it could actually make the problem worse. That would leave the nuclear option, if it succeeds that's one thing, but if it fails it might crack the formation wide open and that would be game over. Setting off a nuke with a mile of seawater above it is unchartered territory so one guess is as good as another as to what would happen.

Time for you religious types to pull out all the stops in your prayer sessions. Can't do any worse than BPs current efforts.


----------



## margarok (Jan 16, 2009)

FeXL said:


> BP bused in 100s of temp workers for Obama visit, state official says
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Always have been interested in the discussions here. I'm in Oklahoma, but spent a 6 month long "day at the beach" in Pensacola, Florida about 30 years ago. This is very sad indeed. A friend sent me a link to this site and this guys photos break my heart. He suggests/claims the workers in their white Hazmat suits were just a staged photo/op.

Richard Shephard Aerial Photography -


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

OK, this is SPAM. But it's interesting and relevant SPAM.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Barry is afraid to offend the unions so he won't allow skimmers from other countries to assist in the oil spill clean-up:

The President Does a Jones Act - WSJ.com



> *The President Does a Jones Act
> Why Obama turned down foreign ships to clean up the Gulf.
> *
> President Obama has repeatedly said his Administration is doing everything in its power to expedite the oil clean-up and mitigate the damage. But in the two weeks immediately after the spill, 13 foreign governments reached out and offered their assistance. The U.S. response? Thanks, but no thanks.
> ...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Happy that we have Nobel Prize winners on Barry's team, thinkin' this through for the folks in Louisiana, while the Coast Guard is shutting down skimmers.



> *BP Oil Spill: Against Gov. Jindal's Wishes, Crude-Sucking Barges Stopped by Coast Guard
> 60 Days Into Oil Crisis, Gulf Coast Governors Say Feds Are Failing Them
> *
> 
> ...


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

*Gulf residents outraged by BP CEO's yacht outing*

Quoted a bit more than I would normally as I have no idea how long the AP article will stick around on Yahoo News. This has gotta be a nightmare for "Duke" and the other BP spinmeisters.beejacon

Link to the entire article:
Gulf residents outraged by BP CEO's yacht outing - Yahoo! News



> By RAPHAEL SATTER and HOLBROOK MOHR, Associated Press Writers Raphael Satter And Holbrook Mohr, Associated Press Writers –
> 
> VENICE, La. – Just when it seemed Gulf residents couldn't get any more outraged about the massive oil spill fouling their coastline, word came Saturday that BP's CEO was taking time off to attend a glitzy yacht race in England.
> 
> ...


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

I see the nuclear option has started to move from the foil cap blog sites into the main stream media. A pretty good indicator that BP is convinced that the gusher cannot otherwise be plugged. 

The idea borders on insanity as a nuclear blast could just as easily crack the formation wide open. And would certainly add the element of radioactive contamination to the already fouled cauldron.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Talking about using an atomic bomb is just as good as Obama talking the hind legs off a donkey--there's not enough being done. Obama is still wrestling with exceptions to the _Jones Act_ allowing foreign skimmers to enter U.S. waters, but potentially offending his union supporters.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*BP Will Penalize Fishermen For Not Helping To Clean Up Their Toxic Mess.*



> Kindra Arnesen is the wife of a Gulf fisherman and she's been kicking butt on exposing BP abuses. In this latest news, she's discovered that BP is claiming is that if fishermen choose not to take part in the oil spill cleanup, BP will consider that as potential income declined and deduct it from their claims.
> 
> Kindra has previously talked about the serious health problems manifesting in those who have taken part in the cleanup.
> 
> In other words, if you didn't want to risk your health and expose yourself to their toxic waste, you're going to suffer financially as a result. But doesn't BP have a pretty sunflower logo?






+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.






(Crooks and Liars)


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Have to love the irony of this ad from the 90s









Edit: Looks like BP got this one removed.
Re-Edit: And now it's back, go figger. 

Anyways the ad said "BP bringing oil to Americas shores", replete with the BP logo


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Computer model predicts the spread of the BP oil spill after one year*





> “After one year, about 20% of the particles initially released at the Deepwater Horizon location have been transported through the Straits of Florida and into the open Atlantic,” explains Axel Timmermann from the International Pacific Research Center (IPRC).
> 
> The animation suggests that the coastlines near the Carolinas, Georgia, and Northern Florida could see the effects of the oil spill as early as October 2010 and that the main branch of the subtropical gyre (a ringlike system of ocean currents that rotate clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere) is likely to transport the oil film towards Europe, although strongly diluted.


(GizMag)


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*27,000 abandoned oil and gas wells in Gulf of Mexico ignored by government, industry*





> Regulations for temporarily abandoned wells require oil companies to present plans to reuse or permanently plug such wells within a year, but the AP found that the rule is routinely circumvented, and that more than 1,000 wells have lingered in that unfinished condition for more than a decade. About three-quarters of temporarily abandoned wells have been left in that status for more than a year, and many since the 1950s and 1960s -- eveb though sealing procedures for temporary abandonment are not as stringent as those for permanent closures.


(New Orleans Times-Picayune / NOLA.net)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Obama will blame this on Eisenhower. "Some folks will say, 'this happened on your watch,' but I wasn't even born yet!"


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

CubaMark said:


> *Computer model predicts the spread of the BP oil spill after one year*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hey, not to worry... these computer models are the same things being used to predict global climate change, and _everybody_ knows that's just a big hoax to make Al Gore rich. We should just carry on and not change anything until scientists can *PROVE* human activity will have consequences in the *FUTURE*.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Hey, not to worry... these computer models are the same things being used to predict global climate change, and _everybody_ knows that's just a big hoax to make Al Gore rich. We should just carry on and not change anything until scientists can *PROVE* human activity will have consequences in the *FUTURE*.


Since we have some understanding of how ocean currents work, I can invest a little in the idea that this prediction might be correct. The climate models are just based on guesswork involving a flat earth and far more parameters than they can account for.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Macfury said:


> Obama will blame this on Eisenhower. "Some folks will say, 'this happened on your watch,' but I wasn't even born yet!"


Tell me about it. All he has to do is jump in his Delorean and go back and fix it.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Since we have some understanding of how ocean currents work, I can invest a little in the idea that this prediction might be correct. The climate models are just based on guesswork involving a flat earth and far more parameters than they can account for.


When did you get the Ph.D. in climatology that would allow you to make these criticisms on the basis of a rational understanding rather than simple ignorance?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> When did you get the Ph.D. in climatology that would allow you to make these criticisms on the basis of a rational understanding rather than simple ignorance?


I never accepted your premise that one needs a degree in climatology to understand flawed research or modeling. This is your unproven statement. If you have no confidence in your own judgment please don't map your insecurities onto others.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

great "i know you are, but what am I", but byranc is right.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I never accepted your premise that one needs a degree in climatology to understand flawed research or modeling.


Of course not  

Any guy off the street can do phase-space algebra, chaos math, non-linear dynamic simulations, and can reasonably criticize the work done by the experts in this field over the course of their lives while under the continuous scrutiny of their highly-competitive peers. And it's totally reasonable to presume that glaringly obvious flaws in their logic and methods would never get noticed, even after decades of rigorous criticism. I mean, these are _academics_... they never pay much attention to detail, right?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Thanks for the straw man, bryanc. If neither you, nor "any guy off the street" feel capable of commenting on these works, I trust your ability to self-assess.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Thanks for the straw man, bryanc.


In what way is my characterization of your position a strawman? You either have the credentials to make an informed judgement of this subject or you don't.

I don't, so I make no judgment of the science. You and a few others around here routinely accuse the scientists publishing this work of professional misconduct. That's a very serious allegation and I'd like to see you back it up.

Of course, you're free to make whatever wild accusations you like, but when called on it, you look like the 9/11 conspiracy nut who calls the investigations a "whitewash".


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc, you've already excluded yourself from discussing this through your self-confessed inability to understand it.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> bryanc, you've already excluded yourself from discussing this through your self-confessed inability to understand it.


I have excluded myself from criticizing the science. Not from criticizing the critics. Indeed, my whole point is that anyone who doesn't significantly exceed my expertise on this subject has no business criticizing the professionals. What I have seen here is that the people most loudly proclaiming the experts are wrong, know even less about the subject than I do.

It's like when I was a post doc in the US (Seattle), and hearing people criticizing a hockey game on TV because they didn't understand the offside rule. They thought the ref's were unfair because they kept stopping the play against one team. The fact that that team was breaking rules they didn't understand is exactly like the critics of the CRU scientists claiming they've done something illegitimate: you simply don't understand the rules.

If you really do have some significant expertise, by all means share your opinions, but if you're just another guy with an opinion, it's not worth the electrons inconvenienced in its transmission.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Wow... slick put-down, no question. Good line - gonna have to remember that one.

Although I have to say it sounds awfully anthropomorphic to speak of electronics being inconvenienced. Not very scientific, is it? But at least one can safely assume the electrons in question weren't outright humiliated!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> Wow... slick put-down, no question. Good line - gonna have to remember that one.
> 
> Although I have to say it sounds awfully anthropomorphic to speak of electronics being inconvenienced. Not very scientific, is it? But at least one can safely assume the electrons in question weren't outright humiliated!


It's an oldie. Not used often anymore.

bryanc, watching that kangaroo court in action reminds me a lot of the OJ Simpson trial. He was unequivocally acquitted of the charges.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Certainly, MF. On the internet, _everything_ is an oldie.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> Certainly, MF. On the internet, _everything_ is an oldie.



It _eventually_ becomes an oldie. bryanc is plucking over-ripe fruit.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

And you've never done that, natch.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> And you've never done that, natch.


All originals, Slapsy Maxy.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Oil "Devastated" Major Gulf Nesting Site*





> Oil from the Gulf of Mexico spill covers the breast of a royal tern chick recently hatched on Raccoon Island in a picture taken last week. Royal terns leave their nests within a day of hatching, which means the young birds may quickly encounter oil that's been washed ashore.
> 
> Part of Louisiana's Terrebonne Parish, the island is a protected sanctuary for breeding seabirds, including royal terns, sandwich terns, and brown pelicans.


(National Geographic)


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Why isn't BP paying every unemployed person in the US (and elsewhere) to hand-feed these birds, clean the beaches, rescue what wildlife can be saved, and generally mitigate the catastrophe they've caused?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Why isn't BP paying every unemployed person in the US (and elsewhere) to hand-feed these birds, clean the beaches, rescue what wildlife can be saved, and generally mitigate the catastrophe they've caused?


I agree with bryanc here. 

I believer this spill is being treated as political capital by the Whitehouse who hoped to use this to further an energy bill. BP funds are already being mentally divvied up by government departments who are more eager to see the money used to provide such important services as counseling for those traumatized by the spill. BP doesn't care because the Feds don't care. The birds are collateral damage.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Deepwater Horizon warning system disabled*



> Long before an eruption of gas turned the Deepwater Horizon oil rig into a fireball, an alarm system designed to alert the crew and prevent combustible gases from reaching potential sources of ignition had been deliberately disabled, the former chief electronics technician on the rig testified Friday.





> ...the rig had been operating with the gas alarm system in "inhibited" mode *for a year* to prevent false alarms from disturbing the crew.


(Washington Post)


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Feinberg: He's Not Writing Checks Because BP Hasn't Put Money In Liability Account Yet*



> There may be a perfectly reasonable explanation for this shocker. But then, considering how many things BP has misrepresented to regulators and the media, perhaps not so much. I have to say, between this and reports that BP is not paying its cleanup contractors, I wonder if this is a company that's planning to file for bankruptcy:






+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.






(Full story at Crooks & Liars)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> *Feinberg: He's Not Writing Checks Because BP Hasn't Put Money In Liability Account Yet*
> )


Susie doesn't have the scoop on this one. It happens to be in all of the major newspapers, but with a less sinister slant:

Feinberg says BP hasn't put money in escrow account yet | al.com



> BP spokesman Justin Saia said the company's agreement with the White House is still being finalized. "Funds will be made available immediately upon the conclusion of this process," he said.
> 
> The company has continued to pay claims while Feinberg waits to take over.
> 
> ...


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

I think an issue BP is running into is that they have consistently lied from day 1 so naturally one tends to look for the most sinister explanation. Problem is more often than not that sinister explanation proves to be correct.

6000 bpd turned out to be 60,000+bpd. Supposedly intact casing is now shown to be compromised. Just a couple of the BP deceptions but sufficient to show why trust is and should be totally lacking.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

But it's disingenuous to focus on one half of Feinberg's comments.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Oil spill glows under UV light*





> ...researcher Ping Wang pointed me towards his grad student's work with UV light. Turns out that the oil glows bright, head-shop fluorescent orange under UV light. Rip Kirby's ultra-powerful $1800 "Klingon Death Ray" ultraviolet spotlight lit up every particle of oil-stained sand, even in seemingly clean areas, and our footprints showed up Day-Glo orange.


(BoingBoing)


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*The damaging effects of the BP Spill: You ain't seen nothin' yet.*



> Mother Jones has pre-launched the magazine's September/October cover package online due to timeliness (for non-newsheads, this is the sort of thing Rolling Stone was criticized for not doing with the McChrystal interview). The short version: "BP and the government say the spill is fast disappearing--but dramatic new science reveals that its worst effects may be yet to come."
> 
> The Mother Jones articles "look past the recent positive spin on the Gulf oil spill aftermath, at effects of oil and dispersants on the deep ocean ecosystems that scientists are only just beginning to understand,"


(BoingBoing)


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Oil Spill? What Oil Spill? BP Posts Profitable Fourth Quarter*





> BP's annual report for 2010 notes the firm posted a loss of $3.7 billion, largely due to a total charge of $40.9 billion incurred by the Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster. But in the fourth quarter of 2010, BP actually pulled in a profit of $4.4 billion dollars, which has prompted the company to pay a small dividend of 7 U.S. cents on the share to its shareholders for the fourth quarter. This is pretty amazing for a company that was in the cross-hairs of many a politician, environmentalist, and banker for the better part of last year, thanks to its involvement in the worst oil spill disaster in U.S. history.


(FastCompany)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It's a big company. Had it been smaller it would have been harder hit. What's the point?


----------



## ErnstNL (Apr 12, 2003)

Not to defend the evil BP, but they sold a lot of semi-profitable oil fields and projects, which, due to the financial climate, were in high demand. They got top dollar instead of desperation pricing. Not a mention in the article about that strategy.
Very shrewd, BP. 
But what about the future of the Gulf??


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

ErnstNL said:


> Not to defend the evil BP, but they sold a lot of semi-profitable oil fields and projects, which, due to the financial climate, were in high demand. They got top dollar instead of desperation pricing. Not a mention in the article about that strategy.
> Very shrewd, BP.
> But what about the future of the Gulf??


A valid question, ErnstNL.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

*Possible New Oil Spill 100 By 10 Miles Reported in Gulf Of Mexico*

This can't be good...



> Black Swan Clusterflock +1. As if earthquakes, tsunamis, nuclear meltdowns and war was not enough, the Examiner now discloses that a replay of the BP oil spill could be in the making, sending WTI to the (super)moon, the economy collapsing, and Ben Bernanke starting the printer in advance of QE 666. To wit: "The U.S. Coast Guard is currently investigating reports of a potentially *massive oil sheen about 20 miles away from the site of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion last April*." There are no definitive reports yet, but we should now for sure within hours, if the Keppel FELS built TLP is indeed the culprit: "According to Paul Barnard, operations controller for the USCG in Louisiana, a helicopter crew has been dispatched to the site of the Matterhorn SeaStar oil rig, owned by W&T Offshore, Inc." And if preliminary reports are correct, BP will have been the appetizer: "Multiple reports have come in of a sheen nearly 100 miles long and 10 miles wide originating near the site." If confirmed, Obama can kiss tomorrow's Rio golf outing goodbye.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

> If confirmed, Obama can kiss tomorrow's Rio golf outing goodbye.


Not Obama. He'll have a position statement ready for this one by mid April, after all of the internal polling has been completed.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Shell given go-ahead to drill off Alaska*



> The keys to vast reserves of oil off the coast of Alaska may have been handed to Shell this week after President Barack Obama's administration granted it provisional permission to drill exploration wells in the Beaufort Sea's frigid waters despite fierce opposition from environmentalists.
> 
> "This is a disaster waiting to happen," said Holly Harris, a lawyer for Earthjustice, one of several groups decrying the approval by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement of Shell's drilling plans for the region off the northern edge of Alaska. "Today's decision is nothing more than the administration's decision to roll the dice with the Arctic."


(UK Independent)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Obama has played games with these Alaska leases for all of his presidency--wait and see. Still, better the U.S. handles the drilling than some country who doesn't care at all, operating a few miles outside U.S. territorial waters.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Still, better the U.S. handles the drilling than some country who doesn't care at all




This is like saying we should let the Church look after educating the natives, rather than leaving it so someone who doesn't care at all.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> This is like saying we should let the Church look after educating the natives, rather than leaving it so someone who doesn't care at all.


You could ban drilling in your own waters, then buy your own oil from Chinese investors who drilled a few miles away.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> You could ban drilling in your own waters, then buy your own oil from Chinese investors who drilled a few miles away.


Or ban drilling in your own waters and develop alternate fuels, so the Chinese investors have to borrow money from you instead of the other way around.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*BP Oil Spill Flow Rate Vastly Understated For Weeks, Emails Show
*











> Emails that attorneys representing a defendant in the BP oil spill case plan to introduce in February show for the first time that the oil company knew the massive scale of the 2010 blowout in the Gulf of Mexico weeks earlier than previously disclosed.
> 
> BP has long maintained that it provided full disclosure to the public and the federal government about its knowledge of the spill’s extent and did so promptly. The emails suggest otherwise.
> 
> BP has said in the past that it learned of the spill's full extent months after the April 2010 blowout. But the *emails indicate that the company knew almost immediately after the drilling rig exploded*, killing 11 workers and injuring 17, *that the spill may be extraordinarily large*.


(HuffingtonPost)


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*This story is far from over....*

*BP 'negligence' to blame for 2010 oil spill, judge rules*



> BP bears the majority of responsibility among the companies involved in the nation's worst offshore oil spill, a federal judge ruled Thursday, citing the energy giant's reckless conduct in a ruling that exposes the company to billions of dollars in penalties.
> 
> BP PLC already has agreed to pay billions of dollars in criminal fines and compensation to people and businesses affected by the disaster. But U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier's ruling could nearly quadruple what the London-based company has to pay in civil fines for polluting the Gulf of Mexico during the 2010 spill.
> 
> Barbier presided over a trial in 2013 to apportion blame for the spill that spewed oil for 87 days in 2010. Eleven men died after the well blew.





> The judge essentially divided blame among the three companies involved in the spill, ruling that BP bears 67 per cent of the blame; Swiss-based drilling rig owner Transocean Ltd. takes 30 per cent; and Houston-based cement contractor Halliburton Energy Service takes 3 per cent.
> 
> In his 153-page ruling, Barbier said BP made "profit-driven decisions" during the drilling of the well that led to the deadly blowout.
> 
> ...





> Government experts estimated that 4.2 million barrels, or 176 million gallons, spilled into the Gulf. BP urged Barbier to use an estimate of 2.45 million barrels, or nearly 103 million gallons, in calculating any Clean Water Act penalties. Both sides agreed that 810,000 barrels, or 34 million gallons, of oil escaped the well but were captured before it could pollute the Gulf.


(CBC)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Governments should set spill fines at actual per gallon cost plus actual damages, not some arbitrary limit.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Governments should set spill fines at actual per gallon cost plus actual damages, not some arbitrary limit.


I wonder how a government might determine "actual damages" in a case like the Gulf spill, when the company (and highly cooperative government agencies) actively worked to hide the real environmental damage, much of which is extremely long-term, and hidden at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico. Ecosystem damage on land is challenging enough to accurately cost-out... ecosystem damage hidden in the ocean, with a potential for much wider damage given that the nature of the environment itself -water- contributes to its spread, is enormously difficult on which to put a price...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> I wonder how a government might determine "actual damages" in a case like the Gulf spill, when the company (and highly cooperative government agencies) actively worked to hide the real environmental damage, much of which is extremely long-term, and hidden at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico. Ecosystem damage on land is challenging enough to accurately cost-out... ecosystem damage hidden in the ocean, with a potential for much wider damage given that the nature of the environment itself -water- contributes to its spread, is enormously difficult on which to put a price...


It is difficult to price, but it must be partially reflected in a per gallon spill price. The problem I have is that government regs limit damages to a certain maximum, which is ridiculous. It needs to be both open-ended--and fair. That is, we need to assess actual damages, not simply declare that the environment is priceless.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*BP's Deepwater Horizon spill has left tons of oil on the Gulf's floor*









(image via EPFL)​
Scientists have already reported finding what they called a 1,235-square-mile "bathtub ring" of oil on the floor of the Gulf of Mexico left over from the huge 2010 BP oil spill.

Now it appears this ring is part of a washroom set: A different team of scientists has found that up 10 million gallons of oil have created what can be called only a "bath mat" beneath the sediment of the gulf's floor.

First the ring. David Valentine and colleagues from the University of California at Santa Barbara wrote in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in October that about 10 million gallons of the spilled oil settled on the gulf's floor. Its size: about the size of the state of Rhode Island.

But what about the rest? As much as 200 million gallons of oil were spilled after the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, owned by BP and Anadarko Petroleum Corp., exploded off the coast of New Orleans, killing 11 workers on the rig, injuring 17 more, and allowing oil to gush into the gulf for nearly three months.

All that oil has been hard to find. But a team of scientists led by Jeff Chanton found between 6 million and 10 million gallons buried in the sediment at the bottom of the gulf about 60 miles southeast of the Mississippi Delta. Chanton is a professor of oceanography at Florida State University.

** * **​
The "bathtub ring" and "bath mat" metaphors may be lighthearted, and at first, Chanton said, he wondered whether the accretion of the oil and its sinking to the floor of the gulf might be benign, if not necessarily beneficial, to the aquatic ecosystem. After all, he told FSU's news department, the water was clarified and the oil had separated from the water.

But in the long term, he said, it was a problem because the "mat" of oil removes oxygen from the materials that make up the floor. That, in turn, makes it harder for bacteria to attack the oil and make it decompose.

"This is going to affect the gulf for years to come," Chanton said. "Fish will likely ingest contaminants because worms ingest the sediment, and fish eat the worms. It's a conduit for contamination into the food web."

(OilPrice.com via Business Insider)​


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Note that article is from 2015. It's not fresh news.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

True - but it's still fresher than the last post (by you) in 2014


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

*BP's Deepwater Horizon spill has left tons of oil on the Gulf's floor*

Seems like significant damage occurred. Do you think the payments by BP cover this, or not? It's not clear to me how we go from outrage to policy in this matter.

I get the sense that the preferred penalty is "more", not an evidence based penalty, acknowledging that information comes out later that could change our minds (ie. inform how to define future penalties).


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Policy does not set any clear price for damage as far as I can tell--it seems like more of an award. My gut tells me they got off lightly.



Beej said:


> *BP's Deepwater Horizon spill has left tons of oil on the Gulf's floor*
> 
> Seems like significant damage occurred. Do you think the payments by BP cover this, or not? It's not clear to me how we go from outrage to policy in this matter.
> 
> I get the sense that the preferred penalty is "more", not an evidence based penalty, acknowledging that information comes out later that could change our minds (ie. inform how to define future penalties).


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*‘We’ve been abandoned’: a decade later, Deepwater Horizon still haunts Mexico*

*BP denied the oil reached Mexico, but fisherman and scientists knew it wasn’t true. Ten years on, Mexican communities haven’t received a cent in compensation*

_‘I pray to God it never happens again’: US gulf coast bears scars of historic oil spill 10 years on_


(...)

Ten years later, Mexican communities have not received a single cent in compensation.

“To claim the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem has borders is absurd, discriminatory and defies scientific knowledge,” said Eduardo Rubio, an expert in soil and water pollution at the College of Biologists.

(...)

Before the BP disaster, 95% of the village made a living – directly or indirectly – from fishing in the lagoon which stretches 65 miles from Tampico, Tamaulipas to Tuxpan, Veracruz.

The lagoon was famous for prawns and oysters fishermen recall giving away because stocks were so abundant.

Now, youngsters are forced to migrate to find factory work in maquilas in faraway cities.

(...)

In 2010, the Saladero fishing cooperative registered 11,663kg of shrimp, 36kg of bass and 281,125kg of oysters. The decline has not been linear and publicly available official data is inconclusive, but in 2019, the co-op registered only 1,000kg of shrimp, 20kg of bass, and no oysters.

(...)

Yet back in 2011, Sergio Jiménez, a leading government oceanographer in Tamaulipas state, discovered the BP oil fingerprint more than 200 metres below sea level. Hydrocarbon fingerprints, like human ones, are unique.

The oil from Deepwater Horizon was propelled south by the deep underwater current – distinct from the surface current, according to Jiménez, who in 2013 testified in a Louisiana court tasked with managing hundreds of claims against BP.

But the case was dismissed after the court ruled that Mexico’s lawsuit, filed by the then president, Enrique Peña Nieto, just days before the deadline, superseded individual state claims.

The case trundled along until in 2018, the Mexican government withdrew the lawsuit and settled the case for $25.5m – absolving BP from responsibility for polluting Mexican waters. The secret deal, exposed in a joint investigation by BuzzFeed and the transparency group Poder, means the company no longer faces claims by any Mexican government entity.

Around the same time, the outgoing President Peña Nieto made several multimillion-dollar deals with BP. Hundreds of the company’s petrol stations have opened across the country.

(The Guardian)​


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Hello, Bigot.

Typical federal gov't FUBAR. Rake in the cash in some under the table subterfuge & leave the general population screwed. Sounds like every federal gov't I've lived under...


----------

