Louisiana oil disaster

Only good coming from this oil spill is I can now design a present continuous exercise for my first grade students.

Even they will be able to ask questions and formulate solutions for themselves about what happened in the past, what is happening now, and what will happen in the future with regards to this oil spill.

John Curry, from BP, explains how the funnel should work

A giant iron funnel being built in a bid to halt the huge spill from a Gulf of Mexico well will be deployed to the seabed on Thursday, BP says.

[button]bbc,http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8659398.stm[/button]

trial and error is for the first grade class

The Fox channel is pushing the idea that the liberals did it on purpose.

That’s just preposterous. Absolutely par for the course, though. And what’s worse, they go on and on chanting their mantra that they are ‘fair and balanced’, as if saying a lie over and over somehow makes it the truth.

Simply mindblowing… and scary to think that many of their devotees actually can’t see past the tripe, and choose to rely on Fox’s view of the world to inform their own. The worst thing is that they then go on to elect some of the most powerful people in the world.

Murdoch is a genuine prick.

Goebbelian defense? Lest they will be accused of actively spoiling the opening of the East coast to drilling? At least California stepped back… No, that would be too preposterous… :ponder: :loco:

[quote=“urodacus”]That’s just preposterous. Absolutely par for the course, though. And what’s worse, they go on and on chanting their mantra that they are ‘fair and balanced’, as if saying a lie over and over somehow makes it the truth.

Simply mindblowing… and scary to think that many of their devotees actually can’t see past the tripe, and choose to rely on Fox’s view of the world to inform their own. The worst thing is that they then go on to elect some of the most powerful people in the world.

Murdoch is a genuine prick.[/quote]

Not much different from left-leaning media speculating that the Times Square bomber was/is a right-winger angry at Obama:

These are all powerhouse icons of modern media.

Yeah, on the Foxy right they’re trying to spin this disaster, which is fully the fault of Big Oil and lax regulation, as “Obama’s Katrina”. :unamused:

Problem for Fox News in this attempt at spin is that the response of Obama and the Executive Branch was immediate and forceful.

I find it interesting that, inherent in this sentiment, is that they’re implying that big government should be doing something about this.

Tu quoque fallacy. You’re obliquely admitting that Fox is indulging in irresponsible journalism.

That makes a difference?

Oh well, I didn’t see Katie Couric during her interview call Mayor Bloomberg on his speculation that a right-winger was likely behind the Times Square bombing attempt.

And I find it disappointing that the US government isn’t doing much more to solve this. Way too slow. It should have immediately deployed navy experts to assist.

It is convenient that letting the disaster develop so now everyone is aware of it lets the Obama Admin have more weight to demonise off shore drilling. A very Bushian tactic.

I am against overuse of oil in the long run, but until there is a massive push for replacement technologies in as many areas as possible, in all countries, we must continue the reliance on oil. Which means more off shore drilling.

I’m not defending Fox. I didn’t see any Fox news report. I don’t watch Fox news.

I’m simply pointing out that the left seems to me to be guilty of the same type of speculation, but nobody here has chastized it on the same.

That makes a difference?

Oh well, I didn’t see Katie Couric during her interview call Mayor Bloomberg on his speculation that a right-winger was likely behind the Times Square bombing attempt.[/quote]
I don’t watch Katie Couric. And I didn’t see her mentioned in your cavalcade of quotations.

That makes a difference?

Oh well, I didn’t see Katie Couric during her interview call Mayor Bloomberg on his speculation that a right-winger was likely behind the Times Square bombing attempt.[/quote]
I don’t watch Katie Couric. And I didn’t see her mentioned in your cavalcade of quotations.[/quote]

I didn’t cite Couric because AFAIK she didn’t speculate. But, since you criticized the size of the media that I cited, I replied that Katie Couric, who is pretty big AFAIK, didn’t call Bloomberg on his wild speculation. Sin of omission? I suspect that she would have questioned an person who speculated that the spill was caused by liberals.

Whatever.

That makes a difference?

Oh well, I didn’t see Katie Couric during her interview call Mayor Bloomberg on his speculation that a right-winger was likely behind the Times Square bombing attempt.[/quote]
I don’t watch Katie Couric. And I didn’t see her mentioned in your cavalcade of quotations.[/quote]

I didn’t cite Couric because AFAIK she didn’t speculate. But, since you criticized the size of the media that I cited, I replied that Katie Couric, who is pretty big AFAIK, didn’t call Bloomberg on his wild speculation. Sin of omission?

Whatever.[/quote]
Well, you are right. My lefty friends here on the Forumosa cabal won’t be happy with me saying this, but I hereby chastize the left wing media for speculating about right wing terrorism in connection with the NYC bombing attempt.

Oil is still gushing into the sea at a rate of about 800,000 litres a day, but officials say working with only two leaks makes tackling the spill easier.

BP has told members of a US congressional committee that up to 9.5 million litres a day could spill if the leaks worsen.

[button]gulf oil spill,http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8662573.stm[/button]

Hope the leak doesn’t worsen.

Will the dome work? Guess by the weekend we will know.

At last a real journalist tells us what has happened and why:

[quote]Slick Operator: The BP I’ve known too well

Wednesday, May 5, 2010

by Greg Palast for Truthout.org
May 5, 2010

I’ve seen this movie before. In 1989, I was a fraud investigator hired to dig into the cause of the Exxon Valdez disaster. Despite Exxon’s name on that boat, I found the party most to blame for the destruction was … British Petroleum. That’s important to know, because the way BP caused devastation in Alaska is exactly the way BP is now sliming the entire Gulf Coast.

Tankers run aground, wells blow out, pipes burst. It shouldn’t happen but it does. And when it does, the name of the game is containment. Both in Alaska, when the Exxon Valdez grounded, and in the Gulf over a week ago, when the Deepwater Horizon platform blew, it was British Petroleum that was charged with carrying out the Oil Spill Response Plans (“OSRP”) which the company itself drafted and filed with the government.

What’s so insane, when I look over that sickening slick moving toward the Delta, is that containing spilled oil is really quite simple and easy. And from my investigation, BP has figured out a very low cost way to prepare for this task: BP lies. BP prevaricates, BP fabricates and BP obfuscates.

That’s because responding to a spill may be easy and simple, but not at all cheap. And BP is cheap. Deadly cheap.

To contain a spill, the main thing you need is a lot of rubber, long skirts of it called “boom.” Quickly surround a spill or leak or burst, then pump it out into skimmers or disperse it, sink it or burn it. Simple.

But there’s one thing about the rubber skirts: you’ve got to have lots of it at the ready, with crews on standby in helicopters and on containment barges ready to roll. They have to be in place round the clock, all the time, just like a fire department; even when all is operating A-OK. Because rapid response is the key. In Alaska, that was BP’s job, as principal owner of the pipeline consortium Alyeska. It is, as well, BP’s job in the Gulf, as principal lessee of the deepwater oil concession.

Before the Exxon Valdez grounding, BP’s Alyeska group claimed it had these full-time oil spill response crews. Alyeska had hired Alaskan Natives, trained them to drop from helicopters into the freezing water and set boom in case of emergency. Alyeska also certified in writing that a containment barge with equipment was within five hours sailing of any point in the Prince William Sound. Alyeska also told the state and federal government it had plenty of boom and equipment cached on Bligh Island.

But it was all a lie. On that March night in 1989 when the Exxon Valdez hit Bligh Reef in the Prince William Sound, the BP group had, in fact, not a lick of boom there. And Alyeska had fired the Natives who had manned the full-time response teams, replacing them with phantom crews, lists of untrained employees with no idea how to control a spill. And that containment barge at the ready was, in fact, laid up in a drydock in Cordova, locked under ice, 12 hours away.

As a result, the oil from the Exxon Valdez, which could have and should have been contained around the ship, spread out in a sludge tide that wrecked 1,200 miles of shoreline.

And here we go again. Valdez goes Cajun.

BP’s CEO Tony Hayward reportedly asked, “What the hell did we do to deserve this?”

It’s what you didn’t do, Mr. Hayward. Where was BP’s containment barge and response crew? Why was the containment boom laid so damn late, too late and too little? Why is it that the US Navy is hauling in 12 miles of rubber boom and fielding seven skimmers, instead of BP?

Last year, CEO Hayward boasted that, despite increased oil production in exotic deep waters, he had cut BP’s costs by an extra one billion dollars a year. Now we know how he did it.

As chance would have it, I was meeting last week with Louisiana lawyer Daniel Becnel Jr. when word came in of the platform explosion. Daniel represents oil workers on those platforms; now he’ll represent their bereaved families. The Coast Guard called him. They had found the emergency evacuation capsule floating in the sea and were afraid to open it and disturb the cooked bodies.

I wonder if BP painted the capsule green, like they paint their gas stations.

Becnel, yesterday by phone from his office from the town of Reserve, LA, said the spill response crews were told they weren’t needed because the company had already sealed the well. Like everything else from BP mouthpieces, it was a lie.

In the end, this is bigger than BP and its policy of cheaping-out and skiving the rules. This is about the anti-regulatory mania which has infected the American body politic. While the “tea baggers” are simply its extreme expression, US politicians of all stripes love to attack “the little bureaucrat with the fat rule book.” It began with Ronald Reagan and was promoted, most vociferously, by Bill Clinton and the head of Clinton’s de-regulation committee, one Al Gore.

Americans want government off our backs … that is, until a folding crib crushes the skull of our baby; Toyota accelerators speed us to our death; banks blow our savings on gambling sprees; and crude oil smothers the Mississippi.

Then, suddenly, it’s, “where was hell was the Government!” Why didn’t the government do something to stop it?

The answer is, because government took you at your word they should get out of the way of business, that business could be trusted to police itself. It was only last month that BP, lobbying for new deepwater drilling, testified to Congress that additional equipment and inspection wasn’t needed.

You should meet some of these little bureaucrats with the fat rulebooks. Like Dan Lawn, the inspector from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation who warned and warned and warned, before the Exxon Valdez grounding, that BP and Alyeska were courting disaster in their arrogant disregard of the rulebook. In 2006, I printed his latest warnings about BP’s culture of negligence.

When the choice is between Dan Lawn’s rule book and a bag of tea, Dan’s my man.


This just in: Becnel tells me that one of the platform workers has informed him that the BP well was apparently deeper than the 18,000 feet depth reported. BP failed to communicate that additional depth to Halliburton crews who therefore poured in too small a cement cap for the additional pressure caused by the extra depth. So it blew.

Why didn’t Halliburton check? “Gross negligence on everyone’s part,” says Becnel. Negligence driven by penny-pinching bottom-line squeezing. BP says its worker is lying. Someone’s lying here: the man on the platform – or the company that has practiced prevarication from Alaska to Louisiana?

Greg Palast investigated the Exxon Valdez disaster for the Chucagh Native villages of Alaska’s Prince William Sound. An expert on corporate regulation, Palast, now a journalist, authored the New York Times bestseller, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy.[/quote]
gregpalast.com/slick-operato … -too-well/

ouch

pretty damning from Palast, although it also seems to report the start of the blame game, just like in my office in taiwan when the shit hits the fan, everyone rushes into action to throw the hot potato to the next guy

I also wonder how much of blaming bp - which was very strong in that report is part of a more general americanize our assets protectionist policy?

BP can and does do good work, I think it’s BP that owns the oil well on Papua and that is an environmental haeven (for a primary extraction industry)

Therefore, i the main issue should be stressed that regulation is required and when it is required the business will comply, but unless they are forced to comply, then there will be disasters… now how many people are still in favour of privatized nuclear industry?..

Palast made a couple of errors, the most egregious being that the two spills are fundamentally different. Exxon-Valdez ran aground and spilled crude all over surface water which then got the sea life and birds. It mainly affected seabirds, otters and salmon and herring eggs.

Deep Horizon is a totally different beast. It’s leaking from the bottom of the ocean upward. As the crude oil escapes the ocean floor, it starts breaking apart by density into different layers all the way to the surface. It’s spread out over 5000 vertical feet and that’s why the booms aren’t effective. The current is pushing the oil to spread farther than the booms could contain because the boom’s only work on the surface oil plus lets say 20 feet down. It would contain the stuff at the top, but everything below the boom would continue to spread. That’s also why the Coast Guard’s attempt to burn the oil wasn’t effective here like it was in the Exxon-Valdez spill. For one the oil was too diluted over the 3 dimensions and it just wasn’t leaking fast enough to maintain the burn. The only way to stop the oil would be to plug the hole it’s leaking out of.

Any link to the Alyeska group? Only thing I could find was an investment firm out of Chicago, a resort in Alaska and a group travel agency.

[quote=“itakitez”]ouch

pretty damning from Palast, although it also seems to report the start of the blame game, just like in my office in taiwan when the shit hits the fan, everyone rushes into action to throw the hot potato to the next guy

I also wonder how much of blaming bp - which was very strong in that report is part of a more general americanize our assets protectionist policy?

BP can and does do good work, I think it’s BP that owns the oil well on Papua and that is an environmental haeven (for a primary extraction industry)

Therefore, i the main issue should be stressed that regulation is required and when it is required the business will comply, but unless they are forced to comply, then there will be disasters… now how many people are still in favour of privatized nuclear industry?..[/quote]

BP is saying also the fault may lie with the seller/manufacturer of the rig/equipment, a certain Transocean.

What does ‘going Cajun’ mean?