BS: off shore oil rig spill and more

Subject: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: open mike
Date: 01 May 10 - 11:19 AM

Even as the oil slick from the ruined Deepwater Horizon creeps onto the Lousiana shoreline, Reuters is reporting that another offshore drilling rig has overturned- this time among the inland waters near Morgan City, LA.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ed T
Date: 01 May 10 - 11:36 AM

There have been some science advancements on bioremediation of shorelines since Exxon Valdez, though they cannot turn back the damage from immediate impacts on coastal ecosystems:


http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/Publica

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ed T
Date: 01 May 10 - 11:38 AM

Possibly, a better link:

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/Publications/article/2007/26-11-2007-eng.htm

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Charley Noble
Date: 01 May 10 - 04:18 PM

And this thread is duplicating, as Open Mike has kindly pointed out, what another thread has already covered "Spill Baby Spill."

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 01 May 10 - 06:05 PM

Interestingly enough, the total casualty list in the US due to nuclear power plants is zero.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: open mike
Date: 01 May 10 - 08:10 PM

hmmm,when you count uranium and plutonium casualties, don't forget to
mining and disposal part of the nuclear fuel cycle and nuclear weapons reprocessing.

Also don't leave out the Radioactive waste which comes from a number of sources.

Depleted Uranium is used in manufacturing weapons and other products,
and there are military records of veterans having mysterious diseases
after returning from areas where these are in use.

see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_accidents#Civilian_nuclear_accidents

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_nuclear_disasters_and_radioactive_incidents

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 01 May 10 - 08:18 PM

"Interestingly enough, the total casualty list in the US due to nuclear power plants is zero."

Interestingly enough, the total reported known immediate casualty list in the US due to nuclear power plants is zero. Those 'locals' who are suffering unknown long terms effects are just not worth bothering about, probably. Any effects of the mining and disposal part of the nuclear fuel cycle and nuclear weapons reprocessing are also irrelevant....

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 01 May 10 - 08:56 PM

By 1984, 274 Canadian uranium miners had died of lung cancer. Ontario Royal Commission on the Health and Safety of Workers in Mines.
www.ccnr.org/uranium_deadliest.html#die

"Uranium Mining and Lung Cancer in Navajo Men," Samet et al., New England Jour. Medicine; abst. from Clin. Cancer Research 15.

"Uranium: Its Uses and Hazards," IEER Fact Sheet.
www.ieer.org/fctsheet/uranium.html

etc.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 May 10 - 03:17 PM

If it happened in Canada, Obama won't have to take responsibility for it.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 02 May 10 - 03:23 PM

Navajo miners worked on uranium prospects in Arizona and New Mexico, not Canada. But all of this started long before Obama and Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 02 May 10 - 03:29 PM

I'm quite familiar with the hazards of nuclear power. I'm also quite familiar with the hazards of using other means of power generation, which appear to be even more serious.

I don't see any alternative energy sources in the near future except for nuclear energy that will be able to satisfy an apparently incurable demand for energy. Parenthetically, it should be noted that coal burning releases a much greater amount of radioactive material into the atmosphere than does a fission power plane. And that reprocessing used nuclear waste--as is commonly done in other countries--- greatly reduces the need for extensive uranium mining.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 02 May 10 - 04:15 PM

Dick Greenhouse is essentially right. Much can be done to develop so-called green sources for home and personal use, but industrial requirements need either the fossil fuels or nuclear energy.

Uranium mining, with proper equipment and training, can be safe. Miners in the early days of uranium mining were not properly fitted out or trained in handling the materials, and had no tradition behind them, as did coal and other long-standing mining enterprises.

Re-use of waste and research on the techniques required to handle the unusable portions will eventually diminish the problems associated with nuclear energy.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 02 May 10 - 04:40 PM

"I don't see any alternative energy sources in the near future except for nuclear energy that will be able to satisfy an apparently incurable demand for energy"

Part of the solution is changing our way of life for this incurable demand for energy.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ed T
Date: 02 May 10 - 04:50 PM

"Part of the solution is changing our way of life for this incurable demand for energy"


That is a big task, since it impacts developing nations (ie China and India) with big populations and newer and growing consumer demands generated by industrial growth. We have seen the politics with Kyoto. While personal lifestyles is a factor, I suspect it is not only factor....and I note the posted message did refer to "part of the solution".

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Charley Noble
Date: 02 May 10 - 05:29 PM

There were in fact several civilian workers who died quite unpleasantly from exposure to radiation while working with experimental nuclear power plants in the States. The nuclear power plant advocates tend to exclude them from the body count. Then there was the utter disaster of Ukranian Chernobyl nuclear power plant in 1986, with three dozen workers almost immediately killed, and thousands more who have died since who lived in the surrounding area.

I'm still not convinced that nuclear power is worth the admittedly small risk of a catastrophic meltdown.

And it's my understanding that reprocessing spent nuclear fuel rods (high level radioactive waste) when successful still results in huge volumes of lower level radioactive waste.

The spent fuel pools which are now scattered around our country adjacent to nuclear power plants, or where the plants have been decommissioned, also make tempting targets for terrorists.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 02 May 10 - 06:06 PM

Charley, you don't have to worry for a while yet.
Coal and petroleum will continue to fuel most of our energy needs for quite a few years.

Admittedly, there are several unresolved problems with nuclear energy, that have yet to be solved. But they will be.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: open mike
Date: 02 May 10 - 06:08 PM

hmm...i posted a reply with info and links about casualties related to
uranium and plutonium exposure, in the mining, manufacturing and processing as well as Depleted Uranium (D.U.)

My aunt, who lived in Grand Junction colorado, lived in ahouse that
was built with uranium tailings in the mortar of the cement. She
had miscarriages, and later died from a rare form of cancer that
caused her extended misery. there are still problems in that town.

http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20091204/COMMUNITY_NEWS/912039976

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,878989,00.html

"GREEN" does not mean glow-in-the-dark day-glo green, it means
natural, as in chlorophyll green.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ed T
Date: 02 May 10 - 07:09 PM

And, then there is France:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf40.html

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: kendall
Date: 02 May 10 - 08:25 PM

I have grave concerns about nuclear power and the waste disposal, but I also wonder why Hiroshima and Nagasaki are so well and prosperous after 60 odd years after the nuclear blasts. Shouldn't those ares be radioactive?

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 02 May 10 - 08:30 PM

"Shouldn't those areas be radioactive?"

The radiation level returned to normal one year after the bombing

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Bobert
Date: 02 May 10 - 08:37 PM

The part that no one wants to talk about is our country's appitite for power... I mean, we burn lots of stuff because we think we can... Ya'll ever look at any major city from an airplane at night??? Lite up like a Christmas tree... Entire high rise buildings with virtually no one in them lite to the nines??? And heated and cooled to the nines, as well... Hey, there ain't no one in these buildings...

We drive because, ahhhhh, we can??? If everyone made one less trip a week then we could save one shit-load of energy...

But no one wnats to talks about conservation... That's was for Jimmy Carter... The jokes are endless by the Fat Cats who profit from our arrogant consumption about the Jimmy Carters of the world... Tree huggers!!! Socialists!!! No, worse... Liberals!!!

I mean, lets get real here, folks...

Sure, we gotta an energy problem but we also have a consumption problem and if we aren't willing to look at both then we are screwed...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: mousethief
Date: 02 May 10 - 08:49 PM

True dat, Bobert.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ed T
Date: 02 May 10 - 09:14 PM

The United States could completely stop emissions of carbon dioxide from coal-fired electric power plants within 20 years
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100430081731.htm

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 02 May 10 - 09:20 PM

The speed with which it is done depends as much on the will of the people and their elected representatives as it does on the technology.
I hope it comes about. But who is that shouting about their increaed fuel bills??

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: mousethief
Date: 02 May 10 - 09:36 PM

Who ISN'T shouting about increased fuel bills? I mean besides filthy rich megamillionares who have servants to handle such fiddly details.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 May 10 - 08:16 PM

Look at the cost in human lives to provide a given amount of coal power, compared to the SAME AMOUNT OF POWER from a nuclear plant.

Sure, include the cost of storage and long term radiation- BUT ALSO include the cost of mining the coal (black lung et al), and dealing with the ashes and acid rain. AND the radiation released by that coal- low level, but there is LOTS more coal used per Megawatt than uranium, so it adds up.

As Dick Greenhaus states,

"Parenthetically, it should be noted that coal burning releases a much greater amount of radioactive material into the atmosphere than does a fission power plane. And that reprocessing used nuclear waste--as is commonly done in other countries--- greatly reduces the need for extensive uranium mining. "

Even including the probable nuclear accidents (Estimated at 1 per 50 years per plant, which has been shown to be way high)) and cancer deaths, Nuclear is far safer than coal.




The only solution is to reduce energy use- which means to reduce population, or keep large parts of the world in primitive, pre-industrial conditions.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: mousethief
Date: 03 May 10 - 08:27 PM

Fortunately, given current birth rates, population reduction in the first world, where the energy pigs live, is coming soon.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 03 May 10 - 08:30 PM

Any volunteers for that Little Grass Shack in beautiful downtown Pittsburgh ?
Besides Bobert ?

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: GUEST,JTS
Date: 04 May 10 - 06:03 PM

Not to worry. The population in the "first" world is growing and will continue to do so by increased longevity and immigration as long as there is wealth and room to grow. Conservation is part of the answer but nothing can provide peak loads as cleanly and nukes.

Nuclear is not particularly clean or safe, but it is a lot cleaner and safer than fossil fuels. The Hiroshima article posted by Foolestroupe seems to have made a good point. A lot of the current fear of nuclear was born out of ignorant speculation and fanciful imagination. According to the media, The Hulk, and Spiderman and Godzilla and melting dirt all the way to China are possible results of nuclear accidents. On the other hand, dead coal miners and acid rain barely get covered.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 04 May 10 - 06:08 PM

Ed T-
"The authors outline strategies to make that phase-out possible. They include elimination of subsidies for fossil fuels; putting rising prices on carbon emissions; major improvements in electricity transmission and the energy efficiency of homes, commercial buildings, and appliances; replacing coal power with biomass, geothermal, wind, solar, and third-generation nuclear power; and after successful demonstration at commercial scales, deployment of advanced (fourth-generation) nuclear power plants; and carbon capture and storage at remaining coal plants. (emphasis mine dg))
    It should be pointed out that the only factors mentioned that have demonstrated large-scale capacity to date are elimination of subsidies, charging for carbon emissions, improving efficiency of homes, vehicles, buildings and appliances, and nuclear energy.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Bill D
Date: 04 May 10 - 06:34 PM

If I remember correctly, we came within about 20 minutes of Three Mile Island becoming something similar to Chernoybl....though probably on a smaller scale.

Two points...oil & coal are finite, though still usable, while nuclear power is not. *IF* we must take chances, nuclear is always there, with the proviso that the more plants, the more possibility of an eventual serious accident. And we STILL have not dealt with the problem of long-term storage of nuclear waste. I lived in Kansas 35 years ago when they were sure they were gonna store it in old salt mines 40 miles from me. Turns out salt migrates over a few thousand years.

We need to SEE just how far we can go with wind, solar, geothermal, etc... and limit both population and need for the dangerous forms of energy.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Bill D
Date: 04 May 10 - 06:52 PM

Hanford, Washington- where much of the current waste is 'stored'.

A trench at Hanford in the 50s

"Until 1970, solid low-level and transuranic waste at the Atomic Energy Commission's nuclear weapons facilities (shown here is Hanford Reservation, circa 1950s) was frequently disposed of in cardboard boxes. Once filled, this unlined trench would have been covered with dirt, leaving the cardboard to deteriorate and allowing the waste to contaminate the soil and leach into the groundwater."

They STILL have leaking containers and areas where old waste has never been dealt with. They have not only the problem of where to store it, but of how to transport there and in what sort of containers.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Donuel
Date: 04 May 10 - 07:25 PM

The Gulf Stream will transport much of the oil to Europe in about 4 months.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 04 May 10 - 08:09 PM

Wind currents in the northern Gulf of Mexico where the well is flowing tend to drive north and northeast, hence onshore, before any of the Loop Current waters flow out between Cuba and Florida into the Atlantic portion of the Stream.
Coastal areas of the northern and eastern Gulf would be devastated before then. If the spill fluids do enter the Loop and on into the main Gulf Stream, eastern Florida beaches and shore biota would be devasted.

http://www.oceanweather.com/data

National Geographic News, May 4, 2010
http://news.nationalgeographic.com

From National Geographic News:
"There's no predicting the exact movements of the oil spill- which is growing ay at least 5,000 bbls./day. But winds could push the slick south, where oil might get swept into the current."
........"If oil is swept up in the Loop Current (1-2 meters/sec.) "there's essentially no way to stop it" (T. Sturges, Prof. Em. oceanography, Florida State Univ.).

The coast could be affected as far north as Cape Hatteras.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ed T
Date: 04 May 10 - 08:17 PM

Interesting
http://ocean.tamu.edu/Quarterdeck/QD4.2/latex-4.2.html

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Donuel
Date: 04 May 10 - 08:20 PM

Thanks Q


PS Q was my fav in STNG

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Donuel
Date: 04 May 10 - 08:31 PM

It seems we have Haliburton to blame for not buying a remote controled emergency shut off valve for the under sea oil well now leaking. They refused to put one in last year because it cost too much. It would have cost half a million dollars.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 04 May 10 - 09:16 PM

The government regulatory agency could have demanded that the latest shut-off devices be required, but they are not insisted upon in U. S. offshore drilling (see previous posts- but I understand Haliburton has put them on Norwegian offshore drillers.

A question in my mind-
This well, and two more like it drilled by BP are some 35,000 feet to source; water depth is great and this one entered a formation with very high pressure, apparently not predicted. Just how safe is drilling given these conditions ?

Crist and Swartzenegger are backing away from their call for offshore drilling.
Rubio points to the many Gulf offshore wells that have been completed successfully, but few were to this depth, in this depth of water, or encountered high pressure under these conditions. He seems to be comparing fleas to elephants.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 May 10 - 09:36 PM

Rush Limbaugh says we should just let it go, the ocean will take care of it. Of course, he says, some turtles may be affected but "So what" he says.

He also says that Prince William Sound where the Exxon Valdez gushed 11 million gallons in 1989 is now "pristine'.

It is NOT. Pick up a rock and there is sludge below it.

I know they say that Limbaugh is just an "entertainer" and should be listened to on that basis. I say he is a treasonous, ignorant, rabble-rousing loudmouth with a seriously flawed but elevated opinion of himself.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Bobert
Date: 04 May 10 - 10:24 PM

Yeah, Eb, and he has millions of listeners who are just like him... That is tghe scarey part... Ignorant people seem to think that ignorance is the in thing...

Daddy Bush started all this kinda thinkin' and if anyone should be held for treason it is Daddy Bush who played the "elitist" card any time intellegent people called him on his policies... Now, it's second nature...

"Well, Ralph, these pinheaded intellectuals don't know squat about __________________..."

That's all Daddy Bush's....

So now we have sufficeintly dumbed down population who think that if the oil companies blame the liberals for the spill while telling folks "Don't worry, be happy" that the liberals will take the blame for anything bad that happens to anyone hurt by this spill???

This is just how insane America is!!!

Beam me up, Scottie... There just aren't too many people left who understand squat...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: mousethief
Date: 05 May 10 - 12:55 AM

GUEST,JTS: Not to worry. The population in the "first" world is growing and will continue to do so by increased longevity and immigration as long as there is wealth and room to grow.

Nope. Do your homework. All the first world countries except the US are below replacement, with both native births and immigration/emigration taken into account. Read the book Fewer by Ben J. Wattenberg. It's well footnoted and he knows his stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 May 10 - 09:12 AM

The native population are below replacement, but those countries are beginning to experience the scourge of runaway immigration, just like the US. Why would you think the southern countries in Europe are the ones with economic problems, Spain, Italy, Greece, Portugal --that's where the illegals from Africa go first. It's something they share with California.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: mousethief
Date: 05 May 10 - 11:37 AM

Read the book. Even with immigration figured in, they're still below replacement. He did the research. You are just guessing.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 May 10 - 11:40 AM

When did he do his research? The situation in Europe is constantly changing, and Wattenberg is not the only authority.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: pdq
Date: 05 May 10 - 11:52 AM

Here is a book review...

                                                             Fewer by Ben J. Wattenberg

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Stu
Date: 05 May 10 - 12:02 PM

"Re-use of waste and research on the techniques required to handle the unusable portions will eventually diminish the problems associated with nuclear energy."

Yeah, like sticking it in a dirty bomb or whatever.

Only humans could be so stupid as to ignore the massive amount of free energy bathing this planet on a daily basis from the sort of nuclear power their puny minds can only dream of and still want to build their own.

Chernobyl? Three-Mile Island? Doh!

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 May 10 - 12:13 PM

I'm not sure what Wattenberg was researching, but not everybody agrees. This from Wikipedia:


Annual births have levelled at about 134 million per year since their peak at 163 million in the late 1990s and are expected to remain constant. However, deaths are only around 57 million per year, and are expected to increase to 90 million by 2050. Because births outnumber deaths, the world's population is expected to reach 9 billion between 2040 [4][5] and 2050[2].

The rapid increase in human population over the course of the 20th century has raised concerns about whether Earth is experiencing overpopulation. The scientific consensus is that the current population expansion and accompanying increase in usage of resources are linked to threats to the ecosystem,[6] such as rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, global warming, and pollution.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Stu
Date: 05 May 10 - 12:25 PM

Thank the maker for wikipedia.

Specialist subject: The Absolutely Bleedin' Obvious.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Amos
Date: 05 May 10 - 12:26 PM

The oil mass--which is continuing to grow--is dangerously close to picking up the Gulf Loop current which would carry a lot of it around the end of Florida and along the East Coast via the Gulf Stream current.

If it goes much further south, as its presently seems to be doing, it may develop into a God-awful catastrophic mess that will make the Valdez look like a kindergarten accident, with long-range economic impacts.

A

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Bill D
Date: 05 May 10 - 01:38 PM

Parts of that review of Wattenberg bemuse me..

"Now most populations are in decline, include the Muslim world. With shrinking populations go declining defence budgets. America is the last remaining Western democracy that still has sufficient numbers to sustain a viable defensive structure.

That sounds very much like someone who is using supposed 'research' to support some political position.

" The global downward trend in fertility is both long-term and pronounced. The numbers are alarming. There are now 63 nations with below-replacement fertility.
The replacement level is a Total Fertility Rate of 2.1 children per women."

His 'total fertility rate', IF he is correct, is not a good indicator of 'alarming'. (I am highly suspicious of the figure given for China.)

IF the wikipedia figure are correct, the 'leveling off' point of 9 billion in 40-50 years is what is alarming. We are having problems feeding 6.5 billion.....and IF his projections and figures about TFR indicating an over all decline in population coming in the long run, we would STILL need many years to get below the danger zone we are in now!

   The only point he makes that I agree with is that the average age will rise for awhile, making an extra burden on the young supporting the old..until THAT levels out. But that is a matter of adjustment...in economics and attitude. (Yes, I realize that those whose basic concept OF economics demands growth will fight this idea. Pooh!)

Finally, one of the things humans have proven they can do well when the need arises is breed! There is little danger that we will just forget how, and disappear.

What we would have, if we did reduce the population to somewhere around 3 billion..(as it was about 1950 of so).. is technology developed to handle 5-6 billion, and more land & resources per capita. Not a bad deal.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Bill D
Date: 05 May 10 - 02:05 PM

Ok... I see Ben Wattenberg is a big wheel in American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.... a very conservative think-tank.

He has TV programs where he analyzes and advises on fiscal matters from a conservative standpoint. I don't think that increases my confidence about his research being unbiased. He has an agenda to push.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Amos
Date: 05 May 10 - 02:48 PM

Given that over-population of the planet is considered by so many to be such a major source of human problems, why would declining numbers be alarming, unless someone was just trying to alarm folks on general principle. Maybe he thinks it will deplete the available reserves of cannon-fodder.


A

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: pdq
Date: 05 May 10 - 03:54 PM

Part of a biography of Ben Wattenberg:

"Wattenberg was an aide and speech writer to President Lyndon B. Johnson from 1966 to 1968. He has served as an advisor to both Senator Hubert Humphrey's race for the Senate in 1970 and Senator Henry Jackson's contest for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1972 and 1976, years when Mr. Wattenberg also helped write the Democratic National Platform.

Wattenberg was appointed by President Carter to serve on the Presidential Advisory Board for Ambassadorial Appointments, and as a public member of the American delegation to the Madrid Conference on Human Rights. In 1981, he was appointed by President Reagan to the Board of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, serving for ten years and becoming vice-chairman. In 1991 he was appointed by President Bush to the Task Force on U.S. Government International Broadcasting. In 1992, he was appointed by Speaker Thomas Foley to the Commission on Broadcasting to the People's Republic of China.

Ben J. Wattenberg graduated from Hobart College in 1955, and was awarded an honorary Doctor of Laws degree from Hobart in 1975. He was born in 1933 in the Bronx, New York."

As most employees of PBS, he ain't real conservative by most people's standards.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 May 10 - 04:47 PM

The only question that remains to be answered is: Why is he so misinformed?

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: pdq
Date: 05 May 10 - 04:51 PM

His claim that only 3% of the US population is illegal is not just "misinformed" it is absurd.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 05 May 10 - 05:53 PM

U. S. population 310 million.
Replacement rate c. 2.05 children/woman which is roughly the replacement rate.
Say max. est. of 20 million illegal immigrants; illegals are 6 percent.

Many experts est. illegals at 10 percent; thus about 3 percent of total population.

We need more to work on repairing the damage from the oil spill.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Bill D
Date: 05 May 10 - 06:06 PM

Why is a partial bio of Wattenberg showing he is an educated fellow supposed to convince me that he is current to be trusted? I know LOTS of fairly intelligent, educated guys who I am aware have an agenda to push. He is right now locked into a **conservative** viewpoint....which makes his analysis of various environmental issues less than neutral.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 May 10 - 06:14 PM

"He is right now locked into a **conservative** viewpoint....which makes his analysis of various environmental issues less than neutral. "

Yet the fact that Gore et al are locked into a **liberal** viewpoint makes them paragons of fairness???

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: pdq
Date: 05 May 10 - 06:16 PM

Assuming that the US population is 310 million and that illegals are 10%, that is 31 million illegals.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Bill D
Date: 05 May 10 - 06:37 PM

"Yet the fact that Gore et al are locked into a **liberal** viewpoint makes them paragons of fairness??? "

Gore doesn't work for an instuitution which is specifically organized to promote 'liberal' viewpoints. He has been following and writing on environmental issues for a couple of decades **as** an amateur scientist.

You simply can't compare their 'fairness' by their general political orientation. I HAVE read some opinions by conservatives that I thought were honest and 'fair', whether I agreed with all their conclusions or not.

The point now is that **WATTENBERG** was being suggested as a trusted researcher on THIS topic...not whether you can find another way to claim 'double standard'. Let's for once debate a point on the point, not on whether you can find some vague counter-example.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 May 10 - 06:47 PM

BillD,

The POINT is that ANY attempt to question Gore et al as an "unbiased" viewpoint was met with derision and personnal abuse- AND YOU MADE NO COMMENT.

SO what right have you NOW to comment on the topic???

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: pdq
Date: 05 May 10 - 06:54 PM

"The point now is that **WATTENBERG** was being suggested as a trusted researcher on THIS topic..." ~ Bill D

By whom. I think Ben Wattenberg is full of crap. Blunt enough?

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 May 10 - 07:20 PM

I thought the current estimate of the number of illegal aliens in this country is 11 million. Given 309 + million in total population, the resulting figure is far from being 'absurd'.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 05 May 10 - 08:25 PM

"oil & coal are finite, though still usable, while nuclear power is not." What does that mean?

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Bobert
Date: 05 May 10 - 08:39 PM

Not so funny thing about "illegals" is that if they all just went home and didn't do the dirty work ,usch as picking crops, then our economy would suffer... There is a reason they are here... It's called jobs... Jobs that "legals" apparently are unwilloing to do at the labor rates that are being paid... When you go to the grocery store and see that you can buy fruits and vegetables are a somewhat reasonable cost think about what that cost would be if the "illegals" weren't here and farmers had to pay a decent wage...

Hey, not that I am in support of crappy wages that farmers pay "illegals", mind you, but there's more to the story than "There's a reason they are called illegals"... I mean, if we could have a dialogue about immigration without the Tea Party screamers then it might be fruitfulll (pun intended) but when the right wing just wants to scream bumpersticker positions that have been drilled into their little minds then the discussion is over before it can get started...

Also, there are millions of IS born citizens who have a parent or parents who are illegal... That creates another area for disussion without the screamers who really don't wnat to learn anything new...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 05 May 10 - 09:52 PM

Shucks, Bobert, forget that fruit stuff. But adding a bit to your post-
The shucker at my favorite oyster bar at the hotel where I often stay in the U. S. is from El Salvador. He shucks for about eight hours, five of those on the evening shift. The oysters come out at about $1.50 each. If legal labor did the job, the oysters would be closer to $2.50 each. I couldn't afford to eat as many and I would look for other accommodations. Those oysters are a lot more important than your fruit.

And he helps support a kid born in the states. That kid would cost the taxpayer a hell of a lot more if he became a ward of the state.
There is no way that 3/4 of the states would ever approve an amendment to deprive the kids of their citizenship.

Math is funny.
310 million approx. legals on the census (and assuming that illegals don't get counted).
Assume 10 million illegals. That makes 320 million. That 10 million is 3 percent.
Assume 20 million illegals. That makes 330 million bodies. That 20 million is 6 percent.

Nope, we need more of them!

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 May 10 - 09:59 PM

"Also, there are millions of IS born citizens who have a parent or parents who are illegal... That creates another area for disussion without the screamers who really don't wnat to learn anything new..."


             We simply need to more closely define the 14th Amendment, and pass legislation so that this doesn't happen in the future.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: mousethief
Date: 06 May 10 - 01:21 AM

We already have legislation. That's why they're called "illegals". What they're doing is against the law.

Oh, you mean unconstitutional legislation. Why didn't you say so?

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 May 10 - 07:11 AM

Obviously we don't want to pass illegal legislation, it would just get struck down in the courts, and if we have to pass a constitutional amendment, we'll do that. That's what the 14th Amendment is, after all.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Bill D
Date: 06 May 10 - 10:08 AM

"oil & coal are finite, though still usable, while nuclear power is not."

It means, though the grammar is faulty, that we will eventually run out of fossil fuels, while nuclear is, for all practical purposes, unlimited.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

and NO, Bruce..the point is NOT about Gore...you are hoping to make it a point, in line with your continuing theme of 'double-standard'. Wattenberg is either a good source, or he is not....no matter what anyone thinks about Gore & others.

(It makes me wonder whether, in a conservative forum with only a few liberals, you would carefully make note of perceived conservative double-standards for fairness sake.)

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: mousethief
Date: 06 May 10 - 11:58 AM

Is the quality of a source a binary good/bad switch? That seems mighty simplistic. I'm willing to guess it's more of a spectrummy kind of thing.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 May 10 - 01:17 PM

BillD,

"Wattenberg is either a good source, or he is not....no matter what anyone thinks about Gore & others."

First part true- but MY POINT was that you did NOT use that standard in insisting Gore WAS a good source. You make Wattenberg meet standards that you argued against when they were applied to Gore.




"(It makes me wonder whether, in a conservative forum with only a few liberals, you would carefully make note of perceived conservative double-standards for fairness sake.) "

Of course I would- and when there are enough conservatives here for their viewpoint to be accepted without proof, I'll be pointing out their flaws- UNLIKE what you have done in only demanding that those you oppose have to demonstrate their claims, and those you agree with get to ride without question.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Donuel
Date: 06 May 10 - 01:27 PM

A $500,000 acousticly triggered shut off valve would have stopped this oil spill in its tracks. Two other countries insist that the acoustic triggers are always used for wells in their off shore waters.
Since the energy policies over seen by Dick Cheney were put in effect, this country has no such policy to insist upon the acuostic shut off valve.

Even with the fresh meat of another attempted terrorist attack, Dick Cheney (and his daughter) is uncharasticly silent this month.
His fingerprints are all over this horrendous spill.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 06 May 10 - 03:28 PM

Donuel, are you trying to restore some sense to the thread?
Some (too many) only want to argue nonsensically (is what's his name right or wrong) when there are other sources that they are too lazy or dumb to google for.

Would the acoustically triggered valve have worked? Possibly!
I agree that the latest devices should be mandatory when drilling at the cutting edge of ability, and when the target source is unknown in its characteristics.

Lets review a bit-
Reporters (Wall Street Journal) correctly report that "U. S. regulators don't mandate the use of the remote-control device on offshore rigs, and the Deepwater Horizon, hired by oil giant BP PLC, didn't have one. With the remote control, a crew can attempt to trigger anunderwater valve that shuts down the well even if the oil rig itself is damaged or evacuated."
Now note this-
"The efficacy of the devices is unclear. Major offshore blowouts are rare, and it remained unclear.... whether acoustic switches have ever been put to the test in a real-world accident. .......
"Remote control systems such as the acoustic switch, which havw been tested in simulations, are intended as a last resort."
"Nevertheless, regulators in two major oil-producing countries, Norway and Brazil, in effect, require them...."
Norway has required them since 1993.

"The U. S. Interior Department's Minerals Management Service (MMS) says it decided the remote control device wasn't needed because rigs had other back-up plans. to cut off a well."
"The UK, where BP is headquartered, doesn't require the use of acoustic triggers."

Now for some comment. The rig cost about $560 million. The device and controls costs $500,000 as Donuel stated.
Not using the latest devices seems to be cost-cutting pennies that endanger a huge investment- the rig plus the exploration research by many expert employees plus operation of the rig, transport, etc.- including many minor expenses of $500,000 or more.

Moreover, the well verges on the experimental; 5000 feet of water, total depth 35,000 feet, a target whose characteristics were unknown.
It seems to me that extreme care and the latest equipment should have been used.

Most of the offshore wells drilled in the past 20 years are to easily reached targets most of whose characteristics can be predicted fairly safely. Perhaps the device is not needed for these wells. But the target, in this case, like 3-4 others drilled by BP, are not to predictable targets using long-tested equipment .
This well hit a high-pressure formation that ejected its fluids with unexpected force.

The article is notable for some excellent diagrams- take a look!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870442350475212031417936798.html
Or just get the Wall Street Journal online, Apr 20, 2010, report by Gold, Casselman and Chazan, "Leaking Oil Well Lacked Safeguard Device."

Would the device have saved the well? An unknown situation. Dunno!

Who was head of the Department of Interior in 1993 (or earlier) when the device was engineered?
It is stupid to blame Obama, Cheney or other politician without knowing the chain of command and the history of the decisions by MMS.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 06 May 10 - 05:37 PM

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ed T
Date: 06 May 10 - 05:55 PM

Major oil spills

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001451.html

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ed T
Date: 06 May 10 - 06:00 PM

Another interesting site on Oil Rig Disasters

http://home.versatel.nl/the_sims/rig/index.htm

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Amos
Date: 06 May 10 - 06:13 PM

Incident        Fatalities
        1. Piper Alpha
Occidental's Piper Alpha platform was destroyed by explosion and fire in 1988. 167 workers were killed in the blaze.        167
        2. Alexander L. Kielland
In 1980, the accommodation rig Alexander L. Kielland capsized during a storm after a leg support brace failed.        123
        3. Seacrest Drillship
The Seacrest drillship capsized in 1989 during Typhoon Gay, with the loss of 91 crew.        91
        4. Ocean Ranger
A ballast control malfunction caused the Ocean Ranger to capsize during a ferocious storm in the North Atlantic in 1982, with the loss of all hands.        84
        5. Glomar Java Sea Drillship
Another storm fatality, the Glomar Java Sea capsized and sank during Typhoon Lex in 1983 with the loss of all on board.        81
        6. Bohai 2
In 1979, the jack-up Bohai 2 capsized and sank in a storm while on tow off the coast of China.        72
        7. Brent Field Chinook Helicopter
A Chinook helicopter shuttle between the Brent Field and Sumburgh crashed into the North Sea in 1986 with only two survivors.        45
        8. Enchova Central
During a blowout on the Enchova Central off Brazil, 42 workers lost their lives attempting to evacuate the platform.        42
9- C. P. Baker Drilling Barge
Built in 1962 using an uncommon catamaran design, the C. P. Baker drilling barge burned and sank after a shallow gas blowout.        22
        9- Mumbai (Bombay) High North
A support vessel collided with Mumbai High North in 2005, rupturing a riser and causing a major fire that destroyed the platform.        22
        9- Usumacinta
Storm winds caused the Usumacinta jack-up to strike the adjacent Kab-101 platform, resulting in a fatal evacuation and blowout in 2007.        22

(The numbers after each entry are the fatalities incurred).

From the same source, linked upthread, concerning blow-outs and spillages from them:

Five Worst Blowouts        Volume Released
        1. Sedco 135F and the IXTOC-1 Well
In 1979, the IXTOC-1 blowout flowed uncontrollably in the Bahia de Campeche, Mexico until it was capped 9 months later.        3,500,000 barrels
        2. Ekofisk Bravo Platform
Phillips Petroleum's Ekofisk B platform experienced an 8-day oil and gas blowout in 1977 during a production well workover.        202,381 barrels
3. Funiwa No. 5 Well
Oil from the 1980 Funiwa 5 blowout polluted the Niger Delta for 2 weeks, followed by fire and the eventual bridging of the well.        200,000 barrels
        4. Hasbah Platform Well 6
Drilled in 1980 by the Ron Tappmeyer jack-up, exploratory well No. 6 blew out in the Persian Gulf for 8 days and cost the lives of 19 men.        100,000 barrels
        5. Union Oil Platform Alpha Well A-21
The 1969 Union Oil Platform A blowout lasted 11 days but continued leaking oil into the Santa Barbara Channel for months afterwards.        80,000 barrels

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 06 May 10 - 06:37 PM

The IXTOC-1 well, mentioned above by Amos and myself, was drilling only 11,800 feet below the seafloor, and the water was shallower than in the present blowout. It still took 9 months and two relief rigs to finally stop the flow.

Drilling into new, unknown horizons will always present blowout danger.

There are sufficient reserves world wide that such dangerous drilling should not be necessary.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: mousethief
Date: 06 May 10 - 10:56 PM

From the Washington Post:

A rule change two years ago by the federal agency that regulates offshore oil rigs allowed BP to avoid filing a plan specifically for handling a major spill from an uncontrolled blowout at its Deepwater Horizon project - exactly the kind of disaster now unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico.

Oil rig operators generally are required to submit a detailed "blowout scenario." But the federal Minerals Management Service issued a notice in 2008 that exempted some drilling projects in the Gulf under certain conditions.

BP met those conditions, according to MMS, and as a result, the oil company had no plan written specifically for the Deepwater Horizon project, an Associated Press review of government and industry documents found.

In industry in bed with the regulators? From the same article:

In 2008, the Interior Department took disciplinary action against eight MMS employees who accepted lavish gifts, partied and - in some cases - had sex with employees from the energy companies they regulated. An investigation cited a "culture of substance abuse and promiscuity" involving employees in the agency's Denver office.

MMS workers were given upgraded ethics training.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 07 May 10 - 02:27 PM

If the MMS is lax or corrupt, 'accidents' are bound to happen.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 07 May 10 - 04:08 PM

A newsletter just received reports that Google has set up a site where you can track the progress of the gulf spill.

I've only taken a cursory look at the page about the setup, and it may require an add-on ap to the basic Google Earth, so it may be more than just a "click and look" opportunity; but for those interested the link I found to the Google description is http://google-latlong.blogspot.com/2010/05/mapping-gulf-oil-spill-in-google-earth.html

Especially for those concerned about when/if the spill might reach areas remote from the gulf, getting the setup in place now might be of value a few months from now(?).

John

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 07 May 10 - 05:11 PM

That big cylinder is experimental. Fingers crossed, but my prediction is only partial success at best.

Thanks for the link.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: mousethief
Date: 07 May 10 - 05:57 PM

Is this thing cappable? 35,000 feet is a helluva lot of water. Are we looking at a permanent oil slick in the Gulf?

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: michaelr
Date: 07 May 10 - 06:28 PM

In the news today: BP's application for the Deepwater Horizon well was approved without an Environmental Impact Report. They were given an exemption intended for projects mith minimal impact such as building outhouses or hiking trails.

It's inconceivable this could have happened without someone getting paid off.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Bill D
Date: 07 May 10 - 06:52 PM

not 35,000 ft....ONE mile..

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: mousethief
Date: 07 May 10 - 07:42 PM

Oh. I wonder where I got the 35k number? [bangs side of head]

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 May 10 - 07:46 PM

depth of well under the seabed.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: mousethief
Date: 07 May 10 - 11:10 PM

Thanks mate. [continues banging head]

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 16 May 10 - 06:03 PM

Refresh

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Alice
Date: 18 May 10 - 06:26 PM

There are some interesting photos at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration tracking the oil leak.

http://www.noaa.gov/

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Jack Campin
Date: 18 May 10 - 06:45 PM

Back to nuclear for a bit: what most pro-nuke advocates ignore is that a nuclear power station is basically a battery. The energy that goes into building it, fuelling it, and disposing of its waste comes almost entirely from fossil fuels, and adds up to about the same as the energy it will generate during its operating life. (Or maybe more - we have no real idea what the total energy cost of waste disposal will be).

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 19 May 10 - 12:25 AM

Jack-
Not really. Only the energy required to build the first one.
IMO, nuclear power is something like what Winston Churchill said about democracy: It's a lousy system, but it's better than anything else we have.

Ultimately, of course, solar, wind and water power will be the answer. But that appears to be a long way off. Until they become massively available, I think that conservation and nuclear power are going to have to suffice.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: mousethief
Date: 19 May 10 - 01:31 AM

Why does it take less energy to build the second one?

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Donuel
Date: 19 May 10 - 10:15 AM

This Sunday 60 minutes TV show will reveal exactly what happened 3 months and 3 hours prior to the oil rig destruction.

It is eye opening and irreputable.


Having been given a sneak peek, this much I shall say;
My apologies to Dick Cheney's Halliburton who turned out to be the good guys in this disasterous fiasco.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Donuel
Date: 19 May 10 - 10:26 AM

The time stamps here make for a valid way of proving correct predictions:

"From: Donuel - PM
Date: 04 May 10 - 07:25 PM

The Gulf Stream will transport much of the oil to Europe in about 4 months."

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: GUEST,pattyClink
Date: 19 May 10 - 05:14 PM

Hope this version of the link will work. It is a thoroughly gripping story from a sharp and articulate guy who was there:

60 minutes episode with Mike Williams

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Donuel
Date: 20 May 10 - 10:13 AM

It is equivalent to another Exxon Valdez disaster every four days.

I feel that Chinese justice is applicable in the case against BP managers all the way to the CEO.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 20 May 10 - 02:40 PM

Full realization of the damage seems yet to come.
The oil 'plumes' which have been mentioned consist of poorly understood droplet mixtures of oil and water, in deep water. Some research has been done (Norway) but the longivity of the droplets and how they will affect marine life is poorly known. The effects may be long-lasting; even sealife that survives low levels of oil contamination will not be fit to eat, keeping fishermen out of work for a long period.

Deep water currents in the Gulf, moreover, often have different patterns than those of surface waters.

The NOAA has been criticized for slow analysis and reporting, but the agency has been hampered for many years by lack of sufficient funds. Moreover, they have been sent to other oceans than those bordering the Americas, to carry out mapping and research that often is politically motivated. Their 'flagship' was operating off Africa, and it took 2-3 weeks for it to return to aid in surveys in the Gulf. Of the 19 vessels owned by NOAA, only five were in the Gulf area.

Cuba and the U. S. have been talking about measures that can be taken to ameliorate effects of the oil as it gets from the Loop Current to the Gulf Stream proper.

BP seems not to be making full disclosure of the magnitude of the problem. They say they now are gathering 60% of the oil, but that leaves 40% spreading in Gulf waters. Ninteen percent of the Gulf has been closed to fishing and it is likely more will be closed as the effects of the 'plumes' become known.

NY Times, "Scientists Fault Lack of Studies Over Gulf Spill," Justin Gillis, May 19, 2010 (but published today).

Haliburton is not controlled by Dick Cheney, but by a diverse board; his association with them officially ended in 2000, although his office (with Bush) directed government spending indirectly with the company.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: gnu
Date: 20 May 10 - 02:57 PM

I read earlier that marshes in Florida are getting oil... can't find the article now.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Alice
Date: 20 May 10 - 03:15 PM

Web Camera of oil leak is now online live at


http://globalwarming.house.gov/spillcam

The page won't load for me right now... probably swamped with traffic, as CNN has been reporting the link on their site and on tv news.


Alice

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: SINSULL
Date: 20 May 10 - 03:16 PM

gnu,
I read tar balls and after analysis it was determined not to be from this spill.
Underwater plumes 10 miles long, 3 miles wide and 300' thick - YIKES. Add to that they are multi-level and in some cases very near bottom.

It feels like the first half of a disaster movie.

I guess we all need to watch carefully but also not get caught up in the media hype. Anybody read anything on Haiti lately other than human interest stories about prosthetic legs for children? I guess all must be fine there now.
SINS, being facetious.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 20 May 10 - 03:35 PM

This is a crime against nature. And above and beyond George Bush and Halliburton are the naysayer and obstructors of wind energy because they do not want to look at sa windmill...in the middle of nowhere desert Washington for example..I am not even referring to the Kennedy right to Nantucket scenery in perpetuity...

When it will save struggling farmers who can get more for wind rights than farming. When it will give us dependable and relatively low risk energy. When the technology is here. Where it can at least fuel the communities themselves as transmission is a problem here and there.

Take 1% of the energy you have budgeted to get angry at George Bush on this, and I am sure his finger is in lax regulations, and turn it to people who ostruct wind energy at every turn of the blade.

Do it for the people in LA etc. who have lost their fragile livelihoods that were probably just improving after Katrina...mg

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 20 May 10 - 03:54 PM

A brief report on Haiti last night (can't remember, BBC or CNN) about armed gangs active in Haiti. So not all fine. Moreover tent cities still crowded, leading to problems.

The web cam of the oil gusher can be seen by going directly to cnn.com, but that doesn't show anything not already broadcast. Scientist argue about the amount.

The EPA has asked BP to find an alternative to the dispersant they are using, concerned about its long term effects.

Ken Salazar gave the total of wells drilled in the Gulf as 36,000, but only a few are in the deep water areas of the American-controlled portions of the Gulf. A peanuts to elephants comparison!

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 20 May 10 - 03:59 PM

Landrieu of Louisiana has asked for more money from oil revenue to Gulf coast states, but much is not programmed to reach them until 2017 (see CNN dispersant article).

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 May 10 - 05:03 PM

Question: Being in deep water as this particular platform was, what kept it afloat? What failed so that it sank?

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ed T
Date: 20 May 10 - 06:26 PM

Putting why the spill happened and who is responsible aside, one may ask how effective are the measures being used.

The first line of defense was to contain it and keep it from the coastlines. Ourtside of false reports, and to the surprise of many perdictions, the massive amount of oil did not reach the coast and cause damage....at least not yet.

Secondly, a goal it to keep as much from the surface as possible, because of the above and because this is an area which is important for seabirds primary production and larval stages ofmarine life. (since booms, burning and surface dispersants only seemed so effective. Skimming is too complex considering the volume). I also suspect if the oil is too thick on the surface, it becomes a safety hazard to those dealing with it. The oil weathered on its way up, so this likely gave reason to use different dispersants to see what worked.

I doubt much was known about the effectiveness of applying dispersants at deep depths...whether it could be done, and how the temperatures and pressure would impact the effectiveness. It seems they worked to some degree. Some refer to a plume, but it is not clear if it is just dispersed oil, staying together because there umay be little wave (current) energies to break it up. But, it is not on the surface nor on the coast.

There are few reports of dead birds or marine life.....as seen in other major spills. One would expect some long term impacts, but little now is a good sign. Maybe some animals avoided the area? The impact on microscopic species and eggs and larvae could be the longer term ones.

I expect they will soon just cover the thing over with drilling muds and other things soon, until the other drilling cuts that pipe off. They used odd stuff (big steel balls) to do that in another incident I seem to recall....and it worked.

I expect there will be plenty of well financed study (I suspect more was needed), and preparation for another future major spill...which will happen some day (as long as we use oil). More caution will also be a good thing when it comes to future development.

All in all, it could have been much worse...(recognizing it is not over yet). Lessons learned will define just how serious we took this disaster and early warning.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 20 May 10 - 06:26 PM

Ebbie, "Semi-submersible" platforms are like boats, and are powered to their site. Some are left in place, others are moved to a new site.

There are several types of platforms, but scroll down to "semi-submersible" in this Wiki article. The Transocean 'Deepwater Horizon' rig used by BP cost $600 million. I forget where it was built, I think South Korea but not sure.

Near the bottom of the article, a platform off Brazil is shown; it looks like the rig used by BP.

Semi-submersible

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 20 May 10 - 06:32 PM

Go down in the table of semi-submersibles to the Atlantis; it was built in South Korea.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: gnu
Date: 20 May 10 - 06:57 PM

Ebbie... the intense fire eventually destoyed the structural stablilty of it. When the centroid of the mass went over the point of equilibrium, it "fell over".

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 May 10 - 07:36 PM

From the link: "A semi-submersible obtains its buoyancy from ballasted, watertight, pontoons located below the ocean surface and wave action. The operating deck can be located high above the sea level due to the good stability of the concept, and therefore the operating deck is kept well away from the waves. Structural columns connect the pontoons and operating deck.[1]"

So, gnu, are you saying that the pontoons melted/ruptured/broke off in the explosion and that's why it sank?

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 20 May 10 - 07:56 PM

Ebbie, steel warps and melts when there is intense fire (remember the Trade Center?). The superstructure collapses, smashing down on pontoons and watertight compartments, rupturing them.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 20 May 10 - 08:08 PM

Sinking of Petrobras 36 semi-submersible after explosions-
Petrobras 36

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 20 May 10 - 09:54 PM

EPA has given BP three days to stop using Corexit 9500 dispersant and 24 hours to pick a less toxic one.
Thick oil has now been found on the Louisiana coast and BP has admitted the flow is greater than they estimated.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Bobert
Date: 20 May 10 - 10:23 PM

BP's response so far has been BS... They had to know how much oil was being releaased into the Gulf yet they sandbagged as along as they could...

Hey, these are the folks who said, "No Problemo" when asked if they could deal with a spill at such depths...

Then they said, "No Problemo, it really ain't all that much oil"....

Now we have independent engineers sayin' this is a very serious situation with BP severely underestimatin' the flow...

Me thinks that this is beyond civil penalties... It's one thing to screw up but yet another to sugarcoat it during a time when the entire region is dependin' on you to be staright up... Yeah, I know we have to get this thing stopped but after that??? Jail time is in order...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 21 May 10 - 08:51 PM

I wonder if criminal negligence statutes would apply?

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ed T
Date: 21 May 10 - 10:59 PM

I suspect that the reason thick oil has now been found on the Louisiana coast is because of a reduction of the use of dispersants.
Until the flow stops, I suspect an action determines what and where the stuff goes...As it has to go somewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 22 May 10 - 03:25 PM

NY Times today has an OP Ed column pointing out that actions of BP and other large corporations are eating away at the U. S. political system.

As I understand it, the dispersants are being applied near the blowout, thus have no effect on the oil already in currents.

The EPA has stopped BP from using the dispersant they were spreading because of its toxicity. I don't know what will be used in its place.

The Corexit 9500 now prohibited had a glycol component, which, if anything like the glycol of antifreeze, is extremely toxic- spills in garages and driveways have killed pets that licked it up (is has a sweet taste).

Dispersants of any kind in a feeding ground could be very harmful to birds and marine life and to humans and animals who feed on marine organisms.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Alice
Date: 22 May 10 - 04:34 PM

I saw this reported on the news yesterday:

BP has stockpiles of a less toxic dispersant in Houston.


"ED LAVANDERA, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Hundreds of containers are just sitting here in the Houston sun. To some, it's just another example of the mismanagement of the oil spill. The containers are full of a chemical dispersant calls Sea Brat 4. Why is it sitting here, and not in the ocean instead? No one really knows, especially since BP's on record as saying it would use the stuff.

DOUG SUTTLES, COO, GLOBAL EXPLORATION, BP: We also have a second product now identified to use called Sea Brat 4, which we will begin introducing into the -- the process as well.

LAVANDERA (on camera): That's what BP said almost a week ago. But we found the Sea Brat 4 just sitting here in an industrial park outside of Houston, Texas. You're looking at it, almost 100,000 gallons of the less toxic dispersant. Guess who ordered it? BP did, on May 4, almost three weeks ago."

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 22 May 10 - 05:11 PM

EPA analysis of Sea Brat 4 seems shallow to me. Toxicity data not meaningful to me. The solvent is propyline glycol.
Seabrat

According to an article in Wikipedia, propylene glycol is much less toxic than ethylene glycol.
Although it is approved as an additive to dog food, it is barred from cat food. Some people are allergic to it.
This brings up the thought that it may be toxic to various forms of sea life (and bird life) and thus affect the ecologic interactions of marine life.

propylene glycol

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 22 May 10 - 05:27 PM

http://www.epa.gov/oem/content/ncp/products/seabrat4.htm

Above for the EPA article I tried to link and failed. Undoubtedly my ignorance of 'how'.

Anyhow, try it yourself- the article is interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Alice
Date: 22 May 10 - 05:30 PM

Yes, "less toxic" doesn't mean it isn't toxic. It seems to me that any chemical dispersant would have some toxicity to life forms.

There is also the invention funded by Kevin Costner that uses a centrifuge to separate oil from water. There is still too much oil for this to be a complete solution.

Ocean Therapy invention


Today on the news report they say burning the marshes that are contaminated with the oil may be one way to treat the problem in the marshes.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: pdq
Date: 22 May 10 - 05:39 PM

Ethylene glycol:   C₂H₆O₂ (antifreeze)

Propylene glycol:   C₃H₈O₂ (oil dispersant)

Corexit 9500, which was being used by BP, and Seabrat, which the EPA ordered used, seem to have the same propylene glycol as a main ingrediant.

WTF is the noise about.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 22 May 10 - 06:01 PM

Looking at the specifications at the EPA site, for Corexit 9500, listed as CONFIDENTIAL are: % by weight of formulation components, surface active agents and solvents.

I am not, nor, perhaps, is anyone posting here, organically chemically and ecologically educated enough to evaluate the difference in effect on living organisms.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Alice
Date: 22 May 10 - 06:13 PM

VIDEO of the water/oil separation device

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 22 May 10 - 06:27 PM

Interesting gadget, but hardly useful for a blowout spewing 10,000 barrels or more daily.
And its purpose is separation, not capping or controlling a blowout.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: pdq
Date: 22 May 10 - 06:53 PM

"So, what is this stuff? There's a lot the public is not permitted to know about these concoctions. The EPA has published some information about them on a list of dispersants and other agents that were okayed for use in the clean-up of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. But a number of ingredients are listed as 'confidential' or 'proprietary', and their proportions in the mix are not disclosed.

Information provided by Nalco {they make the stuff} to EPA and the federal/BP task force on its website, known as the Deepwater Horizon Response, says that Corexit EC9527A, contains three chemicals considered hazardous:

       2-Butoxyethanol
       Organic sulfonic acid salt
       Propylene glycol

From what we can discern, the active molecule that does the dispersing is 'organic sulfonic acid salt,' a generic term for class of chemicals. Its precise chemical name is apparently proprietary. We think that once a company, or the government, or both, decides to cover the sea with this molecule, it's time to tell us what exactly it is.

The company's disclosure statement says, 'No toxicity studies have been conducted on this product'. It also says, 'Based on our hazard characterization, the potential environmental hazard is: Moderate Based on our recommended product application and the product's characteristics, the potential environmental exposure is: Low.' But how the company has reached that conclusion isn't clear.

Corexit 9500, the newer formulation, is made without 2-butoxyethanol. According to the NRC report, Nalco developed Corexit 9500 because it discovered that 'prolonged exposure to Corexit 9527 caused adverse health effects in some responders. These effects were attributed to its glycol ether solvent (2-butoxyethanol).'

Jackson told reporters that EPA permitted BP to spray the older product, Corexit EC9527A, in the early days of the spill until sufficient quantities of 9500 could be located. She described Corexit 9500 as 'more effective and more environmentally friendly.'"

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Bill D
Date: 22 May 10 - 07:01 PM

To clarify yesterdays questions: The "Deepwater Horizon" was a drilling platform... it was being prepared to move to another location so a pumping platform could come in and extract the oil.
The explosion was a result of trying to simplify and shorten the process of attaching the pumping platform. As they were sealing the pipe in order to move, they used seawater instead of 'drilling mud' to block the pipe while final disconnections were mead. Drilling mud would have taken a couple of weeks to 'clear', and delayed the start of pumping oil. There was a flawed seal which was not tested properly which allowed pressure to 'blow out' the seal and send high-pressure water & oil up and cause the explosion & fire.
It was partially greed & impatience and careless maintenance by BOTH BP and the operators that led to the failure, but there was a big argument in the hours before the fire as to how to do the sealing... **BP** overruled those doing the work and told them to use the shortcut....and then claimed "We aren't the operators."

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Alice
Date: 22 May 10 - 07:29 PM

re the centrifuge device

The solutions to clean-up will be a variety of approaches. If 20 machines over the spill and in other areas are separating oil out and pumping it into a tanker, then all the better than not doing it at all.
The machines can clean 200 gallons a minute. (It is not meant to solve the problem of capping the leak).

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Alice
Date: 22 May 10 - 07:30 PM

(to clarify, EACH of the large machines can clean 200 gallons of water a minute. 20 are ready to be put in the gulf. 20 new can be made per month by the supplier).

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 22 May 10 - 08:47 PM

How much water in the northern Gulf?

Some 10,000 bbl/day of oil, over three weeks- that's 210,000 barrels. At 42 US gallons/bbl, that's 8,800,000 US gallons, dispersed over a large area. And the well continues to blow.

How much Gulf water affected? Miles of shoreline, counting inlets, islands, beaches, marsh lands?

Speed of manufacture of these machines? Cost of materials? Positioning and operation?

Collecting systems for separated oil?

Effect of mud, colloids particulates in the water on the gadget's efficiency?

Or would it be just as effective to wring one's hands?

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Alice
Date: 22 May 10 - 09:04 PM

Well, BP is prepared to try the idea, so we will see whether it is worth the effort or not.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ed T
Date: 22 May 10 - 09:30 PM

"BP said in its letter--which was signed by Chief Operating Officer Doug Suttles and addressed to the EPA and Coast Guard--that Corexit was the only dispersant that was available in sufficient quantities at the time of the spill. BP also noted that Corexit was 55% to 63% effective in dispersing samples of South Louisiana Crude, similar to the effectiveness of another dispersant, Sea Brat #4. However, BP said it and the manufacturer of Sea Brat #4, Alabaster Corp. of Pasadena, Texas, haven't had time to evaluate important criteria such as whether a small faction of Sea Brat #4 could degrade to nonylphenol, an organic chemical that is toxic to aquatic life.
Corexit doesn't have chemicals that will degrade to nonylphenol and doesn't persist in the environment, BP said. "These qualities make Corexit a better choice for subsea application, based on the information currently available. Corexit appears to have fewer long term effects than the other dispersants evaluated," BP said.



http://www.easybourse.com/bourse/international/news/837292/bp-defends-choice-of-dispersant-after-epa-orders-it-changed.html

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 22 May 10 - 10:21 PM

The EPA Directed BP to stop using Corexit 9500 and come up with a substitute in 3 days. BP objects.
Who is right?
Unless one has full data and knowledge of the properties of the dispersants, it is impossible to advance a valid opinion.

I would tend to side with the government agency, EPA, but I can't support that opinion with data or facts.

The article linked by Ed T. says BP's use of the dispersant is "unprecedented" at the depth, and volume of the blowout. In other words, the method is untested and may be pissing against the wind.
---------------------------
Only one of Costner's machines can handle 200 gallons of water a minute. The others are smaller. Manufacture of 20/month doesn't help much. Would BP authorise the cost?

BP is not trying Costner's idea, they are permitting Costner to operate one from a barge. In this way they cannot be blamed for failure of the method.
------------------------------------------
We can hope that the mud-junk-cement capping to be tried next week works or cuts down the flow to a much lower level. If that doesn't work, the offset well(s) will take at least 2 months to do the job.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ed T
Date: 22 May 10 - 10:39 PM

"The EPA Directed BP to stop using Corexit 9500 and come up with a substitute in 3 days. BP objects"

So, why does EPA not direct BP to use a specific product and procedure, if it knows of one? Is it reasonable to speculate that EPA does not wish to take on the liability, if there is a mistake? I suspect BP (and EPA) both know the scientific data on all the dispersants and to limit effects and liability chooses the one it knows to be the most efficient. However, in these conditions, I doubt that there is much non-labratory data to give any certainity on the impacts (local, fnear and far field, and short and longer term) on any dispersant in this unique situation. It may come down to a determination on what it is that you want to protect and what has the greater liability? A microscopic ecosystem, and long term effects would likely be less visible and costly (and difficult to determine and see) than coastal assets. Who even remembers (or knows of) the offshore ecosystem costs to other big spills in the Gulf?

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 22 May 10 - 10:53 PM

The microfauna and microflora are food for the oysters, shrimp and larger organisms, as we all know, and if they are decimated, than the shore and larger marine faunas will also be decimated.
Moreover, will intake of these dispersants by food species cause illness to humans?

And certainly those around the Bay of Campeche and elsewhere in the Gulf know what damage the Pemex blowout there did to the offshore ecosystem and their income. Some onshore bird species and turtles are still recovering.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 22 May 10 - 11:46 PM

Once again, try comparing the safety record of oil and coal, as compared to nuclear. Or the environmental damage caused by each.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ed T
Date: 23 May 10 - 01:01 AM

"The microfauna and microflora are food for the oysters, shrimp and larger organisms, as we all know, and if they are decimated, than the shore and larger marine faunas will also be decimated.
Moreover, will intake of these dispersants by food species cause illness to humans?"

This could be as true with no dispersants, as with dispersant use (and maybe even more so)? I suspect keeping the oil below the surface in a smaller place away from the coastal waters, coastlines and wetlands and dilluting the impacts in the deep waters is a major goal of dispersant use. I also suspect the cost (financial and reputation) would be much greater if the oil reaches the coast in great amounts.

It is always complex for fish harvesters to make direct linkages if catches lower. And, compensation costs for these folks are nowhere as high as potentially those on the coastlines. And, also initiatives, just may work....as they have elsewhere (under different circumstances, of course).

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 23 May 10 - 02:11 PM

The deepwater plumes of oil from the blowout are spread by deepwater currents; dispersants are largely cosmetic; the particles are spread far, not kept close to the well blowout.
The effects of dispersants on marine life, singly or in combination with hyreocarbons, has not been studied in any detail; the added chemicals may prolong the toxicity of the oil.

Alica, my answer to you was a little short and sounds dimissive; I apologise. I would be very happy to be wrong.

Some scientists are predicting that the oil is spreading to the Loop Current and will enter the Gulf Stream, with effects as far north as the Arctic. I hope that they are exaggerating for shock effect.

Note some of the Google adds at the bottom of this thread- companies ready to take advantage of the situation because there is money to be made, the efficacy of their methods may be low.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ed T
Date: 23 May 10 - 02:58 PM

"The deepwater plumes of oil from the blowout are spread by deepwater currents; dispersants are largely cosmetic; the particles are spread far, not kept close to the well blowout".

Two techniques were used to apply dispersants, one immediately on the surface and one directly injected at the source of the spill....after the surface application was found to be less effective by weathered oil (rae oil is buoyant and travels to the surface)travelling long distances upward and changing characteristics...that impacted surface applied effectiveness. The injection at source seemed to work...as EPA let BP do it after three experimental applications.      


"The effects of dispersants on marine life, singly or in combination with hyreocarbons, has not been studied in any detail; the added chemicals may prolong the toxicity of the oil"

This is sinmply not the case....and even a GOOGLE search will find such research. EPA, NOAA Universities, Chemical companies and researchers from many countries do conduct many tests on dispersants before they are certified for use. However, some, though not all, of the tests are in labratories or wave tanks. Each dispersant has its area of effectiveness. I suspect few were tested on sites at great water depths, and under cold water and extreme pressure. Many folks are confused at what dispersants do and why they are used. They are never approved for use in cases where they are not needed, as like the oil, do have effects....though not as significant in many cases.

Oil enters waters every day, from natural seeps and a multitude of human causes. Bacteria and natural forces deal with it. But, when huge amounts are released, you have a different scenario.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ed T
Date: 23 May 10 - 05:04 PM

Here is some information on the various oil dispersants listed by EPA in the USA:
http://www.epa.gov/emergencies/content/ncp/tox_tables.htm

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 23 May 10 - 06:09 PM

I am aware of the EPA tables of tests on mysid shrimp and silverside fish, which do nothing to address my concerns. EPA has conducted no tests.

Alabaster Corporation, manufacturer of Sea Brat 4, (preferred by EPA to Corexit 9500), is quite clear in their statement that "Although Sea Brat is not a bioremediation product Sea Brat is 'Extremely Effective' if used with any microbial or bioremediation products for emergency response or ocean, water environmental pollution."

The blurb refers to the EPA NCP Product Schedule- "This listing does NOT mean that EPA approves, recommends, licenses, certifies, or authorizes the use of SEA-BRAT #4 on an oil discharge. This listing means only that data have been submitted to EPA as required by subpart J of the National Contingency Plan, Sec. 300.915."

Testing seems to have been done only by the manufacturing company. The EPA or other government labs seem not to have done any detailed tests.

Further, "for a heavy crude oil spill use a approximate 5 to 1 ratio. 1 part Sea-Brat concentrate with 4 parts water." This is a large amount, considering how much would be required at the BP spill.

With regard to Corexit 9500A, a 96 hour test by BP on marine life showed that it was twice as toxic as the crude oil gushing into the Gulf.
In a letter, Rep. Markey warned the "release of thousands of gallons of chemicals into the Gulf of Mexico could be an unprecedented, large and agressive experiment on our oceans, and requires careful oversight by the Environmental Protection Agency and other appropriate federal agencies."

(A director of Nalco, manufacturer of Corexit, formerly was an executive of BP.
The product, or at least some numbered Corexit dispersants, have been banned in the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 23 May 10 - 06:21 PM

References:
Sea-Brat 4- http://www.alabastercorp.com/seabrat.htm

Washington Post for Markey comments.

NALCO "faq" on Corexit use in the Gulf:
http://www.nalco.com/news-and-events/4255.htm

NALCO - Corexit technology:
http://www.nalco.com/applications/corexit-technology.htm
Tests for EC9580A performed at LSU and Miami Universities on marsh grass and mangrove. No mention of fauna.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ed T
Date: 23 May 10 - 07:48 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/05/22/gulf.oil.spill/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ed T
Date: 23 May 10 - 08:07 PM

An interesting paper:

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11283&page=R15




According to BP's letter, only five products meet the criteria requirements (less toxic according to standard tests, and at least as effective as Corexit EC99500A). These are Sea Brat #4, Nokomis 3-F4 and Nokomis 3-AA, Mare Clean 200, and Neos AB3000.

Of these only Sea Brat #4 is available in the near future. The letter notes:

One relevant criterion, given the amoutn of dispersant that is required at this site and the proposed application near the ocean floor, is the potential for long term effect and persistence of the chemicals in each dispersant.

In this regard, Sea Brat #4 contains a small amount of a chemical that may degrade to a nonylphenol (NP). The class of NP chemicals have been identified by various government agencies as potential endocrine disruptors, and as chemicals that may persist in the environment for a period of years. The manufacturer has not had the opportunity to evaluate this product for those potential effects, and BP has not had the opportunity to conduct independent test to evaluate this issue either. BP learned of this issue after it applied for permission to use Sea Brat #4 at the incident site.

The letter goes on to say that it would be prudent to do more evaluation, before using Sea Brat #4. It also notes that further study is needed to determine the status of the other products on the list (the ones not currently available in large quantities, quickly) with respect to the potential NP issue. COREXIT does not contain chemicals that degrade to NP. In addition, COREXIT biodegrades within 28 days, so appears to be a better choice, even though other dispersants appear to better on some tests".

http://www.greendump.net/the-oil-drum/gulf-deepwater-oil-spill-open-thread-dispersants-flow-rate-technical-team-and-other-topics


http://globemarkresources.com/JD2000.php

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 23 May 10 - 08:32 PM

We see a lot of Robert Dudley of BP on TV now.
His experience-

Univ. Illinois, BA, Chemical Engineering
Southern Methodist Univ. MBA
AMOCO Petroleum, 1979 until merger with BP, 1998
1987-1993- Various AMOCO projects, South China Sea
1994-1997- AMOCO projects in Russia
1999- Head, BP Group Strategy, London
-2003- Various projects, Russia, Middle East, North Africa
2003-2008- Chief Executive Officer, TNK-BP, a Russian-BP company
2009- Managing Director, BP Group, with oversight of activities in Asia and America.

From BP Press release, 2009: www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7051363

Linked with this article is BP's statement on transparency, a letter in response to EPA and DHS letters.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar today said BP has "from day one, frankly not fulfilled the mission it was supposed to fulfill," expressing frustration Sunday with the delay in stopping an underwater oil gusher 33 days after the explosion.
"Do I have confidence that they know exactly what they are doing? No."
CNN News, CNN Politics, Political Ticker, May 23.
The article notes that the tasks involve construction, mobilizing equipment and fabricating new devices.

It is evident that preparations for the safety of the operation were not made; too little attention was paid to the dangers of accident when drilling in deep water, to a target near the limits of feasibility, and high pressure conditions in the target formation.
Salazar and others likened the salvage operation to an Apollo mission.

The deep horizon projects beginning to be drilled are quite different from the numerous shallow wells drilled in the Gulf. To continue the 'space' analogy, it is like the Enterprise entering an unknown galaxy. Exaggeration, but it is going where no one has gone before.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 24 May 10 - 02:39 PM

Doug Suttles, Chief Operating Officer of BP Exploration and Production.

BSc, Univ. Texas. Mechanical Engineering, 1983
Service with EXXON before joining BP
BP Alaska, 8 years in various roles
VP North Sea Operations
Pres., BP Trinidadian Operations
Pres., BP Sakalin Inc. (merged with TNK-BP, Russia)
Pres., BP Alaska, 2007
Joined BP Board
COO BP Exploration and Production (based in Houston) 2009
Led response to Deepwater Horizon spill, 2010

Ken Salazar yesterday said if BP can't do the job soon, they would be removed and someone else would take over.
Nothing but bluster that might sound good to the public.

Day 35 and counting .......

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: gnu
Date: 24 May 10 - 03:00 PM

Day 35 and sickening... gut wrenching... this may foul the globe.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ed T
Date: 24 May 10 - 03:54 PM

Not sure where this one will place. But, historically these have been the worst:

Gulf War oil spill: 1,360,000 -1,500,000 tons
The worst oil spill in history, the Gulf War oil spill spewed an estimated 8 million barrels of oil into the Persian Gulf after Iraqi forces opened valves of oil wells and pipelines as they retreated from Kuwait in 1991. The oil slick reached a maximum size of 101 miles by 42 miles and was five inches thick.

Ixtoc I oil well: 454,000 tons
The Ixtoc I oil well exploded in the Gulf of Mexico in June 1979. The oil drilling platform then caught fire and collapsed, rupturing valves and making it difficult for rescue personnel to control the damage. The spill continued until March 1980 (nine months)

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: gnu
Date: 24 May 10 - 04:53 PM

Ed T... you mean to say that this VERY SAME THING happened before? Gosh. I am surprised that the drillers did not learn from... oh, yeah, right, they don't give a shit about taking chances with someone elses lives or the environment.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 24 May 10 - 04:54 PM

Of course the Gulf of Mexico is not particularly pristine.

Farm Runoff- Swaths of the Gulf near the Louisiana Delta are Oxygen-starved (hypoxic) because of the farm runoff of fertilizers, feeding algae blooms which consume the oxygen in the water. Fish leave and bottom fauna such as crabs die.

Erosion- Coastal wetlands are wasting away because they no longer receive river sediments; the Mississippi is constricted by levees starving the marshes.
Coastal lands are sinking; oil and water removal have accelerated the process.

Trash- Along Padre Island alone, 150 tons of trash are collected annually by volunteers.

Oil Spills- from ships, damaged pipelines, well operations. Oil companies reported that drilling platforms annually dump 50,000 barrels of oil.

Population Increase- Population of coastal counties increased 45 percent from 1980-2003.

NY Times, Environment page, May 9, 2010.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: gnu
Date: 24 May 10 - 05:03 PM

Can't find any video of the "leak" at present. What I would like to watch a video for is : Where is the placement of the shutoff valve?

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Amos
Date: 24 May 10 - 05:54 PM

"As the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig continues to spill over 1 million gallons of oil into the Gulf every day, Republicans are demanding less regulation for companies like BP and Transocean while also looking for a taxpayer-funded bailout of BP.1Ê Yeah, I'm serious. Ê

After a month of oil spewing into the Gulf, the cost of cleaning up BP's mess is $542 million and counting. But a group of Republican senators led by Lisa Murkowski of Alaska want the company to pay for only the first five days of the cleanup and put taxpayers on the hook for everything else.2
That's right, Murkowski and her pals want to "Bail out BP."

We need to tell Murkowski and her Senate colleagues that this is not OK. Can you send a message to your senators that it's time to end offshore drilling and focus on clean energy instead?
http://act.truemajorityaction.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=71
BP makes over $3.9 million EVERY HOUR.3 In the 31 days since the rig exploded, they've earned over $2.8 billion. Meanwhile, BP lawyers are working overtime to make sure that they are on the hook for only $75 million of the cleanup cost. And Murkowski and her allies think that's just fine because, to them, fewer rules are a good thing.

First, they wanted less regulation for Wall Street and the banks (look where that got us). Now, they want to do the same for oil companies. It's outrageous. We need oversight that protects our communities and environment -- not another taxpayer-funded bailout of the oil companies.

Congress needs another wake-up call to remind them that we're watching. Congress can't continue to let corporate America avoid responsibility and then bail them out when they can't clean up their own mistakes.

Tell your senators to say no to the BP bailout and to focus on clean energy solutions instead.

Thanks,

-Drew

Drew Hudson
TrueMajority / USAction
1 - cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20005333-503544.html
2 - reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6412H820100502
3 - washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/10/AR2010051004664.html"

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ed T
Date: 24 May 10 - 06:01 PM

Here is an alternative perspective....what if it happened elsewhere, not in the west... (let's say off aAfrica, Russia, the Middle East or Venezuala) , would we care....about someone elses ocean ecosystems, about their fisherfolk or tourism? Would it make us conserve more...put pressure on big oil for more rigerous environmental standards off the countries that fuel our thirst for oil....just wondering?

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Beer
Date: 24 May 10 - 06:12 PM

Would our governments care! probably not. Wonder if other major powers have offered their technology (suggestions)in capping the well?
Beer (adrien)

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 24 May 10 - 06:15 PM

Current situation-
"Federal law requires companies to pay for all environmental damage, but economic damages are now capped at $75 million. Some Democrats want to raise the cap to $10 billion, and a few want it taken off completely."

The proposal to lift the cap has failed.
"Republican Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma used procedural move to stop the bill from coming to the Senate floor, saying that raising the cap would hurt smaller drillers."

MSNBC news report, May 18, 2010.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37205691/

If the cap remains at $75 million, coastal fishers, hotel and restaurant operators, sport fishing boat operators, etc., etc., may not get any compensation from BP money.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Alice
Date: 24 May 10 - 06:18 PM

gnu, go to:

CNN.com home page of the US edition

look at the headlines in the top left column of the page and
click on "LIVE: underwater view of oil link:

Then on the page that comes up, you can choose not to use their video player by clicking "no" and the video will play in flash.



Alice

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Alice
Date: 24 May 10 - 06:19 PM

btw, there is a piece of equipment in the video of the pipe now that was not there previously.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Alice
Date: 24 May 10 - 07:38 PM

Looking at the video again, I think they just moved the camera to a new angle.

Previously, the shot was focused on the broken pipe where the oil is coming out and the small siphon pipe went in, and now camera is behind where the siphon pipe was inserted in the large broken pipe. The video used to be a direct view of the billowing oil.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: mousethief
Date: 24 May 10 - 08:29 PM

Of course the Gulf of Mexico is not particularly pristine.

So? Does that mean the BP Geyser isn't a bad thing? A really bad thing? A really really bad thing? It wasn't pristine but it still supported a fishery, a lot of jobs, and a lot of protected wildlife. I don't think the fact that it wasn't pristine enters into it at all.

After a month of oil spewing into the Gulf, the cost of cleaning up BP's mess is $542 million and counting. But a group of Republican senators led by Lisa Murkowski of Alaska want the company to pay for only the first five days of the cleanup and put taxpayers on the hook for everything else.

I thought these people were against government spending? What happened to that? They were against bailing out the automakers but in favor of letting BP off the hook, for potentially a much larger sum? Looks like a case of Follow The Money.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: gnu
Date: 24 May 10 - 08:29 PM

Yup... the sub is blocking the view of the actual "leak". How convenient. I wonder if there ever was a "safety valve" that would cut off the flow. I would think such a mechanisism would be near the seabed???

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 24 May 10 - 09:07 PM

Gnu- Not sure what you mean by safety valve- the blowout preventer? that was lost long ago, at the time of the blowout. Only a sheared off pipe left, spewing the oil.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 24 May 10 - 09:26 PM

The "live feed" at CNN is showing an interview with Mike Jagger. I suppose they could put him in the pipe as part of the top kill.

A CNN report (same link as posted by Alice) says the EPA is setting up studies on the dispersants. Seems to me this should have been done long ago, when the products were introduced to the market.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ed T
Date: 24 May 10 - 09:27 PM

"economic damages are now capped at $75 million"

So, at what point wull the US taxpayer pay the tab (I suspect damages will far exceed that)?

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 24 May 10 - 10:05 PM

That $75 million cap might have been OK in the 1930s, but I expect the tab here could be in the billions range.
I also wondered where environmental damage becomes economic damage- how will BP's legal staff look at that? I don't know how the two are defined in the government bill, but I can see BP trying to stuff the no limit environmental liabilities into the economic bag.

Regardless, I see a lot of taxpayer money going into this disaster.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Beer
Date: 24 May 10 - 10:29 PM

Through all this terrible disaster i can't help thinking about the go ahead for a well to be drilled about 400 miles of the coast of Newfoundland. This in an area where the sea is seldom calm and Ice Burgers are plentiful and with the warming climate many more would be expected. But WTF do I know.
Ad.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 24 May 10 - 10:48 PM

Beer, several of these deepwater wells have been approved. Supposedly they are on hold (US leases), but the Canadian government hasn't responded. Chevron holds the leases in the Orphan Basin.

Natural Resources Minister Kathy Dunderdale (Newfoundland-Labrador) says "the provincial government is confident precautions to deal with a possible disaster are in place.
She said the Stena Carron, the rig Chevron has hired to drill in the Orphan Basin, is equipped with the tools to handle a crisis."
"They have an acoustic transponder to shut down the well, a remotely operated vehicle to operate the blowout protection stack, as well as two ram stacks in the well that have the capacity to shut it down," said Dunderdale.

CBC News.
Well, Beer, we can hope it is a dry hole.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 24 May 10 - 10:54 PM

I see this is the second Chevron well in the Orphan Basin, and will drill in 2600 meters of water- the first in some 2300 meters was a dry hole, and cost $200 million.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Beer
Date: 24 May 10 - 11:11 PM

"Well, Beer, we can hope it is a dry hole."
Thanks for the laugh in a difficult time Q.
Ad.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ed T
Date: 25 May 10 - 06:42 AM

My understanding is that currently the liability limit on offshore oil spills off Canada's east coast is $30 million and 40 million in the Arctic.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 May 10 - 09:28 AM

Question: If BP successfully seals the 'hole' through which the oil is spewing, is there any reason to believe that the oil, under pressure, won't find or make another breach?

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 May 10 - 02:12 PM

Ebbie- Hopefully the drill hole with its pipe is sufficiently deep in the rock formations that it will hold up when the 'top' is sealed.
This usually is the case.
The sediments containing the oil are covered with thousands of feet more of sedimentary beds which have been able to seal the high pressure oil horizon for lo! several million years.

Just a note for general information-
When sediments containing much organic debris (the dead small organisms that constitute the bulk of life in the oceans plus plant material, algae, etc.), are buried by suceeding layers of sediments, the heat and pressure at depth act to convert part of the organic matter into hydrocarbons; liquid and gaseous fractions forming the oil. These liquid and gaseous materials, if there is porosity in the sedimentary bed, will migrate to a higher part of the bed, and are pooled if the porosity ceases, or there is a fold (anticline) in the bed that can trap the hydrocarbons. If there is much gas, the pressure in the 'trap' may be very high.
If heat and pressure become too great for the stability of the hydrocarbons, they may become largely gaseous plus 'inert' organic matter; eventually with great pressure and heat the hydrocarbons increase in carbon content and solids are formed that are unproducible.

On the other hand, if the sediments are highly organic, but are not sufficiently buried and heated by deep burial, the organic remains are only partly converted to liquids and gases. They pool to a certain degree, and are quite oily, but the hydrocarbon will not flow. It is organic matter of this type that constitutes the hydrocarbons being mined from the tat sands of northern Alberta (and increasingly, adjacent Saskatchewan) in Canada. These materials have become the major portion of the hydrocarbons produced in Canada and the number one source of hydrocarbons used in the U. S.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 May 10 - 02:29 PM

tar, not tat.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 May 10 - 02:54 PM

BP today said it will discontinue video while the 'top kill' procedure is conducted.

Some principals in the play-

Pat Campbell, of Wild Well Control. His firm has been active in many control operations.

Tony Hayward, CEO BP.
Geology degree, Aston Univ.
PhD, Univ. Edinburgh
Joined BP 1982
Wide experience with the company in France, China and UK.
BP group treasurer, 2000
CEO exploration and production, 2003
Salary 998000 pounds annually and a 2008 bonus of 1.5 million pounds.
Other jobs- director board of Tata Steel (India), directorial board Corus, active member of Bilderberg Group.

Some statements by Hayward about the spill-

"We made a few little mistakes early on."
The environmental impact of the spill on the Gulf would be "very, very modest." Sky Television News, 17 May 2010.

Wiki and other news sources.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: mousethief
Date: 25 May 10 - 02:55 PM

Q, I think you used the wrong word. How can they form if they're unproducible? What did you mean to say?

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ed T
Date: 25 May 10 - 03:31 PM

A question: should we deduce that the first BP responses was first to stop the spill and second to save the well (and route to it)... or, first to save the well and second to stop the spill? If the second scenario, have they (possibly under pressure from gov't) now given up on saving the well by sealing it (I suspect the new drilling will give them other access to the underground oil?

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 May 10 - 04:06 PM

-formed that are unproducible hydrocarbons- they will not flow and are too rich in carbon to be of use as petroleum products. To an oil man, they are 'unproducible'.
----------------------
Ed T- as I read the reports, BP wished to cap (temporarily seal) the well and wait on production until a platform could be built from which to produce it and several other wells to be drilled in the future to the same formation.
This would be like the platform from which they are producing several deep wells at present and which constitute the bulk of their Gulf (and American) production.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 May 10 - 08:46 PM

Sorry for the error, Gnu, the blowout preventer is still there, but minus damaged annular. I don't know what other damage may be present.

Under pressure from the White House, BP has changed its mind and will continue video during the attempt at 'top kill'. It is given a "70% chance" of working.
Top kill has worked in Saudi Arabia but has never been done on the ocean floor. The 'five-story' blowout preventer will receive the mud through tubes connected to it. See CNN description.

If the method fails, BP says another variety of containment dome will be tried. Another possibility is attaching another blowout preventer atop the non-working one.

A fisheries disaster has been declared. A statement on CNN estimates the fishing industry in the area at $2.4 billion dollars.

Hope it works.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Alice
Date: 26 May 10 - 02:16 PM

BP says they are about to start the top kill.

You can watch live video at cnn.com





Alice

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: SINSULL
Date: 26 May 10 - 03:16 PM

Meantime,, workers who were on the rig when it exploded are claiming that BP substituted sea water for a heavy fluid (?) used in drilling and that substitution caused the explosion. The sea water could not contain the pressure rise. They also claim there were dangerous pressure levels and a malfunction of the cutoff valve shortly before the explosion.

I am paraphrasing and do not have the technical terminology. More fingerpointing or the source of the explosion?
SINS

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Alice
Date: 26 May 10 - 04:31 PM

The larger source of oil that has created the huge plume in the gulf is not the pipe we see in the video.

I just watched an excellent discussion of what should have been done since the explosion and what should be done now between two oil drilling experts on the Dylan Ratigan show on MSNBC. The video of their discussion is not yet online, but hopefully will be soon today at this page: Click
They point out that there must be a larger source of oil than that pipe in order to have as much oil as there is now in the gulf water.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 26 May 10 - 04:35 PM

These accusations were made by Mike Williams on 60 Minutes and were repeated today in the NY Times; preliminary remarks before the government hearing.
Williams said that the BP supervisor overruled the Haliburton technician, who wanted the heavy drilling fluid continued, and to proceed with three cementing levels.

These accusations have not been commented on by the principals; we won't know their validity until there is sworn testimony at the hearing.

If true, the action was contributory to the rush of pressured oil and gastothe rig and the subsequent explosion and fire.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Alice
Date: 26 May 10 - 05:30 PM

The video is now up of the "what is the right fix" on Dylan Ratigan.

Here is the link:

The plume of thick, gooey oil is not coming out of that pipe.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 26 May 10 - 05:49 PM

Several plumes of oil are caught in the deeper water; they are from the leak. They may cause more long-lasting damage than the oil that is carried on the surface.

There is talk on CNN and in the press about a boycott of BP. This would hurt the little franchise holders and their employees more than it would hurt BP.
Moreover, the fuel sold at BP stations may not be from a BP refinery; often deals are made to obtain the gas from whatever refinery is close, additives added according to the buyer's 'recipe'.
For example, I buy from a Shell station convenient to my neighborhood, but the gas is supplied from an Exxon refinery.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ed T
Date: 26 May 10 - 06:13 PM

I have a different perspective than Q.

Oil is dispersed to reduce concentrated product on the surface to protect marine life on the surface (I suspect NOAA, who was part of the operation with EPA), had concerns for some highly productive areas) , which is very important for adult and developmental stages (i.e larvae) of sealife (i.e.and seabirds...as well as primary production phyto and zooplankton) It also reduces movement to the coast, which is also an important place for marine life and economic interests. Breaking oil into smaller droplets dilutes and enables bacteria to break down the toxic elements. Just because it is in some plumes under the surface water column,   does not mean it has not been dispersed into smaller droplets. If it had not been dispersed, I suspect one would have seen significant and immediate effects on marine and coastal life. The longer waves and currents have to dillute and disperse it, the less liklihood there will be as serious an impact as if it were left concentrated on the surface. I suspect the direction of surface winds was another consideration, at the time.

Whether the correct dispersant was used, is an entirely different matter. Additionally, you do not release this much oil and dispersants (the former more serious) in one place over an extended period without significant impacts, short and long term.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Alice
Date: 26 May 10 - 06:35 PM

Did anyone watch the video I linked?
What do you think? (There is a 15 sec. ad that runs first, then the news discussion).

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 May 10 - 07:22 PM

Alice, i watched it - and I'm appalled. If those two oil men are correct then what BP, et al, is doing is no better than nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 26 May 10 - 10:35 PM

MSNBC, Ratigan interview- who are Simmons, and Pozzi?:

Matthew Simmons, Simmons & Co. International- "Investment bankers to the energy industry."

Matthew Pozzi, WOW Energy solutions. Experienced in gas turbines, former pipeline engineering and operations project manager for Saudi Aramco.
John Hofmeister, former president of Shell Oil Co. (I add him because he has teamed with Pozzi in interviews).

Alice, I agree that the video feeds are difficult to evaluate- at that depth, the camera shows only the immediate area. My initial understanding was that the pipe was sheared in the blowout and that the damaged blowout preventer was no longer in play. I was surprised when it was 'resurrected' for use again with the top kill method. Frankly, I wonder how the damaged equipment could be used.

Yes, there could be multiple leaks. The bottom is covered with thick mud and gas hydrate of some thickness as well. Where did the shear occur, below, within or above these soft layers? The latest pictures of the last two days seem to show a much smaller flow from a different orifice. I don't think the videos tell us much about the flow.

Jan Hofmeister and Nicholas Pozzi suggest using large supertankers to help take up the oil. The oil-water mixture could then be separated. Certainly this would be much more effective than the booms and soakers that are available- the efforts in this line look pitiful.

Not a quick operation. The large tankers are at sea or loading-offloading both refined and crude petroleum at many points in the world. I also wonder what it would take to get tanker operators to use their vessels to take up large volumes of salt water- cleaning and refitting the containers for use after carrying a saline product may be very expensive- I don't know how much corrosion would be involved. More and more, crude is being refined at source and the tankers carry clean, refined product- Aramco and Saudi Arabia are leaders in this.

Alice, I am afraid offset wells may be the only solution- I hope I am wrong. One offset is drilling now, but 2 months or more are required for completion.
In two more months, not only the Gulf but Florida, Cuba, and the East Coast would be affected. This would be a major catastrophe, affecting wildlife and important fisheries for many years, and changing the complexion of life in the entire region.

Finally, The BP CEO is trying to deny that the damage is catastrophic.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 26 May 10 - 10:43 PM

A report at www.fastcompany.com, John Hofmeister of Shell and Nicholas Pozzi, discussing tanker use-
"Supertankers coult save the Gulf, so why won't BP listen?"

I have trouble with long links- but I think you can find the article with google of just using the short fastcompany link.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Charley Noble
Date: 27 May 10 - 08:57 AM

Viewing the live video feeds from the blow-out preventer (sic), it does appear that the mud being pumped in has suppressed the oil issuing out the various orifices and breaks. The next stage in the process, assuming the plumbing doesn't blow apart, will be to pump in the cement and displace the mud.

It's certainly frightful, and appalling, to read the testimony of the surviving oil platform workers.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 27 May 10 - 10:21 AM

They have sealed it with a small amount of pressure still there. They now have to reduce the pressure to zero. Then they can pump the cement in to seal it completely.

I know there has been a lot of criticism of BP, but I really wish them well and hope they succeed in sealing it.

I would seriously criticise America for not getting involved with BP and getting this aweful catastrophe sorted earlier and worry about responsibilities and blame afterwards.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ed T
Date: 27 May 10 - 11:30 AM

Something that has fueled (though maybe a bad word now) skeptics is the secrecy and lack of information until recently.

The USA and it s allies can fisht a war in Iraq and have daily briefings. There are prompt and regular beiefings about disasters and terrorist issues and events. So, what's so secret about an oil spill that impacts so many?

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 27 May 10 - 01:42 PM

The Coast Guard is reporting that the leak has stopped, but I am watching the live video feed from the ROV, and it is still spewing. WTF?

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Alice
Date: 27 May 10 - 02:03 PM

What you see coming out now is the mud.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 27 May 10 - 02:23 PM

We all hope that the top kill will work. Fingers crossed and sacrificing a chicken.

Not aware of secrecy. Head of Coast Guard, officials of BP, others have made frequent statements.

Also, remember that it is the major oil companies that have the scientific and engineering personnel, not the U. S. government, as Obama stated today. We may not like it, but BP is better positioned than the government to stop the spill.

BP also took control of shore cleanup- perhaps the National Guard would do a better job. The government has not said enough about this and perhaps their actions were slow- I don't know the 'logistics' of setting up the clean-up.
The Coast guard head has reported daily, but said little more than he approved of what BP was doing.

Other oil companies have not spoken out because they would be trying the exact same measures to block the blow-out, and responsible people do not second-guess unless they are convinced that they have something better to propose.
John Hofmeister, retired president of Shell, has made suggestions, he no longer has to answer to shareholders. His tanker suggestion has some merit, but to get close to the marshes, shallow draft barges would have to do inshore work. He was worried that there may be several 'leaks'.

It looks like the administration is serious about cleaning house in the MMS, with the departure of its head and separation of responsibilities.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: pdq
Date: 27 May 10 - 02:55 PM

The National Guard is a part-time outfit, intended as an emergency force of last resort.

They are not trained for riot control, frontline fighting, fire control or oil spill cleanup.

Most members go to meetings one weekend a month and attend two weeks at summer camp. After six years they are free of their main military obligation.

Our gutless politicians are trying to save money by activating Guard units and sending them to do the primary fighting in foreign wars.

Obama just authorized 1200 Guardsmen to be sent to the Mexican border and fight drug cartels and other criminals. These guys will be pulled from jobs such as driving a bus or selling car parts. Putting them on the border to stop drug smugglers who are armed with machine guns is a cruel joke.

Government's ball-less wonders have trillions of dollars for every vote-buying scheme and feel-good program they can think up, but no money to train a proper fighting for our foreign wars or to control various disasters that happen every year, like fires and hurricanes.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 27 May 10 - 03:28 PM

pdq's remarks do not jibe with National Guard history.
140,000 were mobilized in the Korean War, and 80,000 in Iraq.
They have served in many riots and peace-keeping operations, esp. after 1900. They have been called during floods and other disasters.
160,000 were called to duty along the Mexican border in 1916.
Many served to quell riots at the mines and elsewhere, 1900-1930.

The Army National Guard has been organized into 28 brigade combat teams and 78 support brigades.

I have in-laws serving in the Air Nat. Guard. Their training was continuous, if broken into segments, but they trained in and flew the latest fighters and bombers during their training periods. They have and are serving in active service in Afghanistan and elsewhere around the world.


True, Guardsmen are not trained for specific national disasters, but their service in them is undoubted.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: olddude
Date: 27 May 10 - 03:32 PM

The clean up is going to be a nightmare for BP, just watch. And well it should be.   Now every person who owns property that is affected will join in a class action lawsuit along with the federal fines and clean up costs. And I for one hope it does ...
"drill baby drill"
well now ya can pay baby pay ... and the great or bad thing about American civil actions. IT costs no more money to write 100 company names down as it does just one.   All of the sub contractors will be hearing from the attorneys I am sure.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: pdq
Date: 27 May 10 - 05:25 PM

"... the traditional role of the Guard, first as the primary reserve for the Army, and additionally in support of state emergencies and disasters..."


"The emergency Federal Response Plan (FRP) clearly establishes guidance that allows for federal Army resources through the National Guard to be applied quickly at the state and local levels." 1

          1 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), "Federal Response Plan," Washington D.C., updated June 03, 1999


At the same time the Posse Comitatus Act limits the ability of federal duty military assets to react to state or local emergencies. 2


         2 Posse Comitatus Act, U.S. Code, Title 18, sec, 1385, 1878.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 May 10 - 05:29 PM

200

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 27 May 10 - 06:34 PM

Robert Dudley seems to be directing BP efforts at this time.

Director BP Board and BP executive management team.
Served with Amoco before the merger with BP (1998); experience South China Sea and restructuring Amoco oil and gas research, and development astivities. Based in Moscow 1994-1997, working on corporate development. 1997 General manager for strategy with Amoco, and held the same job for BP in 1999.
2003-2008 Chief executive for TNK-BP joint Russian-BP operations.


BS Chemical Engineering, Univ. Illinois
MM Thunderbird School of Global Management
MBA Southern Methodist University

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Charley Noble
Date: 27 May 10 - 09:01 PM

Q-

What I'm struck with is BP's track record for producing and refining oil (from ABC News this evening). They seem to have done quite well in terms of maximizing profit but by running risks in production, at least until the current ongoing disaster. Here's a sample of how they've operated compared with other major oil producers:

"OSHA statistics show BP ran up 760 "egregious, willful" safety violations"

This compares with less than 10 such incidents from any of the other major oil producers.

This was an accident waiting to happen and unfortunately it did.

"All the king's horses and all the king's men won't put the Gulf of Mexico together again."

You may quote me.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Beer
Date: 27 May 10 - 09:59 PM

I'll shoot straight about all this. "Q", you seem to know a lot of what is happening and i appreciate reading what you have to say. But i want to ask this question to anyone on this thread to explain something that I heard on the 6 O'clock news.
   Here I am running in the house to catch CNN and their up date on the hour and everything is going fairly well and no one wants to make a prediction which is understandable. Everyone in the news room is talking about the brown shit that is being forced down and results should be coming in the next 12 to 24 hours. That is fine and I am happy. Then I hear that B/P stopped their procedure at least 12 hours before. WTF is going on is right. Here I am watching all day at a Video replay?? And these smart ass CNN reporters never even asked the question as to why they didn't tell us they had stopped.
What a pile of shit. So tomorrow morning we will wake up to hear that it is progressing slowly but surly. Only to be told that they stopped the procedure around 9:59 last evening.
Ad.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: mousethief
Date: 27 May 10 - 11:56 PM

Isn't pretty obvious why they didn't tell us they stopped? They hoped to start up again and not tell anybody about the pause. Only when it became clear that they couldn't did they admit they had stopped. That's my guess.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Beer
Date: 28 May 10 - 12:05 AM

Fine and dandy mousethief but why was it not questioned by the reporters as to why B/p kept their mouth shut about the stoppage.
ad.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ed T
Date: 28 May 10 - 08:14 AM

Reset cookie, nolionger guest: The Scientific American article

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-microbes-clean-up-oil-spills

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Bobert
Date: 28 May 10 - 08:24 AM

Oldster,

Based on current law, BP might just skirt alot of the cleanup responsibility... I have heard recently that their legal cap is $75M... Remember the Exxon Valdez... Exxon sandbagged so long on that that not only did they not complete the cleanup but also outlasted many of the fisherman who lost their livlihoods who died while waiting settlement...

I'm not too sure that this will happen again but given the outright lies that BP has put forth so far I wouldn't put it past them...

Meanwhile, James Carvelle continues his hissy fit about Obama's response... One thing is for sure that no matter how engaged you are you had better spend one dollar for cleanup and another dollar for PR to convimce people that you are doing something... I mean, what excatly does Carvelle expect Obama to do??? Strap on an air tank and go down and cap the well himself???

Funny thing... Well, not so funny at all but I was listening to NPR and sems that there are folks out there who think that dropping a bunker buster nuclear bomb into the well is what is needed??? I mean, lets get real here... What is that going to do... Think about it... Ya' got a major pocket of oil down there and right now it's coming out of a pipe a couple feet in diameter, right??? So ya' drop a nuclear bomb and blow the mess up and guess what you may get??? The entire pool of oil now entering the Gulf thru a two mile wide hole that the nuke left??? Me thinks that there is some very messded up thinkin' goin' 'round...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Alan Day
Date: 28 May 10 - 08:32 AM

A lasting memory of this will be the lovely turtle upside down washed up on the beach.
Al

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 28 May 10 - 01:31 PM

Last night on MSNBC, John Hofmeister, former Shell president (American branch, not Royal Dutch Shell head), said that the top kill being used is a "long shot."
We can hope.

Ed T., thanks for the link to the Scientific American article.
At the close, it said that the process could take a long time. Even a year may be too long since lost not only is a breeding season but also a migration season.
These microbial helpers will help restore the faunal and floral chains, but some wildlife, such as the turtles, probably will be premanently decimated.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Bill D
Date: 28 May 10 - 02:02 PM

It may be that the two relief wells being sunk will be the only real way to reduce pressure enough to plug the leak thoroughly.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: gnu
Date: 28 May 10 - 02:11 PM

It is some relief that the report today is some success in stemming the flow with the top kill effort BUT success is still estimated at 70% max. It will be an anxious two days for millions of people.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Bill D
Date: 28 May 10 - 02:24 PM

SINSULL..you asked yesterday about workers claims re: original cause, and said "I am paraphrasing and do not have the technical terminology. More fingerpointing or the source of the explosion?
SINS"

if you missed it, check my post above:
From: Bill D - PM
Date: 22 May 10 - 07:01 PM

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 28 May 10 - 02:59 PM

Agree with Bill D. about relief wells. In the meantime....

Beer, they said (much after it happened) that the procedure was stopped "for evaluation." No further explantion.

Some of the feed on CNN is not live, but repeat. No explanation.

MSNBC report- official says flow has stopped but it will be 48 hours before BP says success can be declared. But Coast Guard Adm. Allen say that the flow has been pushed back but not stopped.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 28 May 10 - 03:24 PM

Has Obama shifted his arse yet to look at the devastated area, or is he just all mouth and trousers?

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 28 May 10 - 03:25 PM

BP CEO Hayward says that they could have done more to prepare for an accident (Wall Street Journal). Looks to me like there were no preparations, period.

"There Was Nobody in Charge" article by Douglas A Blackmon and other Wall Street Journal reporters, May 28, 2010.
The chain of command broke down according to some of those aboard.
A navigation employee, Ms Fleytas, radioed a Mayday; Capt. Kuchta reprimanded her.
Some lifeboats left half empty, some jumped overboard. Seemingly there were no preparations or training for an accident.

The article gives brief descriptions of those who died, all Americans.

BP officials have refused to comment. See previous article, "BP Decisions Set Stage for Disaster.
Some good reporting here.

http://online.wsj.com

In WSJ Community, a poll is being taken, "Should BP be Barred from future federal contracts or US oil leases?

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: gnu
Date: 28 May 10 - 03:44 PM

Arthur_itus... that is exactly the kind of shite NObody needs. If he sent in the Army Corps of engineers, he would be doing a disservice to you, asshole.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 28 May 10 - 04:11 PM

Gnu
I am asking if Obama has even looked at the extent of the damage and if not why not?

Businesses and Jobs are going under becuase of this catastrophe as well as the wild life.

I saw one guy interviewed who had a thriving oyster business worth a lot of money and it has been devastated.

What has Obama done to stop this happening, other than blaming BP?

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: gnu
Date: 28 May 10 - 04:21 PM

"I am asking if Obama has even looked at the extent of the damage and if not why not?"

Of course he has. He's the president of the land upon which this horrible accident will FIRST arrive.

"Businesses and Jobs are going under becuase of this catastrophe as well as the wild life."

No shit, Sherlock.

"I saw one guy interviewed who had a thriving oyster business worth a lot of money and it has been devastated."

He will be one of perhaps millions.

"What has Obama done to stop this happening, other than blaming BP?"

"I don't know that he "blamed" BP, but if anyone can be assessed ANY "blame", who is your other choice?

Come on... find two clues and rub them together. This is not Obama's fault. And if anyone thinks that they have a better solution, I am sure BP and Obama might give them a listen.

Jaysus!

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 28 May 10 - 04:22 PM

Obama is looking at the damage, he is getting MMS re-organized, he has stopped drilling contracts- WHAT MORE CAN HE DO OTHER THAN PERSONALLY SCOOP OIL?
Anus_itis, go back to your hole.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 28 May 10 - 04:27 PM

Ah Soles :-)

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 28 May 10 - 04:40 PM

I am English and do not understand why America is taking so long to sort this out.

You are supposed to be the best in the world at sorting problems.

Instead of insulting me, tell me how you yanks are going to show us how good you are.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 May 10 - 04:47 PM

"Subject: RE: BS: KatrinaGate...
From: Bobert - PM
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 10:52 PM

............

Don't matter if Bush likes the DHS or not... He is the CEO and this was part of his job description and he blew it!!!!

............
"

Seems like the MMS was Obama's responsibility.....

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Bill D
Date: 28 May 10 - 04:48 PM

"I am English and do not understand why America is taking so long to sort this out."

Because it is a BIG problem! Why did it take the English so long to 'sort out' silting of the Thames? Why did the Russians not quickly 'sort out' Chernobyl? Why doesn't Iceland just 'plug up' that tedious volcano?

This is not something you just overpower with extra men & money. It was caused by greedy men taking too many shortcuts at the limits of their knowledge.,...with their fingers crossed.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Bill D
Date: 28 May 10 - 04:51 PM

"Seems like the MMS was Obama's responsibility..... "

You wanna spell out the implications of that? Just over a year ago, while the corruption was developing, it was Bush's responsibility.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 28 May 10 - 04:55 PM

OK Bill, but why did America allow them to drill without proof of being able to control things.

Sounds a bit like greed and dominence in the oil game for USA as is always the case.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 May 10 - 04:55 PM

"Just over a year ago, "

When Obama put the head in?

HOW long has Obama been president, and when does he get to take responsibility?


I think Obama has done as well as Bush did, in stepping up and taking responsibility. That said, I do not think he has done any better.

And the judgement here was that Bush did a lousy job...

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Bill D
Date: 28 May 10 - 05:01 PM

"OK Bill, but why did America allow them to drill without proof of being able to control things."

They lied and hid the details! As noted, there was corruption between regulators and drillers! Better **regulation** is one of the **current** administration's goals. The **opposition** party doesn't LIKE much regulation, and they were in power for 8 years!

"Sounds a bit like greed and dominence in the oil game for USA as is always the case. "

Greed by **corporations**.... c'mon, "always the case"?? If you start with that assumption, it can be hard to reply to you.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 28 May 10 - 05:06 PM

Thanks Bill. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: mousethief
Date: 28 May 10 - 05:08 PM

I think Obama has done as well as Bush did, in stepping up and taking responsibility. That said, I do not think he has done any better.


Wrong. He has admitted he was wrong, and the head of the MMS has been sacked. Far more than Bush did when the nation was clamoring for him to fire the head of FEMA. Maybe it's because the head of FEMA was an unqualified-for-his-job drinking buddy, and the head of the MMR was a qualified-for-her-job non-drinking-buddy. Yeah, that speaks well of Bush, all right.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Bill D
Date: 28 May 10 - 05:09 PM

Bruce...she also worked under Bush. It is obvious she didn't do the job well enough. Do you think Obama *personally* vetted and chose her?

There's a huge difference between 'responsible' and 'blameworthy'. Obama said clearly that he is *responsible* for the Gulf problem. If he KNEW BP was lying about safety precautions, and failed to deal with it, he could be **blamed**. He didn't.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 28 May 10 - 05:10 PM

BP choices over the course of the project-
"BP....cut short a procedure involving drilling fluid that is designed to detect gas in the well and remove it before it becomes a problem, according to documents belonging to bP and the drilling rig's owner and operator, Transocean Ltd."
"BP also skipped a quality test of the cement around the pipe- another buffer against gas- despite what BP now says were signs of problems with the cement job and despite a warning from the cement contractor Haliburton Co."
"once gas was rising, the design and procedures BP had chosen for the well likely gave the perilouss gas an easier path up and out, say well control experts...... workers, pushing to finish the job, removed a critical safeguard, the heavy drilling fluid..... BP has admitted a "fundamental mistake" in concluding it was safe to proceed with mud removal............
"Finally, a BP manager overseeing final well tests apparently had scant experience in deep water-drilling. He told investigators he was on the rig to "learn about deep water........"

Wall Street Journal, http://online.wsj.com
Ben Casselman and Russell Gold, reporters, "BP Decisions Set Stage for Disaster."

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: pdq
Date: 28 May 10 - 06:02 PM

"...more than Bush did when the nation was clamoring for him to fire the head of FEMA. Maybe it's because the head of FEMA was an unqualified-for-his-job drinking buddy..." ~ mouse

fact: Michael Brown resigned from his job as director of FEMA exactly seven weeks after Katrina hit. He was asked to leave by president Bush.

fact: George W. Bush was an average social drinker in college, as most of us were. He became a strict tea-toteler about 1976, nearly 30 years before Katrina. Michael Brown was not a great choice in the first place and he has admitted that himself, but any connection implied involving the "drinking buddy" claim is wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: mousethief
Date: 28 May 10 - 07:46 PM

You'll forgive me if I'm skeptical. It explains his behaviour in office more charitably than most of the other explanations I can think of.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: pdq
Date: 28 May 10 - 08:33 PM

He became a strict tea-toteler about 1976, nearly 30 years before Katrina

He became a strict tea-toteler about 1986, nearly 20 years before Katrina

1976 was the year he was stopped with John Newcomb and his wife for going too slow on a rural road in Maine. He was given his only DUI at that time.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: gnu
Date: 28 May 10 - 08:39 PM

So... it boils down to politicians, laywers, and political pundits? Not to engineers that are working their asses off to correct this disaster and trying to prevent same in future to fuel the energy hungry world?

Have fun with that, as misguided as it is.

gnightgnu

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Alice
Date: 28 May 10 - 10:59 PM

I was watching the live undersea video BP provided of the oil leak location, and then the camera floated up to the surface, was pulled on board something and turned off. I've searched for news on why that happened, but so far found no answer.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Alice
Date: 28 May 10 - 11:03 PM

wow
A camera is back down there, on again, and the link that had been taken down from cnn.com as back again. A different angle than the previous camera, farther from the leaking plume of mud/oil.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Stringsinger
Date: 29 May 10 - 04:07 PM

Dick, I don't think you can say that. Radiation works on the body in many ways. Cancer is one. Three Mile Island shows that there can be "time bomb" casualties as well as other places where nuke plants exist and some have accompanying dead zones which must affect human health and ultimately casualties.

Until the system of corporate finance is overhauled in the US, BP will get off scot-free, particularly when it is allowed to appoint its own judge in class-action suits.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 29 May 10 - 04:39 PM

Appoint its own judge? What nonsense!
Look at current Walmart and Toyota class-action suits. Neither is receiving favorable treatment at the current stage of the actions. Too bad that they didn't appoint their own judges.

BP has asked that the suit be heard by a jurist familiar with oil cases.
They also asked that the cases be handled in Houston, where most of the records and witnesses are located.

District Court Judge Hughes is a well known ethicist. "Records show that he has ruled both for and against the industry." Moreover cases, if the verdict is contested, go to appeals courts.
"The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ........will decide in July if the BP suits should be consolidated in a single court- and if Hughes should handle the cases."

Environment, 05.29.10. Miami Herald.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 29 May 10 - 04:58 PM

2.21 pm today. The Houston Chronicle:
BP chief operating officer Doug Suttles says the 'top kill' has yet to show much success and BP is considering scrapping the attempt in favor of a different method.

"If the top kill fails, BP would cut off the damaged riser from which the oil is leaking [gushing!] and cap it with a containment valve that's already resting on the seafloor. BP is already preparing for the operation, Suttles said."

Attempts to shoot "junk" into the damaged blowout preventer also has met with "limited success."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/7028248.html

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 29 May 10 - 05:04 PM

Very sad and disapointing

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: gnu
Date: 29 May 10 - 05:20 PM

"... cut off the damaged riser..."

???!!!

That has been an option since day one? That was my first thought... if you can cut it off square, you can use a compression collar(sss) and threaded rods or even cables to blind plate it and then encase it.

I simply assumed it wasn't an option due to the possibility of ignition of the plume. Why else would it not be underway?

Oh... ahhh... maybe it's become a scapegoat option due to the consideration of burning the plume that washed (and is washing) ashore?

Better minds are at work than mine so I'll just hope they do a good job and get lucky too.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ed T
Date: 29 May 10 - 05:44 PM

I suspect it will be back to injecting underwater dispersants. But, I suspect there will be little, if any aircraft sprayig...which I doubt worked well on the type of weathered oil that reached the surface anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 29 May 10 - 05:47 PM

Frank-
I know that there are hazards involved with nuclear power generation. I'm just stating that they appear to be far less serious than the hazards involved with other means of generation.

Comparison of accident statistics in primary energy production.

(Electricity generation accounts for about 40% of total primary energy)
Fuel        Immediate fatalities 1970-92        W        Normalised to deaths
per TWy* electricity

Coal        6400        workers        342
Natural gas        1200        workers & public        85
Hydro        4000        public        883
Nuclear        31        workers        8
* Basis: per million MWe operating for one year, not including plant construction, based on historic data which is unlikely to represent current safety levels in any of the industries concerned.
Source: Ball, Roberts & Simpson, Research Report #20, Centre for Environmental & Risk Management, University of East Anglia, 1994; Hirschberg et al, Paul Scherrer Institut, 1996; in: IAEA, Sustainable Development and Nuclear Power, 1997;Severe Accidents in the Energy Sector, Paul Scherrer Institut, 2001).

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ed T
Date: 29 May 10 - 06:04 PM

From Norway's Gullfaks Platform

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x249337


http://www.bellona.org/articles/articles_2010/dutch_ccs_money

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/27/north-sea-oil-rig-gas-threat

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Alice
Date: 29 May 10 - 06:14 PM

http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/site/2931/

click on that link for press conference

Press conference starting now on the disaster response.
I'm listening to it now on CNN tv news.
First remarks were addressing top kill and stating that it did not succeed. The next option they will move to is a complex operation at 5,000 feet to cut and remove the existing riser. Then they will install a cap. That cap will be connected via a riser and pipe to connect to the ship above. Could take 4 days or longer.

Alice

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Charley Noble
Date: 29 May 10 - 06:19 PM

I'm concerned when I see statistics for nuclear power accidents restricted to those who were directly killed in the incident. It's probably true that only about 30 plant staff and firemen were killed by Chernoblyl in the week or so after the 1986 explosion but there were thousands of civilians (not to mention the clean-up workers) who died later in the surrounding area during the next decade. Let's not join the nuclear industry in minimizing the risks of what happens when there is a catastrophic accident at a nuclear power plant.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Alice
Date: 29 May 10 - 06:29 PM

Top kill did not succeed. The next option they will move to is a complex operation at 5,000 feet to cut and remove the existing riser. Then they will install a cap. That cap will be connected via a riser and pipe to connect to the ship above. Could take 4 days or longer.

(Above is from the press release I am listening to).

You can also join this facebook group for updates.

http://www.facebook.com/DeepwaterHorizonResponse

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 29 May 10 - 08:05 PM

Command structure-
"Much of the command structure for a spill response is dictated by law. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 mandates the structure of a National Response Team, now headed by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano: a National Incident Commander Adm. Allen; and an on-site coordinator, Coast Guard Adm. Mary Landry.
"But that law gives BP primary responsibility to prepare for such an event: lining up contractors to supply boom and skimmers and deploying them when needed, then controlling any accident and cleaning it up."
There were delays, said BP, in getting boom from warehouses, etc.

Local officials in Louisiana said the federal effort was uncoordinated and undirected. Anger is building over what is regarded as failure to realize the magnitude of the problem on the part of the government.
Wall Street Journal, "Frustration, Fury, Greet Obama in Gulf," J. Weisman and L. Meckler, May 28, 2010.

Is The Oil Pollution Act to some extent a strait-jacket?

The news conference merely repeated the bad news reported earlier today in the Houston papers.

The offset drilling, not to be completed until August, unfortunately may be the only solution.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: gnu
Date: 29 May 10 - 08:05 PM

I agree Charley.... there are thousands upon thousands that were affected and are still being affected. There lives will be forever changed along with all their relatives.

Children Of Chornobyl Canadian Fund has done a great job of getting the word out while helping "survivors".

Thousands of childern have been hosted across Canada annually and much awareness has been generated with this effort and the efforts of these wonderful volunteers who hope to educate us all about that "rare" failure. It had devastating effects on people, animals, farmlands... which will be felt for many years to come.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Bill D
Date: 29 May 10 - 09:03 PM

explanation of BP executive reasoning

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 29 May 10 - 11:31 PM

Have to start watching those Post cartoons again.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 30 May 10 - 12:05 AM

Excerpts from Houston Post:

Truitt Crawford, a roustabout for Transocean, told Coast Guard officials in a written statement about pressure to shorten time- "I heard upper management talking, saying that BP was taking shortcuts by displacing the well with saltwater instead of mud without sealing the well with cement plugs." (the plugs would sit inside the bottom of a long section of pipe that was supposed to serve as the conduit for oil and gas to the surface when the well started producing).
"The final stretch of pipe that ran from the wellhead just under the seafloor all the way into the oil reservoir was cemented in place at the very bottom. The cement barrier, however, only went several hundred feet up and did not reach the next section of larger pipe above it. This meant that there was no secondary barrier between the reservoir and the wellhead, so if any gas leaked through the cement it would have an unobstructed path all the way to the surface."
"A secondary barrier isn't required in federal well design standards, ........but taking the time and spending the money to install one would have provided another level of safety."
"The final section of the production casing was supposed to be centered in the well bore- the area carved out of the earth by the drill bits- by special brackets known as centralizers, but it was discovered that 15 of the centralizers were not the ideal design for the job.
"Rather than wait fot the right type of centralizers, the decision was made to use just the six on hand that worked."
"BP also decided not to run a final, time-consuming test on the cement job- a cement bond log- in which a device is lowered into the well thaat uses sonic signals to determine how well the cement has adhered to the pipe."
Oil field services firm Slumberger was hired to provide a variety of services and had a crew on standby........ The team, however, was not called on for the bond log so they left the rig the morning of April 20, according to Slumberger."

"Steve Tink, BP's health and safety team leader for drilling and completion in the Gulf of Mexico, said the company's drive to control the massive cost of drilling a deepwater well is not in conflict with promoting safe operations." !!

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 30 May 10 - 12:10 AM

Sorry, that was from the Houston Chronicle, May 29, 2010, Tom Fowler- "Did cutting time, money come at cost of safety?"
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/7027665.html

The Houston Post is long dead- living in the past again-

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Alice
Date: 30 May 10 - 02:32 AM

regarding nuclear energy, here is a document with data titled
Micropower Database: How Distributed Renewables and Cogeneration are Beating Nuclear Power Stations — Supporting Data, Methodology, and Graphs

http://rmi.org/rmi/Library/E05-04_MicropowerDatabase

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: gnu
Date: 30 May 10 - 12:46 PM

RATS!!!

1 hour, 32 minutes ago

By The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - A BP executive says a relief well is the "end point" of efforts to stop the Gulf oil spill — which suggests there's little chance of plugging the leak until the new well is completed in August.

BP managing director Bob Dudley tells ABC television's "This Week" that the current attempt to cap the leaking well would at best minimize the oil flowing into the Gulf of Mexico.

Dudley says the relief well expected to be ready at the end of August "is certainly the end point on this game."

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 30 May 10 - 01:06 PM

And we can only hope that the relief well is successful.

The blowout gusher in the well in the Bay of Campeche took two relief wells and nine months to stop the flow, as previously posted.

TV crews show cleanup on-going on beaches, but it is the marsh wetlands which are many times more important- they are the breeding grounds and food source for much of the bird and marine life on the coast. Almost impossible to do anything when this environment is poisoned.

I think BP knew the top kill wasn't working days before it was stopped. They probably knew when mud injection was stopped "for evaluation." It could have been re-started just to empty the vessels of the mud on hand but no longer needed.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 30 May 10 - 01:37 PM

I may be simplistic, but it seems to me that recovering a large part ofa relatively shallow plume of oil should be a relatively simple problem, comapared to what's going on a mile deep. Is anyone addressing that one?

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 30 May 10 - 01:47 PM

As far as I know, only the BP collection near the well site of a small portion of the gusher.

It takes specialized equipment to collect the oil and water and expel it into a tanker.
Jan Hofmeister, ex-president of the American offices of Shell, suggested sending in tankers. But where do you get them? Most are foreign-owned, under long-term contract, and the owners may not want a 'dirty' product in their tankers.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: gnu
Date: 30 May 10 - 01:53 PM

And wait until the wee beasties that eat oil start to fart all over the Atlantic... global warming just got a hand up.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ed T
Date: 30 May 10 - 02:06 PM

Best way to recover oil at sea, you need to contain and concentrate it. That is no easy task, with currents, amount of water, weather, and I suspect much of it is in a highly weathered and dispersed state. Even freshly spilled surface oils are hard to contain (boom), skim up and store in open sea....let alone this messy stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 30 May 10 - 03:25 PM

Very difficult to collect.

Even on the beaches, workers are getting sick. I would guess high sulfur-sulfide content in the oil.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Rapparee
Date: 30 May 10 - 07:02 PM

There's a hole in the ocean, Obama, Obama,
There's a hole in the ocean, Obama, a hole.

Well, fix it, dear BP, dear BP, dear BP,
Well, fix it, dear BP, dear BP, fix it.

With what shall I fix it....

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 30 May 10 - 08:15 PM

Stuff Tony Hayward down it-

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 30 May 10 - 09:23 PM

I had no idea that there were so many wells in the Gulf drilled in deep water.
There are about 55 drilled in water depths of 5000 feet or more, the deepest in over 9000 feet of water, (Shell, Chevron), that have encountered hydrocarbons.
These lengths of drill pipe probably have the rigidity of string.

The companies all seem to be American or British based, except for ENI (Italy) and Petrobras (Brazil).

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 31 May 10 - 01:40 PM

BP is raising the question of the quality of the blowout preventer. It did not have the latest remote triggering device, but that was known from the time of the first reports.
As the driller, it seems to me that BP had to give approval for the configuration used.
I think BP is looking for others to share the expenses.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 31 May 10 - 03:02 PM

>>
There's a hole in the ocean, Obama, Obama,
There's a hole in the ocean, Obama, a hole.

Well, fix it, dear BP, dear BP, dear BP,
Well, fix it, dear BP, dear BP, fix it.

With what shall I fix it.... <<

with what shall I fix it, Obama, Obama
with what shall I fix it, Obama, with what

With your willy, dear BP, dear BP, dear BP,
with your willy, dear BP, dear BP, your willy

But my willy is......

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: gnu
Date: 01 Jun 10 - 09:49 AM

Hay!

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Jun 10 - 10:40 AM

Wouldn't it be wonderful if hay or straw (cheaper)were used successfully to clean it up? Of course, I suppose that absorbent pads are already being used- and maybe that would be even faster. And with the price of hay these days, cotton pads might be cheaper...

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: gnu
Date: 01 Jun 10 - 11:07 AM

A buddy of mine commented on where one would find that much hay.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 01 Jun 10 - 01:02 PM

A daughter of mine makes good money from her hay crop.
Hay and similar materials contribute much bulk; I can see no advantage over booms.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Alan Day
Date: 01 Jun 10 - 02:13 PM

I wonder if a heavy duty balloon solution has been considered for this oil leak.(Not a joke) it could be inserted deep into the pipe and blown up from above. The pipe could then be filled with concrete to seal it off.
aL

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: gnu
Date: 01 Jun 10 - 02:28 PM

Alan... the only problem I see with a pig is that it would have to "grab" a greased smooth steel pipe. Slipperier than whale shit comes to mind (Robin Williams' joke).

Regarding my blind flange consideration... a flared plug would work much better. With a LONG flare.

In a way, it boils down to the force exerted by the oil. I was fascinated by the velocity of flow.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Alan Day
Date: 01 Jun 10 - 03:40 PM

Gnu thanks for your reply to the idea. The balloon would be held in place by the tube being inserted and through which the air is blown.
Al

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: gnu
Date: 01 Jun 10 - 03:48 PM

Alan... depends on the pressure on the pig (balloon). If the pressure was too great, the force exerted on the pig would have to be stemmed by the tube.... might be like trying to push a party balloon with a pin???

Unless it was a big pin? Then, grout the void around the "pin"?

Still, it boils down to holding the pig in place which depends on the force of the oil. I still see the only way to do that is with a collar over the pipe to attached threaded rods or cables to PULL whatever into place.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Melissa
Date: 01 Jun 10 - 03:51 PM

Wouldn't it be easier to get the balloon loaded if it was pumped full of water instead of air?

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Alan Day
Date: 01 Jun 10 - 04:00 PM

Sounds like you and I should supervise this disaster.
If the force of the oil coming out can be utilised to slam up the hole
then that could be another solution something similar to an umbrella perhaps ?
Al

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: mousethief
Date: 01 Jun 10 - 06:02 PM

Fill the pipe with the collected works of Ayn Rand. Solves two problems at once.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: gnu
Date: 01 Jun 10 - 06:27 PM

Hahahaaa... oh MT... that was baaad!

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 12:30 PM

And now the diamond saw is jammed in the partially-cut pipe. Let's face it....present technology can't deal with deep-sea spills. And clearly, it can't prevent them from happening.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 01:14 PM

Durex are going to make a massive condom to put over the end of the pipe!

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: mousethief
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 01:16 PM

If present technology can't deal with deep-sea spills, and can't prevent them, then the only possible conclusion is that we can't afford to drill in those depths. The moratorium should be made permanent.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 02:10 PM

Dick Greenhouse and mousethief, I agree. New technology is needed before deep water drilling is safe.

At those water depths, the drill pipe has all the strength of a piece of string.

As I noted previously, there are some 55 wells in 5000 feet or more of water (MMS figures).
BP used lighter weight pipe, then went ahead when the annulus in the blowout preventer was broken, failed to demand proper cementing procedure, etc.
The drilling at that depth is risky enough, but BP shortcuts were inviting trouble.

When Imperial (Exxon) drilled in the Beaufort Sea, they built ice islands on which to place the rig. I watched experiments carried out in a large test basin that they built at the research center in Calgary.
That was years ago; at the time drilling in deep water was just a theory. Moreover, in the Arctic, sea ice could shove the rig and shear the pipe.

Palin's call for a go-ahead in the waters off the north Alaska slope are a call for trouble unless proper research is carried out first.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: gnu
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 03:19 PM

Durex? Resevoir tip?

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Penny S.
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 03:36 PM

I keep on finding a tune wandering across my mind.

They tried top kill, but the oil it kept a-coming,
Right up from the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico.....

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: gnu
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 03:54 PM

Texaco could be worked in there. Tiger in yer Gulf? Shell out? I got the BPs? Lots of stuff for a song.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 06:20 PM

"New technology is needed before deep water drilling is safe." And how can one predict whether the new technology will be adequate?

A problem with any new technology is that you can't tell when it will fail until it does. THe question then, of course, is "is the gain worth the risk?"

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: mousethief
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 10:20 PM

I think we can see the answer to that is an emphatic, "No."

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Jeri
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 10:32 PM

There's actually a Facebook group called "1,000,000 People Who Want to Plug the BP Oil Spill with Sarah Palin." I thought people should know. I don't think it would work, but it's a nice thought.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 10:39 PM

Thank the gods that Palin no longer has a voice in Alaska's direction. On the other hand, Alaska Rep. Don Young just doesn't believe the oil spill is that big a deal. Oh, we may lose a few birds but the ocean will heal itself...

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: mousethief
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 12:13 AM

Drop him in a kayak in the middle of the spill.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 11:08 AM

A canoe would be better than a kayak, MT. Holds more. Briefly.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: mousethief
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 11:16 AM

I was trying to be charitable. If he rolls it, in a kayak he can conceivably right himself and keep paddling. In fact I'd be hoping he'd roll it and get all that oil -- that nature is perfectly capable of dealing with -- all over himself. Okay maybe I'm not so charitable after all. How one can blithely dismiss the destroying of millions of acres of fragile ecosystem, and the livelihood and way of life of thousands of people, in the name of corporate profit, escapes me entirely. I guess if you're a marionette you dance on the strings your master tugs.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: GUEST,999
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 11:21 AM

I think Johnson and Johnson may have a solution:

It`s worth a try . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 01:03 PM

lol, Peace. There's a phone number where you can propose your solution. :)

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 02:21 PM

Top hat failed.
The slice and cap did not work.

Next they will try a yamika.
which is also called the chosen one but if that fails too...

fortunetly I have invented the sea condom...

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 09:57 PM

A paper "Acute Aquatic Toxicity of Three Corexit Products- an Overview," by Anita George-Ares and J. R. Clark, Exxon Biomedical Sciences, Inc., calls Corexit one of the most toxic dispersal agents ever developed.
www,iosc.org/papers/00020.pdf

Exxon Biomedical Services is a division of Exxon-Mobil devoted to safety in operations. George-Ares and Clark have authored a number of papers concerned with their research on product toxicity.


Several oil men call the Fallen Deepwater Horizon the second largest discovery ever made, covering some 25,000 sq. miles. It is also noted, in the very few tests so far, as being very high in gas content, leading to high pressure and danger of blowout.
I have not succeeded in finding a trustworthy article so the size may be questionable.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 10:01 PM

The paper by George-Ares and Clark specifically mentions Corexit 9500.
Errors above-
www.
Fallon, not Fallen.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: mousethief
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 10:47 PM

Top hat failed.
The slice and cap did not work.

Next they will try a yamika.
which is also called the chosen one but if that fails too...

fortunetly I have invented the sea condom...

Well, they've circumcised it. It definitely needs the yarmulke and the tefillin now.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 11:21 PM

I have to 10 gallon aquauriums I have never used so I decided to fill each with 37.95 liters of tap water and added 35 grams of non iodized salt to each. I let both tanks vent cholorine for 6 hours and equalized the temperature for both at 77 degrees in my laundry room. Each tank had a 100 watt spot light two feet above the tank with thermometers in each tank. Beneath each tank was tan construction paper wchich showed through the bottom of the tank.

I added one teaspoon of 30 weight motor oil(4.92892159 milliliters) to one tank only and turned on both lights and took temperature readings of the water every hour. The thermometers were on the bottom of the tank and edgwise to the light.
The oiled tank had a sheen but did not take on a black appearence like some parts of the gulf shore.

After an hour the tank with oil was 1.5 degrees higher while the the clean tank had only raised half of one degree. I assume that the inhibition of cooling evaportaion was the main factor since the color of the oiled water was not a solid dark color.

After 2 hours the room had gone up to 78 and the oiled tank was 80 degrees and the clean tank was just under 79 degrees.

The next day I put 9 more teaspoons of motor oil in the oiled tank and compared heating. Room temp was 76. After 2 hours room temp was 77 and the oiled tank was just under 82 degrees compared to the clean tank at 78 degrees.

------------

While I can not reasonably extrapolate these rates of heating to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, it is safe to say that oiled water heats significantly from a hot light source more than clean water.

If I used dirty black oil I am certain that the oiled tank temperatures would be even higher.

Under hurricane conditions I wonder how much the effect of limiting cooling evaporation and adding significantly more heat to the water will have of the strength of a storm.

As water retains heat better than air or land, oil retains heat better than water. While I have no proof or certainty, this may not bode well for this hurricane season.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 11:23 PM

make that "I have TWO ten gallon tanks..."

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 11:41 PM

Mouse kidnapper,

The circumcision ran into a snag and they had to finish the job with giant scissors.

BTW
The tefillin always reminded me of a miniature Ka'ba (the holy stone in Mecca).

I outlined a story about the Ka'ba in which a smill hypercube resided deep within the Ka'ba that is so bewilering that it is kept out of sight for reasons which include preserving the sanity of onlookers. Of course the scenes that included Muhammed would only lead to death threats from the Islamic versions of our racist tea party militias.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: mousethief
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 12:34 AM

The circumcision ran into a snag and they had to finish the job with giant scissors.

It was the bris they could do.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 11:47 AM

An oil-warmed Gulf of Mexico is an interesting conjecture, Donuel. You may well be right. But since oil calms water, do you suppose that will/could have an effect on storms?

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 11:48 AM

t was the bris they could do.

SOmebody slipped them a hot tip, obviously.


A

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 01:26 PM

Refined motor oil has a limited number of constituents, much of the original material has been removed for other uses.

The much more homogeneous refined product would tend to spread much more evenly than most crude oils. Gaseous hydrocarbons, heavy hydrocarbons, and other constituents like sulfur compounds have been removed. Refined oils often have added constituents to make them flow more easily, and to help them keep their lubricating properties at elevated temperatures.

Note the clumpy mess on the beaches, which is the heavier part of the crude- the gas is widely dispersed in the water, and the lighter, more fluid elements are partly separated from the heavy when diluted in water.
Crude oils are often rich in sulfur (as hydrogen sulfide, etc.), which are not only extremely toxic to life but chemically combine with other elements in the water. Much commercial sulfur is a byproduct of oil production, recovered in the refining process.

I don't know the composition of the particular crude that is gushing into the Gulf, only that it is rich in gaseous hydrocarbons. I suspect that it is rich in sulfur but I don't know if that is correct. If anyone runs across its specific composition in some article, please post.

The gusher is in the northern Gulf, the Gulf to the south (Mexican control) is likely to be little affected since currents tend to take northern Gulf waters toward Florida and out into the Gulf Stream. If the crude oil is sufficient to cause warming in the northern Gulf, the southern part would remain cooler. Dispersion of the crude will be uneven, so effects will vary in the northern Gulf.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 01:38 PM

An older online report, but still interesting:


http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-1113103-122552/unrestricted/Liu_thesis.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: gnu
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 02:23 PM

Q... Gulf Stream... that does not bode well for the Eastern Seaboard of NA nor for the British Isles nor for beyond.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 04:14 PM

An interesting read:

http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10388

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 10:20 AM

An interesting perspective on the global environmental impact of oil:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/NovaScotian/1185995.html

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 02:54 PM

The article in Bruce has a number of errors.
The U. S gets ca. 18 percent of its oil from Nigeria, not 40 percent.
U. S. imports in order:
Canada- 2020
Saudi Arabia- 1149
Mexico- 1086
Venezuela- 984
Nigeria- 939

At last count, 19 international companies operate in Nigeria. Oil provides 80 percent of Nigeria's federal income, and 90 percent of its foreign exchange.
The Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation is the major holder in all operations- of the 19 internationals operating in the Delta, the largest are Shell, Mobil*, Chevron, Elf, the Nigerian companies AGIP and AENR, and BP. * Now Exxon-Mobil.

Corruption, sabotage and threats to oil company personnel, largely due to Nigeria's failure to properly distribute oil revenues, are major factors in the Delta mess.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: gnu
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 03:06 PM

Hopeful to see the progress... capturing 10k barrels per day now I think.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 06:26 PM

"Nigeria's oil supply to US assumes a higher level as she out-stages Saudi Arabia.

While the consumption of petroleum-based products in the United States (U.S.) is flat, Nigeria's ranking on the international oil supply chart to the U.S. has grown.

A monthly data on the origins of crude oil imports into the U.S., based on February 2010 figures, which is the most recent estimate available to the U.S. government, shows that Nigeria is the fourth top oil supplier of the U.S., now ahead of Saudi Arabia, by the end of February this year.

According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), Nigeria is among the top five oil suppliers to the U.S. and "the top five exporting countries accounted for 64 per cent of United States crude oil imports in February while the top 10 sources accounted for approximately 85 per cent of all U.S. crude oil imports."

The EIA listed the top five sources of U.S. crude oil imports for February as Canada with 1.897 million barrels per day (mbpd) to the U.S.; Mexico (0.996 mbpd), Venezuela (0.913 mbpd), Nigeria (0.896 mbpd), and Saudi Arabia (0.881 mbpd)".

Source:
http://emnnews.com/business_finance/finace/nigerias-oil-supply-to-us-assumes-a-higher-level-as-she-out-stages-saudi-arabia/

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 08:28 PM

The figures I gave are the March 2010 figures from EIA; they vary month to month depending on many factors.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

"March 2010 Import Highlights: May 27, 2010" Monthly data on the origins of crude oil imports in March 2010 has been released and it shows that three countries exported more than 1.00 million barrels per day to the United States (see table). The top five exporting countries accounted for 66 percent of the United Staters crude imports in March while the top ten sources accounted for approximately 86 percent of all U. S. Crude imports.

Total imports (includes refined product) were Canada, 2.517 million, Mexico 1.265, Saudi Arabia 1.149, Venezuela 1.061 and Nigeria 0.962.

Looked at another way (July figures),
U.S. crude oil production- 4.950 million bbl/day
U. S. Crude Oil imports- 9.783
U. S. Petroleum Product Imports- 3.132
Dependence on Net Petroleum Imports- 57%

Texas produces 1.087 million bbl/day
BP produces 654,000 bbbl/day

Figures http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 08:30 PM

That BP figure is for the U.S. only.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 08 Jun 10 - 01:56 PM

refresh

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Jun 10 - 02:07 PM

A reporter on the beach today stuck a thermmeter in the gooey shore oil and it read over 100 degrees. He said that the animals covered with this dark oil are vitually being cooked in the sun.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Art Thieme
Date: 08 Jun 10 - 04:01 PM

Dare I suggest putting a condom on this damn thing!?

Art

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Jun 10 - 06:41 PM

the animals covered with this dark oil are vitually being cooked in the sun .

ALL RIGHT !! FREE BARBECUE !!!

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 10:56 PM

Federal agencies Wednesday said 442 oiled birds had been collected alive; 633 were dead. The report said 50 sea turtles were collected alive, 272 dead.

BP employees have been forbitten access to the media; this was expected.

Adm. Allen said about 15,000 bbl. of oil were collected in the 24-hour period ending Tuesday. Much seems to be gushing into the Gulf in addition; scientists have estimates of as much as 50,000 bbl/day.
Comparison with the Valdez tanker spill is being made, but this is nonsensical.

Estimates are that it will take years to clean up the northern Gulf; seafood may not be safe for consumption for years.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 04:08 PM

BP has paid out only $5000 to those directly affected but many charter boat owners and fishermen owe thousands in wages to employees and payments for equipment. Some will be on the hook for $1 million or more.
They face bankruptcy if payments are not expedited, and their employees cannot pay food, rent, house payments, etc.

Onshore businesses, motels, restaurants and stores of all kinds also face ruin.

It probably would be illegal, but if possible BP's large assets and production revenues in the U. S. should be frozen in order to pay compensation.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 09:57 PM

Families of the 11 rig workers who were killed and 15 others who were injured are suing BP and Transocean, the Swiss-based company that owns the drilling rig.
"But getting a settlement from Transocean, the world's largest offshore drilling company, could be difficult.
"The company has invoked a 19th-century American law to limit its liability to $26.76 million, a fraction of what the plaintiffs are likely to seek."

"President Obama said ... that he had a "frank conversation" with congressional leaders about the fact that current federal laws are not adequate to deal with the disaster.
"The White House and Congress agree on the need to update the laws..."

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 04:27 PM

This world class catastrophe is effecting people in my area in the following way.

"as long as it doesn't effect my commute, its not my concern"

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 07:57 PM

It could affect their spending, since many institutions, pensions, bank and other savings funds may have BP stock or stock of companies who support BP operations.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Alice
Date: 13 Jun 10 - 09:02 PM

Here is an interesting article on how the Mississippi has helped push the oil away from the marshes. It suggests that the Army Corps of Engineers should allow more water to flow from the gates at Old River.


Use Mississippi River
from CNN.com,
By G. Paul Kemp, Special to CNN
June 13, 2010 1:25 p.m. EDT

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 14 Jun 10 - 01:42 PM

Flood control has destroyed much of the flow sustaining the marshes.
A long, sad story.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Alice
Date: 15 Jun 10 - 12:02 AM

How BP was also connected to the bungled clean up of the EXXON Valdez:
BP, running Alyeska, was in charge of containing the spill in Alaska and cleaning it up - and lied about having the equipment.

Interview with Greg Palast, BP thinks they can get away with it.

Here also is a report from the AP on the same subject, BP's history with the EXXON Valdez spill:CLICK
"...David Pettit, who helped represent Exxon after the Alaska spill, said he knew BP was the "main player in Alyeska" even though everyone at the time was more focused on Exxon's role.

"This is the same company that was drilling in 5,000 feet of water in 2010 knowing that what they had promised ... was no more likely to do any good now than it did in 1989," said Pettit, now a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "It's the same cleanup techniques."

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Jun 10 - 10:31 AM

Here's a frightening suggestion that it's not possible to plug the wel... ever! The Oil Drum

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Jun 10 - 11:14 AM

Oh my God. He sounds like he knows what he's talking about but I hope he does not.

These are interesting times. "How old were you, Daddy, when the Gulf of Mexico became mostly oil?"

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Alice
Date: 15 Jun 10 - 11:52 AM

I posted info earlier about Costner's company that makes an oil and water separator, and now BP has tested and bought 32 of the machines.

From the AP:
Also, BP spokesman Bill Salvin told The Associated Press that the company has contracted with actor Kevin Costner and Ocean Therapy Solutions to use 32 of their centrifuge machines that are designed to separate oil from water.

"We recognized they had potential and put them through testing, and that testing was done in shallow water and in very deep water and we were very pleased by the results," Salvin said.

-----------

The skimming barges have been filled mostly with seawater and some oil, but using the centrifuge, the barges can be filled with a majority of oil combining skimming with the oil separating centrifuge.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Jun 10 - 12:04 PM

Idea: Maybe the Gulf of Mexico will be the long-term source of petroleum for the Americas- and the only one needed.

Of course, the quality of life along the gulf may plummet.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Jun 10 - 12:30 PM

Of COURSE its possible- they wouldn't have been allowed to drill this well - and all the other thoud=sands of off-dshore wells- if they didn't have the means to correct this sort of problem.

Technology Will Save Us All- if only we worship it enough.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: mousethief
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 01:00 AM

Perhaps we could re-route the Mississippi, Rio Grande, and other rivers to spill to the right of Florida, plug up the gap between the Yucatán and Cuba, and turn the Gulfo de México into a giant lake of oil. We could then open up all the wells, and just suck water from the shore near Biloxi.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: reggie miles
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 10:49 PM

I found it interesting to hear that BP was spending money purchasing the rights to control specific search terms on major search engines on the web. I guess, since they know that things are going from bad to worse, they'd like to control exactly what info is being released in order to spin it in the way they wish.

This is not unlike what the head of marketing for the NW Folklife Festival was trying to do, when I began posting publicly about their misdeeds. She wanted to take the discussion out of the public forum (off the web) and into a private meeting. No one wants public attention and scrutiny to be drawn to them, especially when they are at risk of being shown to actually be at fault for their misdeeds.


There's A Hole In The Bottom Of The Gulf
by Reggie Miles © 2010

There's a hole in the bottom of the Gulf
There's a hole in the bottom of the Gulf
There's a hole, there's a hole
There's a hole in the bottom of the Gulf

Oil is flyin' from the hole in the bottom of the Gulf
Oil is flyin' from the hole in the bottom of the Gulf
There's a hole, there's a hole
There's a hole in the bottom of the Gulf

The ecosystem's dyin' in the oil that's flyin' from the hole in the bottom of the Gulf
The ecosystem's dyin' in the oil that's flyin' from the hole in the bottom of the Gulf
There's a hole, there's a hole
There's a hole in the bottom of the Gulf

Fishermen are cryin', and the ecosystem's dyin', in the oil that's flyin' from the hole in the bottom of the Gulf
Fishermen are cryin', and the ecosystem's dyin', in the oil that's flyin' from the hole in the bottom of the Gulf
There's a hole, there's a hole
There's a hole in the bottom of the Gulf

BP keeps lyin', while the fishermen are cryin' and the ecosystem's dyin' in the oil that's flyin' from the hole in the bottom of the Gulf
BP keeps lyin', while the fishermen are cryin' and the ecosystem's dyin' in the oil that's flyin' from the hole in the bottom of the Gulf
There's a hole, there's a hole
There's a hole in the bottom of the Gulf

Me I'm just tryin', tryin' to keep from sighin', while BP keeps a lyin', the fishermen are cryin' and the ecosystem dyin', in the oil that's flyin' from the hole in the bottom of the Gulf
Me I'm just tryin', tryin' to keep from sighin', while BP keeps a lyin', the fishermen are cryin' and the ecosystem's dyin', in the oil that's flyin' from the hole in the bottom of the Gulf
There's a hole, there's a hole
There's a hole in the bottom of the Gulf

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 05:49 AM

Blimey this song seems appropriate. Almost like history repeating itself in a funny sort of way. :-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umcEYz9LJm8

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ed T
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 08:54 AM

Maybe these news articles have been posted befopre, But, I will post in case it wasn't.
Deepwater spills and short attention spans:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65D3Z220100614

WHOI joins consortium to study, minimize effects of Gulf Oil spill:
http://www.physorg.com/wire-news/37988031/whoi-joins-consortium-to-study-minimize-effects-of-gulf-oil-spil.html

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ed T
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 08:56 AM

Sea creatures flee oil spill, gather near shore:

http://www.physorg.com/news195978510.html

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Charley Noble
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 09:06 AM

Well, a $20 billion escrow account, paid for by BP, for clean-up and related expenses does address the financial aspects of the spill and its impact. BP should still be penalized for their reckless conduct in how this well was drilled.

And, as I've posted in a related thread, it seems appropriate to me to march the BP executives down to the shore of the Gulf and pitch them into the oily waters, to sink or swim as they may.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 02:02 PM

The $20 billion may cover initial claims, but will be insufficient (NY Times opinion).

If the flow is 60,000 bbl/day, over the 60 days,that is 3,600,000 bbl. (41 gallons/US oil barrel) so far. By mid-August (if all goes well!) a relief well will intersect the flow. That's another 60 days, so about 7.2 million barrels.

The Mexican gusher did not attract the attention of Americans to a great extent because effects on Texas areas of the Gulf were only moderate. The BP Macondo gusher affects millions of Americans directly.
Two relief wells took many months to stop the Mexican flow, and both water depth and sediment depth were less. The BP well also encountered a formation where the gas pressure is high, moreover the volume of gas relative to liquid petroleum is high.

Tony Hayward's testimony at the Congressional hearing had much of an "I don't know" and the "investigation is incomplete" flavor, although some 59 days have passed since the blowout- Nonsense!

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ed T
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 04:04 PM

"The Mexican gusher did not attract the attention of Americans to a great extent because effects on Texas areas of the Gulf were only moderate. The BP Macondo gusher affects millions of Americans directly"

I can understand if USA media, and possible USA citizens are mostly interested in major environmental stories (for example, oil spills)if they directly effects USA citizens, interests, or USA waters and coasts.

But, I am puzzled that the "Mexican gusher" did not attract the attention of world interests, environmentalists and media the world over? It was an oil spill that was close to this one in volume (could be greater, and lasted nine months, plus).

At a minimum, as the news story indicates, it could have provided a warning signal. And, this is not even suggesting a double environmental standard....one for first economic tier countries and lesser so for the lower tiers.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 09:07 PM

The Pemex gusher ended with about 3 million barrels spilled (Wiki, I have not checked for more reliable information); about equal to the amount so far (guessing about 50000 bbl/day) from BP Macondo, and which will be some 7 million barrels if the offset wells are sucessful in August.

Yes, I agree, there were several warning signals from the Mexican well (and from Anadarko and other deep wells more closely related to the BP well); the blowout preventer failed at the Mexican well among other things.

Tony Hayward has admitted that blowout preventers need re-design (yet the base of the well was not properly secured- obvious carelessness by BP); the Macondo situation is orders of magnitude greater than the Mexican well.

Little is known about the formations below the deep salt layers although seismic gives enough data to identify some high spots- should have been a red flag here, as these highs often have high gas pressure.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 18 Jun 10 - 12:16 AM

A subsurface section, much simplified, showing the deepwater play beneath the salt layers is illustrated in this article, which outlines the great size of the prospective fields.

The article is generalized, but I no longer subscribe to the technical journals that would contain more detail.

Prospectivity of the Ultra-Deepwater Gulf of Mexico, Anderson and Boulanger, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University.
Some of the difficulties in designing drilling for this realm are discussed.

http://leanenergy.Ideo.columbia.edu/docs/UltraDeep%20Prosp%2010-22-02.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 18 Jun 10 - 12:23 AM

Ultra Deepwater Gulf

Scroll through the article to Figure 14.

There are faults in the stratigraphic section, and deep earthquakes are known, one 3 years ago magnitude 5.1. Some have speculated that there is a connection to the fault that produced the great Mexico, Missouri, quake of the 19th C.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 18 Jun 10 - 12:28 AM

OK, just google the title of the article.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jun 10 - 04:22 AM

Somebody want to tell me again how Bush didn't do enough to help in Katrina? At least his administration did not STOP the local efforts!


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

450 comments By DAVID MUIR and BRADLEY BLACKBURN
June 17, 2010
PrintRSSFont Size: Share:EmailTwitterFacebookMoreFarkTechnoratiGoogleLiveMy SpaceNewsvineRedditDeliciousMixxYahooEight days ago, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal ordered barges to begin vacuuming crude oil out of his state's oil-soaked waters. Today, against the governor's wishes, those barges sat idle, even as more oil flowed toward the Louisiana shore.

Louisiana Governor Jindal frustrated over decision-making red tape. "It's the most frustrating thing," the Republican governor said today in Buras, La. "Literally, yesterday morning we found out that they were halting all of these barges."

Watch "World News" for David Muir's report from Louisiana tonight.

Sixteen barges sat stationary today, although they were sucking up thousands of gallons of BP's oil as recently as Tuesday. Workers in hazmat suits and gas masks pumped the oil out of the Louisiana waters and into steel tanks. It was a homegrown idea that seemed to be effective at collecting the thick gunk.

"These barges work. You've seen them work. You've seen them suck oil out of the water," said Jindal.

Related
WATCH: Citizens Take ChargeBP Spill: Oil Thicker Than Ever on ShoreBP CEO: 'I Fully Grasp the Terrible Reality'
Coast Guard Orders Barges to Stop
So why stop now?

"The Coast Guard came and shut them down," Jindal said. "You got men on the barges in the oil, and they have been told by the Coast Guard, 'Cease and desist. Stop sucking up that oil.'"

A Coast Guard representative told ABC News today that it shares the same goal as the governor.

"We are all in this together. The enemy is the oil," said Coast Guard Lt. Cmdr. Dan Lauer.

But the Coast Guard ordered the stoppage because of reasons that Jindal found frustrating. The Coast Guard needed to confirm that there were fire extinguishers and life vests on board, and then it had trouble contacting the people who built the barges.


Louisiana Governor Couldn't Overrule Coast Guard
The governor said he didn't have the authority to overrule the Coast Guard's decision, though he said he tried to reach the White House to raise his concerns.

"They promised us they were going to get it done as quickly as possible," he said. But "every time you talk to someone different at the Coast Guard, you get a different answer."

After Jindal strenuously made his case, the barges finally got the go-ahead today to return to the Gulf and get back to work, after more than 24 hours of sitting idle.


more

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Jun 10 - 09:22 AM

Dear God, BB- on what planet do you actually spend most of your time?

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 18 Jun 10 - 01:38 PM

Now just what was wrong with the stoppage to check out safety on the barges?
Toxic crude oil, fire hazard, sick volunteers, suits against Louisiana and the US government for illness or death.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Jun 10 - 03:19 PM

BP CEO Hayward has his role reduced in oil spill


http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/World/20100618/bp-hayward-100618/

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 18 Jun 10 - 05:00 PM

President Medvedev of Russia, discussing the costs to BP, wondered "Whether the company can digest these expenditures, whether they will lead to the annihilation of the company or its break up is a matter of expediency." (raising specter of TNK-BP sale?).
http://newsBBC.co.uk, Friday news.

Asset Sale:
BP has agreed to pay $5 billion into the compensation fund this year, followed by quarterly payments of $1.25 billion until the total of $20 billion is paid.
BP also said that it will be selling about $10 billion of "non-core" assets to raise cash, in addition to canceling dividends this year.

Speculation is that their Russian assets (TNK-BP) of $16-18 billion might go up for sale, but at a discount.
Also from BBC News

Admiral Allen said about 25,000 bbls. were recovered on Thursday, compared with the 35-60,000 bbls flowing daily.

Tony Hayward's reduced role (Ed T, above), and replacement by Managing Director Robert Dudley as handler of the oil spill, takes Hayward out of the spotlight.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Jun 10 - 06:11 PM

"Speculation is that their Russian assets (TNK-BP) of $16-18 billion might go up for sale, but at a discount".
Who has the cash and the need? Maybe China?

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Jun 10 - 08:50 PM

Ixtoc 1 Oil Spill - June 3, 1979 - March 23, 1980
Location: Bay of Campeche off Ciudad del Carmen, Mexico
Amount of Oil Spilled: 140 million gallons


Bahia de Campeche, Mexico      
On June 3, 1979, the 2 mile deep exploratory well, IXTOC I, blew out in the Bahia de Campeche, 600 miles south of Texas in the Gulf of Mexico. The water depth at the wellhead site is about 50 m (164 feet). The IXTOC I was being drilled by the SEDCO 135, a semi-submersible platform on lease to Petroleos Mexicanos (PEMEX). A loss of drilling mud circulation caused the blowout to occur. The oil and gas blowing out of the well ignited, causing the platform to catch fire. The burning platform collapsed into the wellhead area hindering any immediate attempts to control the blowout. PEMEX hired blowout control experts and other spill control experts including Red Adair, Martech International of Houston, and the Mexican diving company, Daivaz. The Martech response included 50 personnel on site, the remotely operated vehicle TREC, and the submersible Pioneer I. The TREC attempted to find a safe approach to the Blowout Preventer (BOP). The approach was complicated by poor visibility and debris on the seafloor including derrick wreckage and 3000 meters of drilling pipe. Divers were eventually able to reach and activate the BOP, but the pressure of the oil and gas caused the valves to begin rupturing. The BOP was reopened to prevent destroying it. Two relief wells were drilled to relieve pressure from the well to allow response personnel to cap it. Norwegian experts were contracted to bring in skimming equipment and containment booms, and to begin cleanup of the spilled oil. The IXTOC I well continued to spill oil at a rate of 10,000 - 30,000 barrels per day until it was finally capped on March 23, 1980.


http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/454782/the_worst_major_oil_spills_in_history_pg3.html?cat=37

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 18 Jun 10 - 09:49 PM

Ixtoc
Take the middle figure, 20,000 bbl/day. In one month, 600,000 bbl. In nine months, 5,400,000 bbl.X42= 226,800,000 gallons US.
In other words, 140 million gallons may be a low side estimate.

For Macondo, estimates range between 30,000-60,000 bbl/day, middle figure 45,000 bbl/day or 1,350,000 bbl/month, thus flow rate more than twice Iztoc.
When will the well be killed? Most optimistic guess is mid-August.
What will be the total captured in the meantime?
How much will that leave uncaught?

Regardless, it's going to be a long-term disaster.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: mousethief
Date: 19 Jun 10 - 12:49 AM

Drilling for oil is perfectly safe. Let us do more.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Alice
Date: 19 Jun 10 - 12:57 AM

Yeah, mouse... must... have.... more... oil.
Drive, baby, drive!
And as the advice was to the Graduate, "PLASTICS".

If people only knew how much they consume in addition to their car tank.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: mousethief
Date: 19 Jun 10 - 01:44 AM

It's true, Alice. Everything is made out of plastic these days. I sometimes talk with friends about remembering the days when things were made of glass and wood and metal and paper.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jun 10 - 03:21 AM

Tony Hayward's testimony at the Congressional hearing had much of an "I don't know" and the "investigation is incomplete" flavor, although some 59 days have passed since the blowout- Nonsense!

Yet another idiotic announcement from Q

Tony Hayward was sworn in at the hearing? If so if he was asked a question and he did not know the answer then what answer should he give other than "I don't know"?

Has BP completed its investigation Q? A simple Yes or No will suffice. If it has not (and it has not) should the CEO of BP lie about it being completed and invent answers? Or should he simply state the truth that the investigation is incomplete and as such answers to detailed questions as to what failed and what went wrong will have to wait.

So 59 days have elapsed have they Q? Ample time for the BOP to have been recovered eh? Oh wait a minute they cannot recover anything from the site until the well has been sealed; the leak stopped; the site made secure and debris cleared out of the way. Only then can examine things in detail at the moment the priority is to reduce and stop the leak.

Oddly enough I was thinking back to the IXTOC I blow out, I worked on that and I was wondering how it compared. Subsea intervention was successfully provided by two Norwegian Dynamically Positioned Dive Support Vessels, the first to have worked in the GOM (Arctic Surveyor and Arctic Seal). Now then Q, IXTOC 1 was in much shallower water, don't know about drilling depth, but that took from 3rd June 1979 to 23rd March 1980 to get under control. But BP will have its relief wells drilled quicker than that won't they? In fact a great deal quicker than that. By the way Q on the SEDCO 135 did Pemex provide the drilling crews? Seeing how rig owners and operators only do the positioning, cook the meals and make the beds?

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Jun 10 - 08:40 AM

Possible impact of oil production with a U.S. moratorium and its implications worldwide:

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100618-702620.html?mod=WSJ_World_MIDDLEHeadlinesAsia




Vast amounts of natural gas contained in crude escaping from the blown Gulf of Mexico oil well could pose a serious threat to marine life:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5heVm0Cu8W-4DT920tco-mgrlXw_AD9GDU0200

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jun 10 - 11:57 AM

FUKUI, Japan (Dow Jones)--Global oil output could fall up to 900,000 barrels a day from projected levels for 2015 if oil producing countries follow the U.S. lead and impose moratoriums on development of new offshore oil reserves, International Energy Agency Executive Director Nobuo Tanaka said Friday.

(From one of the links given by Ed T)

Anybody tell me why anybody would be stupid enough to follow the U.S. lead??

Sort out any prospective oil shortage caused by this moratorium by refusing point blank to sell oil to the U.S.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: mousethief
Date: 19 Jun 10 - 12:04 PM

OPEC has a hard time agreeing on what to have for lunch. Venezuela, IIRC, sells most of its crude to the United States. The infrastructure really isn't there for it to start selling to someone else in a hurry. And oil revenue is a huge part of their income. Don't look to them to be voting for or participating in such a boycott.

Indeed the oil-producing countries are pretty addicted to the $$ the US sends into their midst. There's a reason there hasn't been a crisis like the 1970s since the 1970s.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 19 Jun 10 - 12:55 PM

Oh, dear! terrible Terrybus is upset.

Anadarko, 25% owner of Macondo, is distancing itself from BP, the operator, placing the blame on BP. Anadarko could be liable for damages as a partner, although it had no physical part in the drilling of the gusher. Mitsui, the Japanese company, owns 5.

Anadarko has drilled at least 2 wells into pre-salt beds, successfully. The MMS list of deepwater wells is on line; some 50 or so have drilled in 5000 feet or more of water (noted before in this or another thread.

Obama should separate the pussycats from the tigers- go-ahead ought to be given for drilling in shallower water.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 19 Jun 10 - 03:37 PM

I wish to apologise for mis-identifying the driller, tool push and their crew as members of BP; they were Transocean employees on contract to BP.

Two of those who died were employees of M-I-SWACO, a company that "manages risks of fluids-related issues, safeguards completion, and the formation, minimizes production-related problems, manages oilfield waste, and works with deepwater solutions."

The report by BP will be interesting; undoubtedly it will be an excellent description of a regrettable accident in which none of their procedures was at fault. The testimony of survivors will play part in future actions by the government and legal procedures.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Jun 10 - 09:26 AM

Still leading the lynch mob I see Q?

OK now having realised that you were in error regarding who was responsible for doing what on the Transocean deepwater drilling rig Deepwater Horizon, care to explain to the folks what those responsibilities entail. For some reason they don't seem to believe me when I tell them, apparently 35 years in the industry, doesn't qualify one to voice an opinion.

While the rig is attached to the seabed, the legally responsible person on the Transocean Deepwater Horizon for everything, repeat everything, that occurs onboard rests with a guy with the title Offshore-Installation-Manager (a Transocean employee). As soon as the rig is no longer connected to the seabed that legal responsibility devolves to the Rig Master, or Captain (another Transocean employee).

Ultimately responsible for everything, repeat everything that happens in their licenced area is the Operating Company - BP. Now while they might be responsible, that does not necessarily and automatically mean that they are at fault.

Now instead of knee-jerk reactions and calling for people to be tarred and feathered Q, I would rather wait until some real and relevant information is published before jumping to conclusions based solely on gossip, rumour and speculation.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: mousethief
Date: 20 Jun 10 - 12:10 PM

Except they're not based solely on gossip, rumour and speculation. People from on board the rig have spoken. Then were apparently hushed. It might be worthwhile to find out why they're so quiet now.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: gnu
Date: 20 Jun 10 - 12:38 PM

Red Sea spill from oil rig.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 12:30 AM

mousethief, until such time that a full investigation is carried out and the information from that investigation is assembled and analysed it is all gossip, rumour and speculation, some may be more informed gossip, rumour and speculation than others, but still remains as being gossip, rumour and speculation.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: romanyman
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 03:07 PM

See now when it happens to good ol USA dont they kick up ! what about what the american companies are still doing in africa south america, india, to name just a few, sorry its happened but perhaps its a wake up call. the love of the car and the dollar, it had to kick back at some time, why not develop the hydro or the ethanol engine its there it works oh yeh i forgot the oil companies and the government or the shareholders wont get the usual cash backs oh silly me, i thought it was about money

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: mousethief
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 03:43 PM

Sorry, Teribus, but testimony before Congress is not gossip, rumour, and speculation.

Romanyman, of course we kick up when it happens in our waters. As other countries should kick up when it happens in theirs. What do you expect? We can't enforce the laws of other countries. The world thinks we meddle in the affairs of other sovereign nations too much as it is.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 05:37 PM

Until a detailed investigation has got to the bottom of it, it is all gossip, rumour and speculation, which is why all the political grandstanding that is going on at the moment in the US is so completely bloody ridiculous.

Testimony before a Congress!!! And you have the likes of Q complaining when questions are answered with the blatantly and perfectly honest answer of "I don't know"!!! Primarily because at this stage mousethief NOBODY KNOWS - FACT. No wonder Gorgeous George Galloway made that hearing he was dragged over to attend look so f***ing stupid.

The hearings of another Congressional Committee back in September 2007 attended by one General David H Petraeus, chaired I believe by your current Vice-President Joe "Wrong Again" Biden, after haranging the man for hours were all left with egg on their faces when it was clearly demonstrated that "The Surge" had worked. Petraeus must actually kill himself laughing to himself every time he has to shake Joe Biden's hand.

Congressional hearings - You have got to be joking - They don't impress at all.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: mousethief
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 01:02 AM

Don't shout. It makes you look stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 12:42 PM

Latest:

"BP oil containment stopped after gas detected: coordinator
Jun 23 12:17 PM US/Eastern


The containment system capturing oil from the Gulf of Mexico spill had to be removed Wednesday, leaving the gusher unchecked after a collision involving a robotic submarine, US officials said. "

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 01:36 PM

Don't shout. It makes you look stupid.
As if any additional evidence was needed to carry this point.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 06:32 PM

Michael R. Bromwich, head of the new Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, will focus on industry oversight and ridding MMS of corruption.
He is a litigations attorney, law degree from Harvard, and public policy degree from JFK School of Government.
He is with the NYC office of Fried Frank, heading the firm's Internal Investigations, Compliance and Monitoring Practice Group.

No experience with oil well engineering or drilling technology.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 06:35 PM

The destruction of generations of birds, dolphin, turtles, blue fin tuna and smaller fish due to the spill, are the LEAST of my concerns.

My concern is the microscopic life we can not see such as phytoplancton, diatoms and tiny animals that comprise the very foundation of life in the waters and shores of the sea.

This invisible life determines all the rest of animal and plant life.
The big life forms we sea dying in agony is but the outer skin of onion.

The story of the invisible foundation of life will take about a year before it is openly discussed.

------------------------

As for BP we all owe an apology to all of its billionaire owners right down to the most modest workers because we all undoubtedly enjoy and consume the benefits of the energy they produce. The price of oil is artificially low just as nuclear power electricity is low since we do not include the cost of the waste, accidents and global consequences in our energy bill.

We are all both the victims and the perpetators.
When we are blinded by the buck it is exquisitly easy to make horrendous choices.

When BP goes to drill in the slushy frozen methane depths in the Artic I am certain there will be more enormous spill, albeit those spills will be easier to hide, disguise and lie about.

The spills to come might persuade Southern judges who happen to own Trans ocean or BP stock to consider that spills are evidence enough to justify a moritorium.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 06:36 PM

opps GUEST is Donuel

---

The destruction of generations of birds, dolphin, turtles, blue fin tuna and smaller fish due to the spill, are the LEAST of my concerns.

My concern is the microscopic life we can not see such as phytoplancton, diatoms and tiny animals that comprise the very foundation of life in the waters and shores of the sea.

This invisible life determines all the rest of animal and plant life.
The big life forms we sea dying in agony is but the outer skin of onion.

The story of the invisible foundation of life will take about a year before it is openly discussed.

------------------------

As for BP we all owe an apology to all of its billionaire owners right down to the most modest workers because we all undoubtedly enjoy and consume the benefits of the energy they produce. The price of oil is artificially low just as nuclear power electricity is low since we do not include the cost of the waste, accidents and global consequences in our energy bill.

We are all both the victims and the perpetators.
When we are blinded by the buck it is exquisitly easy to make horrendous choices.

When BP goes to drill in the slushy frozen methane depths in the Artic I am certain there will be more enormous spill, albeit those spills will be easier to hide, disguise and lie about.

The spills to come might persuade Southern judges who happen to own Trans ocean or BP stock to consider that spills are evidence enough to justify a moritorium.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 07:59 PM

BP stock finished under $30 today.

Some investment services are beginnig to look on the stock as a 'buy'.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: mousethief
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 10:33 PM

No experience with oil well engineering or drilling technology.

How much experience does one need to see that we don't know what to do if a deep-sea well blows? Every day that passes drives this point home to the world (or at least that part of the world that is able and willing to follow the news). We don't know how to fix things like this. That's why we need a moratorium. We can't afford another Deepdoodoo Horizon.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 05:49 PM

CNN today-

BP shares closed below $27. "Some analysts say that an end to the downward spiral could be far from reach, as investors offload the stock on fears that cleanup, legal and regulatory costs could soar."

BP's market capitalization has fallen to $85 billion from more than $160 billion, "leaving BP quite vulnerable."

http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/25/news/companies/BP_stock_price/

Subject: BS: Apocalypse - Now (Film of the Oil)
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 01 Jul 10 - 03:07 AM

FINALLY we now get to know why they've tried so hard to keep us in the dark......

This will upset you, make you cry I've no doubt, but when you've dried your tears, get angrier than you ever have in your life, because The Time is NOW, the time to change is right now..right this moment...

BP Apocalypse - Youtube


May the Creatures of the Sea forgive us....

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jul 10 - 06:00 PM

IMAGES OF THE CONSEQUENCES not much promoted by media somehow...


A

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 14 Jul 10 - 10:19 PM

Very sickening, Amos. I would like to dunk Tony Hayward in that toxic mess.

The NY Times ran another article about BP's blatent disregard of regulations, poor safety records, corner-cutting and rush to put the dollar above good business practice, but it has all been said in this and the Bigot threads.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Jul 10 - 04:22 AM

"14 Jul 2010: President of the Organisation for International Investment tells UK firms to beware anti-British rhetoric in forthcoming US mid-term elections in the wake of the BP oil spill"


http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jul/14/british-companies-reputation-threat-us


I told you so.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 15 Jul 10 - 01:37 PM

BP's blackened reputation is bound to spill over to other UK corporations.
Perhaps the UK government needs to exercise better control of corporations operating with UK registry.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Jul 10 - 03:35 AM

Q - you advocating government control of capitalist ventures? I've heard it all now!

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Charley Noble
Date: 16 Jul 10 - 11:09 AM

What a massive clean-up and what a long-term disaster to wildlife in the Gulf and the livelihood of those who work there as well.

I'm pleased that the latest attempt to cap the leak appears to be working well. But GP has taken 85 days to do what they should have been prepared to do in a week.

Certainly further government regulation is need for this industry, in addition to better enforcement of what rules exist now. Richard, review the images above and explain what you would recommend as an alternative.

Maybe we should blame the problem on the wildlife for being in the Gulf???

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: gnu
Date: 16 Jul 10 - 12:53 PM

Amos... after I looked at a half dozen pics I tried to FORCE myself to view all the pics but got less than halfway through.

Unreal. The extent of this tragedy is difficult to grasp. Along with the video Lizzie posted... I have no words.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 16 Jul 10 - 01:23 PM

Gnu, there are no words. We will be living with an ache in our minds for a long time to come.
The well is not yet under control, as Adm. Allen points out. Leaks may develop if the containment cap cannot hold the pressure. The relief wells will take at least another month or two to complete.

On July 15, the NY Times offered a video, , Andrew C. Revlon, which gave side-by-side comparisons of the deep well techniques of BP and Shell. It showed, in detail, and with clear explanation by two Shell drilling specialists, Joe Leimkuhler and John Hollowell, the differences in approach by the twwo companies, and presented at the Aspen Ideas Festival.
Step by step, Leimkuhler showed Shell's design, with multiple, redundant fail-safe points and blowout-prevention systems, and the BP design with most of the controls and fail-safe points omitted.

Of course the Shell presentation is meant to show that deep water drilling can be done safely, but it is unusual in that short-comings of another major company (and sometime partner in exploration) are so sharply exposed.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 16 Jul 10 - 01:32 PM

Yes, Richard- I am looking askance at my jar of Robertson's Seville Orange Marmalade. Does BP have an interest in that company (Tony Hayward got his degrees from Edinburgh University)? Maybe its recipe contains some of that gunk from the Gulf gusher.
Yes, definitely, the British government should exercise more controls.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: gnu
Date: 16 Jul 10 - 01:41 PM

I think all governments should enact whatever legislation is necessary to attempt to prevent such tragedies.

"Better safe than sorry" comes to mind.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Amos
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 07:20 PM

WASHINGTON Ñ Halliburton knew weeks before the fatal explosion of the Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico that the cement mixture they planned to use to seal the bottom of the well was unstable but still went ahead with the job, the presidential commission investigating the accident said on Thursday.

In the first official finding of responsibility for the blowout, which killed 11 workers and led to the largest offshore oil spill in American history, the commission staff determined that Halliburton had conducted three laboratory tests that indicated that the cement mixture did not meet industry standards.

The result of at least one of those tests was given on March 8 to BP, which failed to act upon it, the panelÕs lead investigator, Fred H. Bartlit Jr., said in a letter delivered to the commissioners on Thursday.

Another Halliburton cement test, carried out about a week before the blowout of the well on April 20, also found the mixture to be unstable, yet those findings were never sent to BP, Mr. Bartlit found.

Although Mr. Bartlit does not specifically identify the cement failure as the sole or even primary cause of the blowout, he makes clear in his letter that if the cement had done its job and kept the highly pressured oil and gas out of the well bore, there would not have been an accident.

ÒWe have known for some time that the cement used to secure the production casing and isolate the hydrocarbon zone at the bottom of the Macondo well must have failed in some manner,Ó he said in his letter to the seven members of the presidential commission. ÒThe cement should have prevented hydrocarbons from entering the well.Ó

The failure of the cement set off a complex and ultimately deadly cascade of events as oil and gas exploded upward from the 18,000-foot-deep well. The blowout preventer, which sits on the ocean floor atop the well and is supposed to contain a well bore blowout, also failed.

In an internal investigation, BP identified the faulty cement job as one of the main factors contributing to the accident and blamed Halliburton, the cementing contractor on the Macondo well, as the responsible party. Halliburton has said in public testimony that it tested and used a proper cement formula on the well and that BPÕs flawed well design and poor operations caused the disaster.

Jesse Gagliano, a Halliburton technical adviser, told federal investigators in Houston in August that the company was confident in the cement job. He said Halliburton initially recommended that BP use a well design with more devices called Òcentralizers.Ó But even after BP chose to use six centralizers instead of the recommended 21, Halliburton believed the cement would work properly, Mr. Gagliano said.

ÒAll indication at the surface was that everything went fine,Ó he said. ÒWe plan for success.Ó

The Deepwater Horizon drilling rig was operated by a third company, Transocean.

Cathy Mann, a Halliburton spokesperson, said the company was reviewing the panelÕs findings and would provide comment later Thursday.

Halliburton, a major oil field services company and one of the nationÕs largest defense contractors, was once led by former Vice President Dick Cheney. Mr. BartlitÕs law firm, Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott, has done legal work for Halliburton in the past but has not represented the company since 2005, the firm said.

After the commission report was released at 1:30 p.m. Eastern time, HalliburtonÕs stock price began dropping sharply, and was down more than 10 percent in mid-afternoon trading. BP shares rose slightly.

The commission obtained from Halliburton samples of the same cement recipe used on the failed well, including the same proportion of nitrogen used as a leavening agent and a number of chemicals used to stabilize the mixture. The cement slurry was sent to a laboratory owned by Chevron for independent testing.

The mixture failed nine separate stability tests designed to reproduce conditions at the BP well and did not pass any, according to ChevronÕs test results, which were returned to the commission this week.