I’m assuming that by “this” you mean the BP spill and not the 6 year old Ivan incident. If you mean the latter, than please let me know.
Not to burst your bubble, but the explosion occurred on April 20th at around 10:00 PM CST. Transocean made a public statement on April 21st some time before 5:44 AM CST. You want to find me the press report that beat that timing?
Further, on April 22nd BP stated that there was oil spilling and that they had begun preparations for the relief well. In comparison, the Coast Guard stated the following day, April 23rd, that there was no leak.
It seems like the actual facts show that we heard about both the explosion and the leak from the oil companies as fast as is reasonably possible.
Two More Gulf Spills? – Mother Jones Perhaps there are 2 more . But since the oil companies are under their own supervision, I am sure they reported them.
I understand that but right now it’s pouring out. If they come close to equalizing vacuum and pressure they can pull most of it up. Right now they’re claiming they can get almost all of it out by Monday or Tuesday and that another pumping ship is en-route. That may be what is going to happen. There is also yet another cap being built that is suppose to seal better. It looks like they’re adapting as they go.
Transocean made a statement to who? Oh, the perss. Why? Hmmm, well there’s this huge fireball out in the middle of the ocean lighting up every satellite in the sky. Somebody’s gonna say “What’s that?”. They were a little slower about what led up to the disaster. And about other screw-ups which didn’t make themselves obvious.
My bubble’s fine, thank you.
They’re collecting as much as the ship can handle, 15,000 barrels per day, right now, and I hear the second ship’ll only get them up to 20,000 bpd. They’ve only got one of the 4 ports on the cap closed now, and the plume volume doesn’t look like it’s been decreased by half since the cap was first installed.
Hence: They don’t have the capacity to get ‘almost all’ the oil, and won’t until they get more ships in there to process the stuff.
Maybe that pumping ship you mention is a new addition to the two they have?
Even if so, it better have at least 15,000 bpd capacity to meet BP’s projection that they’ll soon be capturing ‘almost all’ the oil.
See why?
Anyway, they’re going to burn the oil? Is that good? For one thing, it’ll take a long time, and there’ll be a lot of stuff that doesn’t burn, won’t there?
Your idiotic site is calling the same spill two different spills. Diamond Offshore owns a rig that is being used to plug and abandon a well owned by Taylor. It’s not a Diamond Offshore spill and a Taylor spill. It’s just a Taylor spill. And guess what, Taylor did report it … on April 17th, 2004. The incident was pretty big news back in 2004 to anyone that knows anything about the domestic oil & gas industry as well as really anyone living in Louisiana. It wasn’t a big deal from an environmental standpoint since the well is leaking, according to the interior department, less than 1/3rd of a barrell a day. It was a big story because it was one of three bad incidents that happened to Taylor in the same year (the others being the death of Pat Taylor and the failed launch of a platform). Pat Taylor was an incredibly well known person in Louisiana, so every informed person there did know about this event. Reporting it now as if it is a new event is nothing but fear mongering.
Yeah, it probably is good as a short term solution.
They’ve got more oil coming up from the seafloor than they can handle with the ships they currently have.
That leaves them the choice of either letting the excess feed the slicks, or burning the stuff.
Given that those are the only choices available at the moment, which do you prefer, mangeorge?
So, LD, do your diatribes mean that you do think BP is doing enough, and has been since this question was asked here?
And do you think that The Press has somehow caused BP’s problems and the suffering resulting from those problems?
I think that BP caused this screw up and should be held fully responsible for that in every sense of the word. If they end up bankrupt so be it. I think they are doing everything in their power to stop the leak as quickly as possible. I also think they are the best ones to handle the job although there should be significant government oversight in the process. Essentially, everything that is being done now by both the government and BP is correct. Unfortunately it does not mean the problem is getting fixed quickly or excuse the initial problems by BP that caused the blow out. Further, the relief wells will work. It may take them longer than August (likely will take longer in my opinion), but they will ultimately work.
It bothers me when people criticize them incorrectly. That is an enormous problem on this site. People link from random websites that make ludicrous claims. I see claims that BP is dragging their feet because they want to salvage the well or Transocean has profited from this or the well is producing 200,000 barrels a day or any number of random stupid claims. Why isn’t it enough to criticize them for the actual problem, which is only causing the biggest environmental disaster in U.S. history? Why do people on here think they also need to lie about other things?
Further, why is it wrong to point out when journalists make errors?
Not true. The oil coming to surface goes to the Deepwater Enterprise. Off the top of my head, it has a capacity of 50,000bbls. When it starts to get full, it transfers oil to another ship. The first such transfer started yesterday.
As for setting fire to the oil, my best guess is that gas is indeed being flared off and somewhere a journalist got confused by a surfeit of hot air.
So, what I said was true, within epsilon. They need more capacity to handle all the oil they can raise from the well. That makes burning a reasonable thing to do, until they can bring that capacity on line.
I think journalists have a responsibility to try to get their story right. I think they have been abysmal in their reporting of this story. The mainstream press didn’t really pick up on this being a huge story for 1-2 weeks after the spill. I read about the explosion from Tudor Pickering by 7:00 the following morning. Tudor Pickering daily puts out better information on the spill then every news outlet combined. It was odd to me how little press the spill was getting for the first couple of weeks. It was also frustrating how many facts they were getting wrong, even simple things. For example, they didn’t even understand the difference between a gallon and a barrel. They also made big mistakes like claiming that the 11 people that died in the explosion had been found alive. Now the press has swung the pendulum the other way and is looking to make up stories and top each other all the while making even more mistakes in their reporting.
I don’t have any problem with you saying you don’t trust oil companies. BP has after all caused a pretty massive problem here. However, I thought it was simply incorrect to make a statement that the oil companies were trying to hide the story. Transocean (and BP) were out there with information essentially immediately. I don’t think there was anything in my original response that was mean. It was essentially just a timeline of stories showing you that your comment was incorrect. I think it is a little annoying when someone is shown to be wrong and they just dig their heals in rather than admit a mistake, so my second comment to you was certainly more harsh although not overly so in my opinion.
Further to compound things, you can see that the mistaken press reporting of the “second spill” that I was criticizing in my post gets not only brought up three posts after I bring it up (by Gonzomax) but has now become two additional spills not one. Further, Gonzomax also brings up the issue that those “spills” were probably being hidden by these evil oil companies again. Once again, easily proven to be false.
Everyone is quick to criticize BP for incorrectly estimating (or perhaps even lying) about the oil flow rate. This despite the absolute fact that it is an incredibly difficult thing to measure and that a team of government and academic experts formed solely for the purposes of performing such a measurement not only: 1) took a long time to make an estimate; 2) made their estimate as a wide range; but also 3) will likely soon be coming out with another estimate which exceeds even the high end of their previous estimate range. This seems to be clear proof that estimating the rate is an exceedingly difficult thing to do. Nevertheless, there are literally hundreds of posts on this board criticizing BP for being wrong on their estimate; however, those same people are perfectly fine with: 1) stating falsehoods that are easily proven wrong with just a couple minutes of fact checking; 2) spreading lies by quoting non-reputable sources without even bothering to determine if they are correct; and 3) attacking people that try to go out of their way to state the truth.
You may say you were trying to be civil. However, I see what is going on here as spreading of lies, fear mongering, populist outrage, and an aversion to the truth. There are legitimate things that should be discussed here including discussion about whether we should be drilling in the deepwater, what punishment BP deserves, what did they do incorrectly to cause this, and of course the one that is the title of this thread. I think that the spreading of lies should be actively discouraged by everyone here.
About 35% of domestic crude production is offshore. This includes both state waters and federal waters. It is both deep and shallow waters. A very high percentage is in deep waters although I do not know the numbers off the top of my head. This does not count production in the marsh lands of Louisiana as offshore though.
Although you did not ask it, I believe the first real offshore well was drilled in 1947 by Kerr McGee. This is somewhat of an interesting footnote in that Kerr McGee was acquired a couple of years by Anadarko who just happens to be one of BP’s partners in the well.
I think you should start another thread, not in GD probably, that addresses your concerns. How about “Is the press, as a whole, screwing up their coverage of The Spill?”
The title of this thread,
“Is BP Doing Enough To Clean Up The Oil Spill?”
is too limited for what you wish to discuss.
And you’re nit-picking the coverage. It’s not as bad overall as you would have us believe.
Anyway, this debate is supposed to be about BP, not the press. You can ask for cites for statements made about what BP is or is not doing.
That’s all.
