Well we better hurry because hurricane season is coming.
I don’t know about you. I do know a little about the Western everyman. He likes convenience and loves having it satisfied for the least outlay on his part possible.
And he is shocked shocked when something bad happens in the technologically challenging industry that is motivated by the trillion dollar market that he has created.
But it’s OK because the bad things are caused by Other People and Corporations, which are greedy. This greed has nothing nothing in common with wanting to be able to drive everywhere for the least possible outlay. The two things are totally unrelated.
Animation: Gulf of Mexico oil spill growth and movement
From the Times-Picayune
Teams working on 5 possible solutions for Gulf of Mexico oil spill
Jay-sus Christ what exactly are you accusing me of? Yeah, I own a car. Um, I want them all to be more fuel-efficient, in fact I want them all to be electric as of 1985. But its not my call.
Yes I am rather shocked at the harm caused by this catastrophic oil spill. Why wouldn’t I be? It is a bona fide disaster.
I like the idea of attaching a new BOP to the existing equipment stack. What we need is an Aquaman version of Red Adair. Quick, someone call John Wayne…
Only if you did it on purpose, or perhaps if you’re found to be negligent. While this is a horrible disaster, I don’t think we yet know enough about the cause to say if they were negligent.
You read the first sentence of my post you were responding to, right?
Because there have been any number of massive oil spills in the past and no magic wand has been waved since that would give anyone cause to believe that major spills couldn’t happen again.
Well, there have been any number of deaths in the past, and yet we are still shocked when someone close to us dies suddenly. This even though no magic wand has been waved since that would give anyone cause to believe that deaths couldn’t happen again.
Well, good point. I suppose it’s the particular reaction to the shock that amazes me. If you refer to the particular comment to which I responded (“And if they aren’t prepared to handle this contingency, why is BP doing it?”) to me it’s like hearing that five hundred people died in a plane smash and saying “but why if there is a risk of plane smashes do airlines operate?”
I completely agree with you.
Thanks for this and the rest of the info you’ve provided.
Don’t take this personally, but that isn’t good enough. ‘Suck it’ is not an option for a disaster like this. If it takes a bell housing/funnel system to control a blowout until it can be capped, those need to be constructed and preferably on a barge in the area when undersea drilling is taking place. If that is untested or shown not to be effective, if only a relief well is effective, then it needs to be made mandatory that undersea wells have a relief well drilled at the same time.
It Is Not Acceptable to take the risk of a blowout if a blowout is something that cannot be handled.
Yup, for now my policy is that undersea drilling is not acceptable AT ALL. Not until a blowout can be dealt with effectively.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go weep some more.
In order for that policy to be enacted, you’ll have to make the case for far more expensive oil and reduced supplies. The US public hasn’t been willing to make that tradeoff; perhaps they will now. In essence, we’ve hired BP and the other oil exploration companies to do our bidding and these results were, IMO, inevitable. Not that BP can’t shoulder some of the blame, but we have met the enemy and they is us.
I understand that sentiment as well.
Here’s a neat photo of the undersea ROV, and discussion about stopping the leak:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/uscgd8/4551846015/in/photostream/
…while someone rests the Empire State Building on top of you while you are doing this.
Call me warped, but I feel sadder for the marine life - who had little consideration in the invasion of their habitat, and have now had it destroyed - than I do for the humans who are going to be affected.
I know. I live down here. Looks like my beach-house weekend on Labor Day is going to mean, no swimming, no beach, no water fun whatsoever. Tar on my feetz.
This Florida Gulf beach bum is filled with grrrrrr.
BTW, don’t eat any seafood that comes from the Gulf for, oh, maybe the next year or ten. No oysters, no shrimp, no scallops, no crab, no fish.
:mad:
Finally, anyone who ever chanted “Drill, baby, drill”? Get your mops and get the fuck down here. When you finish wiping oil off the birds, turtles, and dolphins, we can have a little talk about “clean” coal. 'kay?
Sorry Dog, they’re too busy trying to figure out how to blame Clinton.
BP is circulating agreements around the Georgia coast offering up to 5 K if the resident gives up his right to sue. Their heart is in the right place. The residents may lose a lot but they are offering quick cash.
Exxon fought settlements for decades. They got the Supreme Court to drop the cost from 5 billion to 500 million. BP will do the same. This court will probably make the residents pay for stealing BPs oil.
I know this has already been essentially dealt with, but here are the latest numbers for the number of oil and natural gas rigs operating as of 4/30/10 according to Baker Hughes. Rig count estimates vary depending upon the source that you go to.
Land: 1,417
Inland Waters: 14
Offshore: 52
TOTAL: 1,489
Of these, the majority (~64%) are drilling primarily for natural gas. Further, a high number of the offshore rigs are not working in the deepwater.
Funny thing I heard today is that several ship captains are volunteering to go out and start sucking up the oil as long as they get to keep what they capture. I doubt they have the capacity to handle the separation of seawater and oil but it’s and interesting proposal. If they did it without permission I wonder if they could be sued.
The Georgia coast? Why? I heard they did this early on in Alabama, but the CEO described that move this morning on Morning Edition as an “early misstep.”