This Oil spill in the Gulf sounds like it could be an economic catstrophe

• QuakerOats

  I'm not big into any witchhunts. If somebody isn't doing their job, then remove them. It seems many are losing sight of the fact that 11 people got killed in the blast; I don't think any employee, any regulator, or any company should be accepting of this, but charges of criminal negligence at this point are not helping the situation because no employee, regulator or successful company operates with the intent to harm or kill an employee.
• j_crazy

  

  cut and cap is off. the saw didn't work. FUCK!
  
  i'm really getting upset by this. i'm going out on tuesday and all the oil I'm going to see is gonna make me sick.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  j_crazy;377347 wrote:cut and cap is off. the saw didn't work. FUCK!
  
  i'm really getting upset by this. i'm going out on tuesday and all the oil I'm going to see is gonna make me sick.

  
  Saw this. What the hell are the next options really? Anything soon?
• j_crazy

  

  i have no clue. at this point pray for no hurricanes. someone is saying the tophat might be back in play. not sure how feasible.
• tk421

  

  So, anyone know how long this thing can continue to gush oil? Won't it run out eventually?
• SQ_Crazies

  

  I'd say if there is any good that has come from the oil news the last few days, it's that at least now we're aware that Eric Holder is aware that there ARE laws in this country..
• IggyPride00

  

  Supposedly they are going to heat the thing with hot water pipes and methanol to keep the ice crystals from happening again.
  
  I have heard in some quarters the relief well is no guarantee at this point. Someone likened it to hitting a dinner plate from 2 miles away in terms of how precise it has to be. It is far from a slam dunk from everything I have been reading. It is the only way to really stop this thing, butt it is not an easy thing to do.
  
  BP really doesn't want the tophat from what I can tell, because that would be a crystal clear measurement of just how much crude exactly is leaking per day. Considering the federal fine can be as much as $1,000-$4,300 per barrel if the flow rate is really around 30,000-50,000 barrels a day as I have read on the oil drum (which I trust far more than BP or the govt's estimates) then it would be catastrophic to them. They have already lost almost $75 billion in market cap, and are now estimating the spill may cost them around $35 billion.
  
  This was a very expensive lesson to learn, and that is before the justice department starts coming after BP executives. This is an unmitigated disaster across the board.
• SQ_Crazies

  

  This disaster is only going to get worse with the way our government is going to handle it. Spend tax payer money to take this to court over an accident and all it's going to do is tank BP stock for all of the American's that own it. Not to mention, why have an adversarial relationship rather than working together to fix the problem? This legal bullshit is nothing but another administration publicity stunt to respond to the complaints of them sitting on their hands.
• believer

  

  SQ_Crazies;377622 wrote:This disaster is only going to get worse with the way our government is going to handle it. Spend tax payer money to take this to court over an accident and all it's going to do is tank BP stock for all of the American's that own it. Not to mention, why have an adversarial relationship rather than working together to fix the problem? This legal bullshit is nothing but another administration publicity stunt to respond to the complaints of them sitting on their hands.

  But...but...but wait a minute. I thought the Anointed One could walk on water? Apparently not when it's covered in oil.
• j_crazy

  

  been hearing this story for weeks, thought I'd post it since I finally found something published regarding it.
  

  rumors in NOLA wrote:Story circulating in New Orleans
  
  With appropriate caveats:
  
  BP contracted Schlumberger (SLB) to run the Cement Bond Log (CBL) test that was the final test on the plug that was skipped. The people testifying have been very coy about mentioning this, and you'll see why.
  
  SLB is an extremely highly regarded (and incredibly expensive) service company. They place a high standard on safety and train their workers to shut down unsafe operations.
  
  SLB gets out to the Deepwater Horizon to run the CBL, and they find the well still kicking heavily, which it should not be that late in the operation. SLB orders the "company man" (BP's man on the scene that runs the operation) to dump kill fluid down the well and shut-in the well. The company man refuses. SLB in the very next sentence asks for a helo to take all SLB personel back to shore. The company man says there are no more helo's scheduled for the rest of the week (translation: you're here to do a job, now do it). SLB gets on the horn to shore, calls SLB's corporate HQ, and gets a helo flown out there at SLB's expense and takes all SLB personel to shore.
  
  6 hours later, the platform explodes.
  
  Pick your jaw up off the floor now. No CBL was run after the pressure tests because the contractor high-tailed it out of there.

• CenterBHSFan

  

  JCrazy,
  
  Is that a rumor or has something been confirmed?
• j_crazy

  

  CenterBHSFan;378312 wrote:JCrazy,
  
  Is that a rumor or has something been confirmed?

  
  
  i can confirm that Schlumberger was on the rig to do a CBL, that the CBL was not run, and that the SLB crew was shipped in 6 hours before the explosion. the rest of what i heard, and what's in the article, is conjecture.
  
  I've heard, SLB said they weren't running the job until the well was killed, that BP said they weren't going to kill it, that they wanted to recirculate (common, but riskier than killing the well) and that when BP refused to fly them in, SLB paid for their own flight in (that part isn't in any article, that's the rumor that's going around).
• CenterBHSFan

  

  j_crazy;378462 wrote:i can confirm that Schlumberger was on the rig to do a CBL, that the CBL was not run, and that the SLB crew was shipped in 6 hours before the explosion. the rest of what i heard, and what's in the article, is conjecture.
  
  I've heard, SLB said they weren't running the job until the well was killed, that BP said they weren't going to kill it, that they wanted to recirculate (common, but riskier than killing the well) and that when BP refused to fly them in, SLB paid for their own flight in (that part isn't in any article, that's the rumor that's going around).

  Any way you look at it, it's not good. I will say that upon reading that and your followup, I'm wanting to read alot of truth into the beginnings of that disaster. I really hope it isn't true, but ....
• believer

  

  This may seem crazy but it just might work...why not the small nuclear option? http://article.nationalreview.com/435325/nuke-it/daniel-foster
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  believer;378828 wrote:This may seem crazy but it just might work...why not the small nuclear option? http://article.nationalreview.com/435325/nuke-it/daniel-foster

  
  Ugh.
  1. It violates the Underwater, Peaceful nuclear explosive and the U.S.'s own moratorium on testing/ using.
  2. It makes us look stupid. We just concluded a Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Conference, where we are urging other states to forgo nuclear weapons and nuclear testing and now we would offer an opportunity to use nuclear weapons? That sends a great message to Iran or North Korea who could say, well we might get them just incase their is an oil spill off our coast.
  3. If you listen to scientists at Los Alamos, they say it will simply not work.

  A senior Los Alamos scientist, speaking on the condition of anonymity because his comments where unauthorized, ridiculed the idea of using a nuclear blast to solve the crisis in the gulf.
  
  “It’s not going to happen,” he said. “Technically, it would be exploring new ground in the midst of a disaster — and you might make it worse.”

  4. The idea of crossing the nuclear taboo is just too much. There has not been use of nuclear weapons since North Korea test and before that, India and Pakistan. The international community killed them, and would ream the U.S. as well.
  5. Again, we have no idea it would work. If you think about the physics of the blast, it could melt the rock, but the shockwave could also fracture the rock even more allowing other areas for the oil to seep out.
  
  http://hoffman.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/06/03/to_make_the_bp_spill_worse_go_nuclear
  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/us/03nuke.html?hp
  -
• Mr. 300

  

  We need to keep boots on the neck of Obama.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  On another note, the President canceled his trip to two key Asian allies, Australia and Indonesia, again. Ugh. I hate when domestic crisis impact foreign policy. I know the President needs to show leadership, but canceling on two key allies in the region twice is not a good move. I'm sure publicly the two states are fine with it, but privately, I'm sure they are annoyed. Not a fan of the move.
  
  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/05/us/politics/05obama.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
• Mr. 300

  

  He SHOULD be focused on domestic issues when there is a crisis at hand. Not a big deal cancelling any foreign trip, and I applaud him for doing so!! The heat's on and he knows it.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  Mr. 300;378953 wrote:He SHOULD be focused on domestic issues when there is a crisis at hand. Not a big deal cancelling any foreign trip, and I applaud him for doing so!! The heat's on and he knows it.

  
  Agree 100%. I'm sure Australia understands. The jobs report just released was absolutely AWFUL, and we've got the oil issue. Everyone knows about both matters that are having severe repercussions on the country. He probably should have cancelled or at least toned down the Paul McCartney meeting, but I'm going to let that go.
• believer

  

  ptown_trojans_1;378911 wrote:Ugh.
  1. It violates the Underwater, Peaceful nuclear explosive and the U.S.'s own moratorium on testing/ using.
  2. It makes us look stupid. We just concluded a Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Conference, where we are urging other states to forgo nuclear weapons and nuclear testing and now we would offer an opportunity to use nuclear weapons? That sends a great message to Iran or North Korea who could say, well we might get them just incase their is an oil spill off our coast.
  3. If you listen to scientists at Los Alamos, they say it will simply not work.
  
  4. The idea of crossing the nuclear taboo is just too much. There has not been use of nuclear weapons since North Korea test and before that, India and Pakistan. The international community killed them, and would ream the U.S. as well.
  5. Again, we have no idea it would work. If you think about the physics of the blast, it could melt the rock, but the shockwave could also fracture the rock even more allowing other areas for the oil to seep out. -

  I hear what you're saying but the Soviets apparently used it a couple of times in similar circumstances and it worked for them. If so why is this not a situation where the use of a small nuke might actually be a GOOD thing? Not an impossibility.
  
  PLUS, and I know this gets your no-nukes tighty whiteys in a bunch , it would send a signal to the "less-than-friendlies" that we still have them and - YEP - they still work. Just sayin'.
• I Wear Pants

  Who do you think doesn't realize that we still have nuclear weapons?
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  believer;379361 wrote:I hear what you're saying but the Soviets apparently used it a couple of times in similar circumstances and it worked for them. If so why is this not a situation where the use of a small nuke might actually be a GOOD thing? Not an impossibility.
  
  PLUS, and I know this gets your no-nukes tighty whiteys in a bunch , it would send a signal to the "less-than-friendlies" that we still have them and - YEP - they still work. Just sayin'.

  
  Different world. The political consequences far outweigh the benefits. It worked for the Soviets, but as many R's say now, do we want to follow the Soviet Union and use them as an example?
  Besides, our enemies know our nukes work. If they doubt us, then so be it, they can test us and see the consequences.
• believer

  

  ptown_trojans_1;379408 wrote:...do we want to follow the Soviet Union and use them as an example?

  C'mon P-town. You can do better than that. This is not about Republicans following the Soviet example. This is leaving our options open in a very, very serious national problem. My point was the fact that nukes have been used successfully in the past to cap runaway oil spills (Soviets or not) and we should not dismiss it simply because it's a politically correct world.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  believer;379548 wrote:C'mon P-town. You can do better than that. This is not about Republicans following the Soviet example. This is leaving our options open in a very, very serious national problem. My point was the fact that nukes have been used successfully in the past to cap runaway oil spills (Soviets or not) and we should not dismiss it simply because it's a politically correct world.

  
  I know, too easy. haha.
  
  I actually, from the scientists I've read and talked to, plus my limited knowledge of physics and shockwave effects, think it is not possible, or that it may do more harm than good. Setting aside the taboo and awful political ramifications, I'd like to know if if do deploy a nuke, that it would be near 100% effective. And, from what I've heard so far, I don't think we can say that.
  
  The Soviets did use them, but how can we be sure that no radiation will be released, or that it will in fact close the well? I'm just not fully prepared to cross that threshold for something that I'm not 100% will work.
• fish82

  

  I'm not sure if it matters or not, but IIRC all the Soviet cases were on dry land, and some of them were gas wells.