They are shooting mud into the leak and, for the moment, the oil flow is stopped:
CNN.com Live
According to BP, the lack of flow shouldn't make anyone jump up and down just yet, but they are currently doing the Top Kill.
Printable View
They are shooting mud into the leak and, for the moment, the oil flow is stopped:
CNN.com Live
According to BP, the lack of flow shouldn't make anyone jump up and down just yet, but they are currently doing the Top Kill.
Great news! Now they just need to figure out how to clean up that mess...
The automobile should never have been made
available to the common man. It's destroying us
all for the sake of convenience.
Oh give it a rest, Luddite. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by ethic
I just saw a commercial that said, "Chemistry is making theQuote:
Originally Posted by Sebastiani
world a better place."
LOL
Knowledge is power, and power can be a very dangerous thing. Then again, it could very well "make the world a better place", too. All depends on how it's used, brother...Quote:
Originally Posted by ethic
Chlorofluorocarbon
'nuff said.
...which has since been replaced by safer alternatives. Need I say more?Quote:
Originally Posted by ethic
Safer or not; whatever alternatives that were developedQuote:
Originally Posted by Sebastiani
are still damaging to the planet. Hydrochlorofluorocarbons
still deplete ozone and contribute to global warming. Maybe
they're "better" than CFCs, but they're still detrimental to
the environment. So they're not, "making the world a
better place." They're just making it less bad than CFCs
were.
But it doesn't matter, because the CFC problem still exists
even though they've been phased out. CFC molecules can
take up to 30 years to reach the stratosphere; and the
Montreal Protocol was enacted in 1989. That means this
next decade CFCs will have their greatest impact on the
stratosphere.
2012 falls in the next decade.
What will you choose? Cannibalism or having your thumbs cut off? I haven't decided myself yet.
EDIT: BTW, lets leave thread tags for what they are meant...
Is there any other source? CNN Live shows the pipe still gushing oil to me, and all the most recent news articles I can find indicate that BP is still some time away from making a decision about the 'top kill' option.Quote:
They are shooting mud into the leak and, for the moment, the oil flow is stopped:
CNN.com Live
They are currently planning to do the top kill.Quote:
Originally Posted by brewbuck
BP’s ‘Top Kill’ Plan to Plug Oil Leak Awaiting CEO’s Approval - BusinessWeek
Chlorine-containing halokane propellants and coolants are BANNED in most countries. Nobody is using "hydrochlorofluorocarbons," they are just fluorocarbons, and they don't have the same effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by ethic
That part is correct.Quote:
But it doesn't matter, because the CFC problem still exists
even though they've been phased out. CFC molecules can
take up to 30 years to reach the stratosphere; and the
Montreal Protocol was enacted in 1989. That means this
next decade CFCs will have their greatest impact on the
stratosphere.
Well, there's that news article, and then there's what I see on the screen, which is a downtube pumping mud into the hole. It's an exploratory first pass but I'd call it "started."Quote:
Originally Posted by MK27
Banned in "most countries" is irrelevant to the main point;Quote:
Originally Posted by brewbuck
if it were even true. Which it isn't. Hydrochlorofluorocarbons
are still indeed in production and aren't schedule to be
phased out completely, according to the Montreal Protocol,
until 2030.
Here, you can apply for a licence to manufacture, import
or export them in Australia. Only $15,000
Ozone Depleting Substances - Hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) controlled substances licences
And again, whether any replacement has the "same effect"
as chlorine or not is still irrelevant. The effect is still bad (even
without the Chlorine which is responsible for destroying the O3
molecules; putting anything into the air that doesn't belong
there isn't good)
I grew up on the streets. You and I must have differentQuote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
definitions for the word "tag."
Yeah, I figured you would ignore my request and chose instead to be a smartarse about it.
I didn't ignore it. From now on, I won't tag my presenceQuote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
because I know how much it offends you.
Even though the feature is rather pointless and nobody
uses it.
I'm actually quite interested as to why my country's main media providers are giving this disaster the lowest coverage you can think of. I'm getting one piece of news every 2 or 3 days. No kidding.
I have to resort to local cable news to actually keep up to date on what is probably already the largest oil spill of our history and amounting to become the largest oil spill disaster too.
And is it safe to assume Ethic that you do not drive a car or operate any motorized vehicle that burns 'fossil fuels' or use anything that requires 'fossil fuels'? Your computer and your home run off of...? And your water comes from pumps who get their electricity from...? And....
...you get my point.
I have a great idea for the greenies among us. I am perfectly ok with you refusing to use any oil or 'fossil fuels'. I think it is quite noble of you to sacrifice for the greater good of the planet. Meanwhile I do not share your sentiments except to say...that it does leave more for me and my prices will go down if you so choose not to be a part of the evil earth killing 'fossil fuel' oil-based economoy.
So go ahead and protest to your hearts content and do all the green things you can.
Chemistry, industry, technology - the benefits to humankind have been enormous. The Industrial Revolution more than doubled the average life expectancies in Britain and America in less than 200 years and caused the biggest population explosion in human history. I can't remember the exact figures, but it's something like: it took over 100,000 years for the human population to reach one billion. After the Industrial Revolution, successive billions were added in 100 years, then 75, then 50 etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by ethic
A common response to this is "yes, but is that population explosion a good thing?"
I guess the answer depends on whether you care about the living standards of humans, because the exponential explosion in population was a direct reflection of the monumental increases in living standards and prosperity which industry gave us. The population exploded because better standards of living slashed infant mortality rates and allowed people to support their families better. So I guess industry is a bad thing if what you want for the human race is a miserable subsistence and children dying by the age of 10, which was the fate of most children in Britain before the revolution.
Environmental disasters like this oil spill will not have a great effect on the world long term. Oil is a natural substance which breaks down of its own accord, albeit not as quickly as we'd like. Natural habitats will be destroyed but animals adapt and they'll spring up elsewhere. And the chemicals they use to clean up spills are probably more harmful to the environment than the oil itself.
At the end of the day, what's important is the safety and well being of humans. This consideration comes above the well being of wildlife and the environment. And on a wider note, the net benefits to humanity from the industry which fossil fuels drive far outweigh the downside of rare accidents like this.
I'll throw in my 2 cents....
I'm old (46) and I have seen a lot of fads come and go over the years.
First Global cooling, then Global warming, now it's called climate change
(well no ____!) we live on a dynamic planet and it will always be changing.
All of these fads serve one purpose to control people, well actually two,
they also make the weak minded people feel good about themselves.
I was green Way before it was fashionable, because I like green (money).
It seems dumb to me to just waste your money leaving on the lights on etc.
That being said, I am all for being responsible for ones actions; They had a
mishap (it happens) now they need to do the right thing and clean up the
mess or pay someone else to do it for them (new business venture anyone).
99.9% Of the problems in the word would solve themselves if people
would just take responsibility for themselves and for their actions.
God, this is going to be so long. Feel free to pass it over.
I just have to fight for the planet because I'm a planeteer.
Actually the answer depends on the amount of knowledgeQuote:
Originally Posted by Sharke
one has of the planet, the requirements for the existence
of life, and the impacts humanity has on the planet. Anybody
with even a tiny bit of such knowledge would know that a
"population explosion" isn't a good thing
To say that an exponential explosion in population is a
direct reflection of better standards of living is false. Most
population growth occurs in less-developed countries where
living conditions are horrible. In more-developed countries
where the standard of living is high, population growth is
slow or non-existent. Even in the United States, over the
last 100 years, the Natural Rate of Increase has dropped
significantly.
But that's not to say a high standard of living is a good
thing; because even though the population isn't increasing,
the rate of consumption is. 18% of the global population is
in more-developed countries; yet they consume 30-80% of
all resources and are responsible for 50-80% of all pollution.
This "high standard" of living for 18% global population
comes at the cost of a low standard of living for the other
80% of the world who live in countries which are cash-poor
yet resource-rich and are being exploited by the
developed-countries.
A "population explosion" is not a good thing for the simple
reason that the Earth cannot support it at current rates
of consumption. The natural carrying capacity of the planet
on a natural, subsistence-based diet is about 10 million
humans, IIRC. Agriculture obviously increases that considerably.
However, there's only so much land and freshwater that's
available to feed all those people by those methods.
Feeding all those people has devastating effects on the planet.
It takes between 100 and 500 years for an inch of top soil to
form. At current rates of farming, we're losing about 1% of
topsoil per year due to soil erosion, desertification, and
salination. We come up with little tricks to intensify production,
such as selective breeding of certain plants that produce
higher yields, or genetic modification, but once the actual
farmland is inhosipitable, it ultimately won't matter.
In addition to that, the land for growing food is in direct
competition with land for growing biofuels (people love their
precious automobiles and are unwilling to walk). Since
Hurricane Katrina (and the resulting spike in oil prices), there
has been as much land allocated for growing ethanol as
there is for actual food production. Land for growing food for
urban populations is becoming so scarce there are actually
countries that are leasing land from other countries -within
their borders- simply so they can grow food for their own
populations.
Oh, then there's Aquifer Depletion. Of all the water that's
available on Earth, only 3% of that is freshwater; and of
that, only 1% is accessible to humans (the remaining would
be icecaps, etc). There are currently a billion people who are
without regular access to clean water.
Not to mention climate change (which is real) is a result of
a high population and unbalanced lifestyles. It's mind baffling
how there are actually people who deny its validity.
So, no. An exploding population is not an accurate reflection
of a high standard of living; and it can definitely cannot be
considered a "good thing."The exploding population of Earth
should be thought of as a cancerous growth that is eating away
at other healthy tissue.
Organisms just don't "simply adapt" to their environments.Quote:
Natural habitats will be destroyed but animals adapt and they'll spring up elsewhere. And the chemicals they use to clean up spills are probably more harmful to the environment than the oil itself.
And they're definitely not just going to "spring up elsewhere."
(lol wtf). I mean, when the Arctic become so warm that the
polar bears can no longer survive there, do you think they're
just going to "spring up" in the snowy mountains of Colorado
and eat mountain goats?
Adaptation to an environment is the result of generations
upon generations of miniscule cell mutations that happen
to provide a slightly better fitness advantage over the
ancestral type in the current environment. When a quick,
drastic change happens to that environment, the animals
don't have time to change and, as such, will disappear.
Organisms themselves don't evolve; species do.
And what do you mean by long term? Will this oil spillQuote:
Originally Posted by Sharke
have impacts on life 1 million years from now? Probably
not, because species themselves don't last that long
(maybe some Cetaceans). But will its effects impact life
now and in the foreseeable future? Absolutely. The
environmental impacts of the Exxon Valdez oil spill
(which was smaller than the Deepwater Horizon Spill will
likely end up being) are still present today, 20 years later.
Deepwater has already impacted humans who make their
living fishing (even though overfishing is another issue...
but I'm not going to go into it right now).
Biomagnification of the hydrocarbons (which are
carcinogenic) and metals within the oil, or the chemicals
used to disperse the oil (although I'm sure the EPA took
into account the solubility of any such chemical) may emerge
as a result of this oil. They become higher in concentration
as they travel up the food chain; which is the same thing
that happened with DDT (another failure of chemistry)
and is why Inuit women are the only class of women in
the world who are told not to breastfeed their babies.
To say that humans are somehow more important thanQuote:
At the end of the day, what's important is the safety and well being of humans. This consideration comes above the well being of wildlife and the environment. And on a wider note, the net benefits to humanity from the industry which fossil fuels drive far outweigh the downside of rare accidents like this.
wildlife is pretentious, uneducated and irresponsible.
Whether you want to believe it or not, humans are animals;
and just like any other animal, they depend on a stable
ecosystem to survive. The track humanity is on is unsustainable
and if it continues as it is, it will be disastrous.
Think about the bees. I don't know if you keep with nature
news, but bee colonies are disappearing at an alarming rate
and scientists don't know why (though biocides, climate
change, etc are likely causes) . Bees are important pollinators
in agriculture, dude. Without them, food production will be
much, much more difficult.
Humanity is on the brink of extinction. And we totally
deserve it!
//edit: I seem to have gotten a tad bit carried away.
Ethic, why do your posts only go about 1/4 of the way over on the page? Very annoying.
As opposed to a humaniteer. That much is evident.Quote:
Originally Posted by ethic
What else is a population explosion a direct result of? Before industry, the population was kept in check for a number of reasons, most of them bad (to someone who cares about humans), i.e. very high infant mortality and a low birth rate due to the fact that adults could barely afford to feed themselves, let alone start a family. I will repeat: when the infant morality rate drops and the birth rate rises, the result is a population explosion. I don't know what kind of person would be horrified at the idea of a low infant mortality rate, but at least now I have a name for them: "planeteers."Quote:
Originally Posted by ethic
Most population growth occurs in less developed countries - not because they are poor, but because they are becoming more prosperous. As a country becomes more prosperous - especially as it leaves behind the dreadful standards of living of the past - their population level will grow exponentially for the reasons stated above. But that does not mean it will rise indefinitely - as you point out, the population of prosperous nations tends to level out. This happens for a number of reasons, but mainly because people have more to occupy themselves than simply having children. They have careers and interesting leisure pursuits. They want families, but are educated enough to work out that there's a limit to the number of children you can support and still lead a prosperous lifestyle.
It is simply not true that a high standard of living for one country "comes at the cost of" a low standard of living for the rest of the world. In fact the standard of living in developing countries (emphasis on the word "developing") has been increasing as a direct result of them taking advantage of the technological developments of the West. I'm not just talking about medical developments, although that's a huge part of it. For example, oil was nothing more than a virtually worthless black goo in the ground before the West invented the technology to refine and use it in combustion engines. I also take issue with the negative intention behind the word "exploit." The meaning is not necessarily negative. It simply means "to utilize." I own a business which employs 12 people. I exploit their labor (otherwise why would I hire them), but they also exploit the fact that I have started and grown a business which hires people. It is certainly true that some people in third world countries are exploited for the cheap cost of their labor - and if they are working in especially terrible conditions, you have a responsibility to boycott that product and persuade as many people to do the same (do you own an iPhone?). Yet in many cases, Western companies pay well over the national average wage in these countries - which is why the locals flock there for employment. Nike, for example, was at one point paying 6 times the average wage. Perhaps you'd like to explain to me where these folks would be working if Western countries didn't invest in their countries, or why such countries have such a high rate of population growth.Quote:
Originally Posted by ethic
So why mention it?Quote:
Originally Posted by ethic
Which is why the methods will improve. Humans are incredible creatures and the power of the human mind is nothing short of spectacular. Human knowledge is not static. Technology is not static.Quote:
Originally Posted by ethic
Where is your evidence that the ingenuity of human science won't solve all of these problems? They're working on it as we speak.Quote:
Originally Posted by ethic
So campaign to end the ridiculous practice of growing bio-fuels and campaign for more nuclear energy. Let's start making more efficient use of the matter around us.Quote:
Originally Posted by ethic
And those people who are without regular access to clean water are in that situation because they are poor. What these people need, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is more capital investment. It doesn't matter what percentage of the earth's water is freshwater by the way...you're simply using that measurement for dramatic effect because it yields a low percentage. What matters is the absolute quantity of fresh water available.Quote:
Originally Posted by ethic
There is a school of thought that says climate change is the result of human lifestyle, yes. There is also a school of thought which says that climate change is a natural process, always happens and will not be stopped even if we dismantle all of the earth's industry and go back to a lifestyle of primitive subsistence. There is also a school of thought which says that the planet is nowhere near the kind of danger that the Chicken Lickens of the AGW movement say it is. The problem with those who claim to "love" the earth is that this purported "love" is thrown into doubt every time they reflexively reject any good news about the planet. Put it this way, if you claimed to love a person who was dying in hospital and you were subsequently told that there was a good chance that the diagnosis was wrong - and your subsequent reaction was to attack the doctor who told you and call him a liar and a paid corporate stooge, I would have to question whether or not you really loved that person. There is considerable doubt as to the validity of the methodology and results of the so-called "science" behind AGW - what's baffling to me is the extent to which AGW supporters are prepared to deny the validity of the doubt in many cases. One would be forgiven for thinking that there was some kind of alternative motive behind their crusade. Indeed it is a little curious how those most devoted to campaign to decimate economic growth are most often of a leftist - and frequently outright socialist - persuasion. Gotta rein in those evil capitalists, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by ethic
Wow, I'm really learning a lot about the nature of these so-called "planeteers" and their perception of humanity tonight. Who would have thought, my fellow humans are nothing but a "cancer" and their increased rate of survival is a terrible, terrible thing!Quote:
Originally Posted by ethic
"lol wtf" is not an argument, I have no idea what it's doing in this discussion. Organisms might not always adapt to their environments in the short term, but they most certainly do in the long term...or perhaps you'd like to give us a few examples of current species which bypassed the evolutionary process and were dumped straight onto the planet "as is."Quote:
Originally Posted by ethic
If that "quick drastic change" happens across the whole region of the world in which these animals exist, then it could spell disaster for that species - unless of course a small minority of them happen to possess traits which enable them to survive such a catastrophe, in which case the species lives on in a stronger form. But localized disasters, as rarely as they occur, are not the end of the world. You know that.Quote:
Originally Posted by ethic
20 years is a minuscule period of time. The effects of the Exxon Valdez spill are not as pronounced now as they were 15 or 20 years ago. Those whose livelihoods have been affected by the BP spill are entitled to sue BP for compensation, as I hope they will.Quote:
Originally Posted by ethic
Like I said, they should do what they can to salvage as much oil as possible and leave the rest to disperse of its own accord. As for DDT, you might call it a "failure of chemistry," I tend to take the alternative view and call its banning one of the most devastating pieces of legislation in human history - 3 Billion People And Counting.Quote:
Originally Posted by ethic
On the contrary. It's simply stating a fact. The concept of "value" cannot have meaning without human beings to perceive it. I am a rational human, of course I believe that humans are more important than wildlife. I don't think that's pretentious, uneducated or irresponsible at all. I think it's pretentious to claim that anything has an inherent value separate from the existence of humans. Being a humanist, I also think that this preposterous viewpoint is highly irresponsible.Quote:
Originally Posted by ethic
Humans are not "just like any other animal," don't be ridiculous. The intellectual distance between us and the most similar animal to us (monkeys) is immeasurable. The intellectual distance between us and most animals is even larger. I don't think humanity is unsustainable at all. Nor do I believe we are headed for disaster. I will however leave the Paul Ehrlichs of this world to continue amusing us with their seemingly endless and tales of doom and gloom which never come to fruition.Quote:
Originally Posted by ethic
Yes, I'm familiar with bees. They have been affected by a virus called IAPV, the spread of which can be stopped by the practice of irradiating beekeeping equipment to stop it spreading from colony to colony. It's not the first time a species has been badly affected by a virus or a parasite and it won't be the last. What it also isn't is the end of the world, er...."dude."Quote:
Originally Posted by ethic
You surrrrre did. Humanity is not on the brink of extinction and we don't deserve it. We are a wonderful, miraculous species and I'm extremely optimistic about the future. You, however, should renounce every single last scrap of modern technology and disappear into the wilderness.Quote:
Originally Posted by ethic
To be honest it really bothers me seeing pictures of it on fire. There's this one picture where the structure is enveloped in smoke save the helicopter deck above the bridge, which is where I last was to get a ride in shore on one of the helicopters.
Summer 2008, pics I took while Deepwater was drilling exploratory wells, 180-220 miles offshore.
I guess we'd all better stay away from Mexican food then! LOL!Quote:
Originally Posted by ethic
Because it's more efficient for someone who hasQuote:
Originally Posted by Bubba
a widescreen monitor. I'm saving such people
energy by not having to move their eyes.
I have calculated that based on the way I format
my paragraphs, I save the average reader about 3
calories. I assume each of my posts will average
about 10 million unique readers over the years;
which ultimately converts into 30 million calories
not exerted in shifting one's eyes the entire length
of a 14" monitor.
A single cow is about 650,000 calories of meat,
which means I am saving the consumption of
about 47 cows.
I'm just doing my part to make the world a better
place.
Sharkie, I will respond to you eventually. I got
stuff to do.
THAT'S WHY I HAVE A WIDESCREEN MONITOR, YOU CRETIN! :pQuote:
Originally Posted by ethic
Your angle of vision is much greater horizontally than vertically, so you have this backward. Shorter lines mean more eye movement (which helps people who don't read as much focus*). It's also more scrolling, and I guarantee that is a far greater caloric expense.
Anyway, moving is a good thing. If you want to save cows, eat fish instead.
* such people can always narrow the browser window
Okay. Switch "eyes" with "neck." Long monitors requireQuote:
Originally Posted by MK27
one to move their neck. My posts don't. Yeah.
It's actually a habit I have developed and is so ingrained
to my essence that I don't see it changing. However, my
lines have gotten longer over the years.
See.Quote:
August 28, 2001
I was on break last week at work (that doesn't
sound right), and I saw a snail moving. I came
back a few hours later for my second break, and
saw that the snail hadn't moved very far. Snails
move very slow
Not if you abstain from touching the screen with your nose.Quote:
Originally Posted by ethic
There are worse afflictions than this one. Are you sure that snail was the same snail? Snails tend to look alike. I had one that always appeared appeared on my front stoop after rains -- it would be there all day, whenever I came came and went, somewhere right at the top of the steps. Then, one rainy day, I whimsically smushed it underfoot on the way out.* Imagine my surprise when I came back and another snail was there, scant inches from the mutilated corpse of it's cousin. My conclusion is they are not so much slow as solitary.Quote:
It's actually a habit I have developed and is so ingrained
to my essence that I don't see it changing. However, my
lines have gotten longer over the years.
* just kidding. They are no good to eat if you smush them first.
Yeah, that's exactly what we need to do, save calories; since we all know how anorexic computer geeks are. We should conserve our strength and eat a donut. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by ethic
Bob, those are awesome pics. Thanks for sharing.
I'm in denial.
I'm totally appalled that the possibility this thing will keep leaking until August is being considered as a probable outcome. And I'm completely baffled at the apparent fact untested chemicals are being used to try and disperse the oil.
The first one... I think its unthinkable. The spill itself, as of now, is already the largest in US history. But more worrying than any of that is that, by August, and if certain geologists, oil industry consultants and oceanographers are right in accusing BP of seriously downplaying the actual amount of oil being spilled onto the ocean everyday, we may be talking of the largest oil spill in our history -- second to none, even to the Gulf War spill -- and no one is the wiser. I'm seeing numbers up to 800,000 gallons a day!
The second one... one of the things I learned is that once the oil reaches the coastline, you stop pumping chemicals. You just stop. You clean up the mess and that's it. But to hear that chemicals are being used both in land and sea, and to hear that some of these chemicals haven't actually been tested for their toxicity and other effects is really worrying. I mean, let's make no mistake... an oil spill is NOT the worst that can happen to an environment. Neither it is the one with the longest environmental impact.
BP had another spill in Alaska last week too -- that one's not even getting reported:
BP's other spill this week
Kind of an interesting article:
Not sure exactly what the judge meant there -- but I hope those people went to jail and were not just fined.Quote:
How does BP get away with it? The same way the Godfather got away with it: bad things happen to folks who blow the whistle. BP has a habit of hunting down and destroying the careers of those who warn of pipeline problems.
In one case, BP's CEO of Alaskan operations hired a former CIA expert to break into the home of a whistleblower, Chuck Hamel, who had complained of conditions at the pipe's tanker facility. BP tapped his phone calls with a US congressman and ran a surveillance and smear campaign against him. When caught, a US federal judge said BP's acts were "reminiscent of Nazi Germany."
Maybe I don't know much about how oil or chemistry works, but couldn't they surround the area that's leaking with some kind of floating wall and just skim the oil off the surface of the water? Oil floats right? So you'd think they could do that, and then just process the oil they sucked up to remove the salt water and use it like normal...
Not after it has had detergent dispersants added to it, which they are doing way deep down. At least, it does not float nearly so well (it disperses). Ironically, the use of the dispersant has limited the effectiveness of the booms (which are basically "floating" walls at the surface) -- the dispersant/oil mixture goes underneath them.Quote:
Originally Posted by cpjust
You might find this interesting tho, I posted it yesturday in another thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MK27
This computer geek works out.... And furthermore I hate that stereotype. If you're a fat computer nerd, spend an hour at the gym a day. You'll then be an in shape computer geek.Quote:
Originally Posted by cpjust
They are doing that, only they're doing it wrong apparently.Quote:
Originally Posted by cpjust
NSFW due to language
YouTube - BP Fails Booming School 101 Gulf Oil Spill.wmv
I don't know how accurate the video is, but a lot of websites
have been linking it. It's pretty awesome, though; the internet,
I mean. I wonder what sort of information would have come
out during the Exxon Valdez spill. How much did corporations
get away with pre-internet?
However, there's talk of giant plumes underwater, so not all the
water is reaching the surface.
here's a live stream
Live video link from the ROV monitoring the damaged riser
here's a technical presentation about what they're going to do
Kent Wells Technical Update - 31 May 2010
I can't listen to Kent Wells for more than 30 seconds without gaining a strong urge to vomit. Sorry, I'm passing on the second video. Not that anything BP has to say about this interests me. No one really believes in them. Neither I can understand why the American people hasn't already demanded that BP answers the numerous scientists goddamn questions in a press event while also releasing proper and credible figures.
Exxon got flogged pretty good during and after the Valdez spill. It certainly was not a lack of awareness which has left the oil industry under-regulated*. To the extent that the mainstream press may have glossed things over, there was lots of alternative/independent media around pre-internet. Much independent internet media seems modelled on that IMO. However, I grew up around major cities and frequented bookstores (which small independent bookstores are a less common thing now), etc -- I imagine that stuff was not as easily obvious, but it would still be impossible to not notice even in very isolated areas (which most small towns managed to support a bookstore, and if your's wasn't very interesting, the one in the next town was -- record stores were like this too and the "subcultures" intertwined) . If you were interested you had to make slightly more effort to stay in touch perhaps. And there was the radio, cable TV, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by ethic
* and don't be confused: nothing will change this time and more or less the same thing will happen again. I think most people regard this as being like a volcanic eruption -- unfortunate, but it is really no one's fault, it is just a reality of life
I don't know if any of you have already touched upon this but scientists are afraid that much of the oil that's escaped the well won't reach locations where it can be collected. Crude that spills from a tanker is considerably lighter than water, so when it's released under atmospheric pressure most of it will float for a while. But the oil released from the well is under such absurdly high pressure (from above and below) and mixed with so many other exotic chemicals (methane, other natural gas, remnants of the left-over well lining) that it's going into emulsification with the salt water, remaining suspended.
That will eventually be able to kill the entire ecosystem in the Gulf of Mexico, maybe more, and there's really no telling how long it would take nature to correct it.
An that is really part the problem. An independent scientific taskforce really should be organized in my opinion and BP should be forced to let them in. There's too many unknowns on the conditions of this spill and BP has been barring all but their own sanctioned "specialists".
Why this company can keep doing this is well outside my comprehension-o-meter.
Well, it's pretty likely BP's CEO will be pressured/forced out of his seat, but further than that this may be something that could break BP apart. I don't really see BP going away, but, we're BP's biggest market, and the the U.S. Government and Consumers are a tad bit irritated.
The Federal Government is allowed to execute individuals, and on the same tolken they might basically do the same thing to BP by forcing them out of the U.S. market. Or, we'll try to force them out of the U.S. market but won't be able to because they're "too big to fail."
I also forgot to mention I didn't actually work for BP in the pictures I added. I was working for the supply company that brought fuel, pipe, mud, cement (etc) to the Deepwater Horizon (amongst a few other rigs, but mostly the DH).
Oh Bob, you are young, naive, and idealistic I think. They may be irritated but when push comes to shove they will still be grateful for the gasoline they need and recognize it comes with a price, oh well.Quote:
Originally Posted by BobMcGee123
And punishing BP would just be a petty gesture -- presumably this would strengthen (eg) Shell, who have spilled EVEN MORE oil in the Niger Delta than BP have in the Gulf, and made no effort to clean up -- nor does anyone care:
Nigeria's agony dwarfs the Gulf oil spill. The US and Europe ignore it | Environment | The Observer
That's more like it.Quote:
they're "too big to fail."
Fortunately I think that is an exaggeration. Even if it kept spewing upward of a half million barrels a day for the summer, if that were evenly dispersed through-out the gulf it I think it would amount to less than one part per billion in the water (at least I heard some physicist claim this about relative volume, and no one contradicted his math) However, it's unlikely to do that, so it certainly will destroy some large regional ecosystems.Quote:
Originally Posted by BobMcGee123
Top kill fails.Quote:
Originally Posted by brewbuck
Anybody know how much oil is actually down in the reservoir?
This may be a problem that man just isn't capable of solving.
In which case, this oil will gush for years and ultimately turn
the entire ocean black (orange).
This is it guys. This is the beginning of the end.
Aw, c'mon now, Ethic, it ain't that bad - I never eat fish, anyway... :pQuote:
Originally Posted by ethic
I am a believer in God. I think it is IMPOSSIBLE for MAN to destroy the world. It may be that we make it rough to live here for a few (hundred) years, but. . .Quote:
Originally Posted by ethic
Andy's 0.02USD.
Oh, and BTW, I'm not attempting to start another God thread. . . just stating my point of view.
I'm wondering whether any similar oil leak might not occur "naturally" some time. Let's say through an underwater earthquake or platonic shift. In which case the oil would come up on its own.
Can anyone argue that the crude is man-made? No. It’s whatever it is – decayed dinosaurs or whatever. So when one natural substance encroaches on another (water, fish), then we should be able to have a fairly clear conscience about it. If nature didn’t want mass destruction, it shouldn’t have created substance A that is toxic to substance B.
Final thought… this disaster unwittingly shows how simple and cost-free oil extraction really is. Punch a hole in the ocean floor and wait with open arms (or barrels). It’s “free”, it’s automatic. In fact, it’s difficult to NOT have oil delivered from the depths.
Perhaps as consumers we should instead be charged for the difficult job of keeping the oil underneath the sea floor… which seems to be the more complex problem. For every subsequent barrel of oil we consume, the job of keeping it buried is reduced. In the end, the more we drive our cars, the lower our cost would get. If we drive with sufficient reckless abandon, we'd make money as the oil-containment-problem reduces to zero.
So I wonder now how oil companies are justified in charging for this free resource per gallon?
These can and do happen in the depths of the sea. They are probably not as big as the current leak since we created a huge man made hole but that isn't to say an earthquake could not open up a fissure just as big or bigger.Quote:
I'm wondering whether any similar oil leak might not occur "naturally" some time. Let's say through an underwater earthquake or platonic shift. In which case the oil would come up on its own.
Thinking in terms of volume might be irrelevant. Practically all of the oil is going to be on or near the surface, and that is arguably the most important volume of water for the health of the ecosystem.Quote:
Even if it kept spewing upward of a half million barrels a day for the summer, if that were evenly dispersed through-out the gulf it I think it would amount to less than one part per billion in the water (at least I heard some physicist claim this about relative volume, and no one contradicted his math)
:p bit of a glitch there. I guess physicists aren't biologists and I was a bit silly to trust this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by sean
Oh well, the entire Gulf could end up a wasteland then. This might not matter so much tho. I've heard a bunch of idle fisherman there saying that even though this would mean a loss of income for them (and perhaps a career change, as happened in Prince William Sound), the oil industry is worth way, way more to Louisiana than either fishing or tourism. So while this is an unfortunate consequence, it is still one they are willing to live with.
Haha, okay.Quote:
Oh Bob, you are young, naive, and idealistic I think.
Not wells like this, they had to get through 18,000 feet of rock to tap the wellQuote:
I'm wondering whether any similar oil leak might not occur "naturally" some time. Let's say through an underwater earthquake or platonic shift. In which case the oil would come up on its own.
From what I am reading the consensus is that much of the oil is *not* reaching the surface, instead becoming emulsified.Quote:
Practically all of the oil is going to be on or near the surface
check out dis computer model of what could happen over
the next couple months
YouTube - Ocean currents likely to carry oil to Atlantic
looks like it could reach our UK brothers one day!
http://news.discovery.com/earth/comp...-and-fast.html
Okay geniuses! BP is actively soliciting possible solutions to this problem from the public:
Suggestions
The phone line is no longer available, you have to follow the link to the form.
My suggestion was that we stuff Massey CEO Don Blankenship into the top of the pipe with a funnel in his mouth and a very long enema tube on the other end to help lead the excess crude to the surface. If Don cannot get the job done properly then we may need to short list other leading figures in the energy field to help out.
Well, no point sitting on my arse having fun at BP misery. Besides, more than BP, there's other people being very affected by this crisis; their whole lifestyle and their entire communities in dire straits. I can only imagine what these people are going through.
I just have to be on their side (BP) in this moment and leave criticism for later.
But I'm not a technical person. So here's my mickey mouse suggestion to them. If it's stupid, maybe it can instead inspire them to do something else.
And this is the diagram:Quote:
Collect the oil closer to the source of the spill. Implement a tube-like device that redirects the oil flow underwater towards a collection point. Control pressure with a grid that allows some oil to escape. (see attachment). This can reduce greatly the amount of oil at the surface that needs to be collected.
Attachment 9828
I think this is the best solution ( Virtual Shackles - What They Do Best )
F! I cried seeing those pictures. The silent victims.
This whole thing is starting to mess with me.
The estimate of $23 billion for the cleanup bill sounds huge. But given their profit of nearly $17 billion last year, the clean-up charge is just 16 months worth of profits. How many years has BP's execs been buying 50-foot yachts? It doesn't sound like such a hardship to cough up some of that profit.
Another way of looking at it - their enormous profit is another word for consumers overpaying at the pumps. So yes, as consumers, we've already paid for the massive cleanup and then some. But we all know what will happen next. Gasoline prices will rise to "cover the costs", they'll tell us. Because the executives won't downsize from 50 to 30 foot yachts.
I think the BP execs would be in the 50' dinghy category. I don't see Tony H. piddling around on some weeny 15 meter hull. That's not a yacht. A yacht has a permanent crew and a helipad.Quote:
Originally Posted by nonoob