BP succeeds on second attempt at inserting a new pipe at oil leak.

[madmax]

Source: Washington Post


--------------------
News Alert: BP inserts new pipe at oil leak
01:04 PM EDT Sunday, May 16, 2010
--------------------

BP succeeds on second attempt at inserting a new pipe at oil leak.

For more information, visit washingtonpost.com:
http://link.email.washingtonpost.com/r/VP6EHT/F5UVX/2VGMC3/HUCCEH/GF776/ID/t


Read more: http://link.email.washingtonpost.com/r/VP6EHT/F5UVX/2VGMC3/HUCCEH/GF776/ID/t

[Bold Lib]

1. Hopefully this will do until the relief well is drilled.

[NYC_SKP]

2. "BP says successfully tests oil-siphoning system"

That's good news, a successful test.

Now for expanding the idea to actually collect more or all of the mess.

BP says successfully tests oil-siphoning system

HOUSTON, May 16 (Reuters) - BP Plc (BP.L) on Sunday said it has successfully tested a system to siphon oil from a blown-out well a mile (1.6 km) beneath the Gulf of Mexico.

BP successfully inserted a tube into the leaking well and captured oil and gas, according to a statement posted on a website maintained by BP and U.S. government agencies.

The test was temporarily halted when the tube became dislodged but "technicians have fully inspected the system and have re-inserted the tool," the statement said. (Reporting by Chris Baltimore; Editing by Eric Walsh)

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1621285720100516

:patriot:

[Lerkfish]

3. sorry to be cynical, but this is an attempt to collect oil, not clean up the spill.

seems they are working on the wrong end of the problem.

[sharp_stick]

4. They've got to stop the oil from spewing

before they can really do anything to clean up the spill.

[NYC_SKP]

6. I suggested that tw weeks ago. That they weren't trying to stop it, they were trying to collect it.

It's not even so much that if they irreversibly cap it now they couldn't get to that oil reserve later, they could.

It's more that THIS well head is approved and installed, at great cost.

It's far less likely now that they'll so easily get another crack at tapping that reserve, so better to them to save this tap.

More important, not surprisingly, than protecting the environment.

:mad:

[Codeine]

11. This well head is destroyed.

It's not going to be usuable and more well are being drilled as we speak. Capping it is imossible because it's been blown up and sheared off. They'll have many opportunities to tap this reserve.

They're siphoning because they can't plug it.

[NYC_SKP]

25. Two relief wells are being drilled, yes.

We can't be certain that they'll be successful, only then will they permanently seal the well.

Until that time countless thousands of barrels are escaping.

There's been no talk whatsoever by those responsible, AFAIK, of designs or concepts that would permanently seal it other than these relief wells.

http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/posted/2931/ReliefWellDiagram05142010.551163.pdf

[Devil_Fish]

71. bull shit, their siphoning because the want the oil.

All of the oil they collect from this well should be donated to the agencies that clean up the mess. Not including BP. And BP's CEO's should be the ones cleaning the oiled birds instead of prisoners.

[salazarmms]

134. 1,000 barrels/day = 1% of oil gushing each day

Scientists and engineers have estimated the oil flow at between 60,000 and 160,000 barrels a day.

According to BP’s figures only about 1% of the oil is being recovered from the newly installed pipe.

Early reports claimed that BP hoped to siphon 50% of the gushing oil.

http://www.landofthemarvelous.com/bp-siphon-tube-capturing-about-1000-barrels-a-day/

[protocol rv]

17. Interesting point of view

I wonder, how much do you know about the offshore deep water oil operations? From your comment, it seems you should research it a bit before posting. Do you want me to teach you a bit about it? ;-)

[marylanddem]

23. Just love how the put-downs fly at posters suggesting BP may have an

alternate agenda...

[protocol rv]

37. Before you suggest, research

You can suggest as much as you want, but the suggestions you made showed you really don't understand what's going on.

[NYC_SKP]

26. Thanks, no. I'm quite satisfied in my sources.

That's all I care to say at this point about your kind offer.

Two relief wells are being attempted as we speak.

We can't be certain that they'll be successful, and only then will they permanently seal the well.

Until that time countless thousands of barrels are escaping.

There's been no talk whatsoever by those responsible, AFAIK, of designs or concepts that would permanently seal it other than these relief wells.

The president has, thankfully, called in a team of experts from a variety of fields.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4382246&mesg_id=4382424

Here's a graphic of the current state of affairs.

http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/posted/2931/ReliefWellDiagram05142010.551163.pdf

:patriot:

[protocol rv]

48. Thanks for the drawing

I can see why they are going for an intersection above the reservoir, the thing is huge, this must rank as one of the largest fields found in the Gulf in quite a while.

I happen to have my own sources as well, and I know a bit about the topic - I am from Venezuela, and I'm surrounded by oil types. :-)

The problem, as I have been told is that the oil has enormous pressure, and the wellhead isn't controlled. These government experts can have all sorts of expertise, but they are not oil well drillers, and I doubt they can defeat the physics involved. Looking at the drawing, which I just shared with a friend, I'm told it has a mistake, or BP did something really unusual. The drawing shows a label CSG 7 at the bottom of the well, this should be LNR7. Either that, or BP extended a 7 inch pipe all the way to the sea floor, which is highly unusual. Let's see if they notice their error, and in future drawings they change that to LNR7.

I do find it very amusing to see the comments about BP not wanting to cap the well. I'm sure right now they would hand over $1 billion to anybody who could cap that well and remove it from existence. :-)

The well itself costs about $100 million, therefore making it disappear isn't a big issue, compared to the liability they face if the oil reaches Florida beaches. Therefore many of the comments I read here seem to be driven by emotion and lack of understanding, rather than logic or reason.

[NYC_SKP]

64. Odd that they'd label it that way, casings to a depth, liners, then casings again.

I don't have an explanation.

I appreciate your experience.

That's a huge component of the overall value of this board.

:thumbsup:

[gristy]

9. Well, no.

By that logic, if I've got a broken pipe in my house and water is flooding everywhere, I should be working only on mopping it up as quickly as I could. And maybe hiring some folks to help me mop.

[AtheistCrusader]

10. Actually, you just perfectly illustrated his point.

You would have a plumber fix that pipe so you could continue using the water system.

What was needed here was for a quick permanent seal on that wellhead. Close the leak. Easier than this crazy collection scheme they worked out. They just let it keep gushing until they could insert a new pipe, and will harvest the oil.

In your example, 'BP' should have turned off your water main at the street until the pipe could be reparied, or cap the leak without concern to restoring service.

[gristy]

13. On re-reading Lerkfish's post, I see that I misunderstood his point.

I do think that they would close the wellhead if they could, but maybe because the pressures are so great and/or the BOPs are broken this is difficult. I have read that there is a pressure of 1500psi at that broken wellhead, and it's a 21 inch pipe, so any anchoring method for a seal across the full diameter of the pipe has to be able to withstand a total force of 260 tons!

Since they can't figure out a way to close it, they are trying to capture the oil that is spewing from it.

[lonestarnot]

39. 36" and no shut-off.

[quaker bill]

35. They tried, but

the cutoff valve at the main does not work. The very first thing they did was to attempt to activate the blowout preventer. When the drill string is no longer attached to the wellhead and the wellhead is under 5000 feet of water, options to seal the pipe become starkly limited. If they had a dependable connection to the pipe, one would simply install a valve and just shut it off, alternately, one would pump the bore full of hydrostatic cement and let it set.

[ladjf]

12. Collecting it is a wonderful piece of progress. Every day made

the clean more difficult. Another few weeks and the Gulf might have died for generations. nt

[protocol rv]

15. What's the right end?

I'm confused.

[marylanddem]

21. Agreed. Obama needs to step in & sieze control of BP operations out there.

[protocol rv]

31. I'm sure President Obama is a good lawyer

But I'm not sure seizing BP's operations is a good answer. If they were to seize BP's operations, then BP can claim in court they have no liability for anything that happens - because the government seized control. The way it works, the US Coast Guard controls the site, but BP is still responsible for oil well control and relief operations. If BP fails, then the courts will punish BP accordingly. The government can provide experts to give BP some insights and suggestions, but the call in the end is BP's, so they can be held accountable for the whole mess.

Conclusion: your proposal is driven by emotion, rather than common sense or understanding of the legal issues involved.

[lonestarnot]

34. Comes a time when the greater good is not in corporate oil interests and that is why we have a

Commander in Chief.

[protocol rv]

69. That's right, but....

This isn't a subject which requires a military solution. Let me use this opportunity to make an observation: In the USA, you have a tendency to use the military too much. You also worship and respect them too much. You are a militaristic society, with a tendency to use violence to solve problems. This is a national disease, in part caused by the arrogance you feel when you consider that you can start wars and you are hardly going to see the consequences. Iraq may have cost you 40 thousand casualties, but those are kept hidden from sight. I know this is painful to hear, but you have not really won a single war in a long time. Even Iraq in a sense is a defeat, and you are well on your way to being defeated in Afghanistan.

Therefore, it would be better if you stopped using the "Commander in Chief" moniker, stopped the militaristic talk, and started thinking a little but more like a civilian should. And in thos case, the key is to let BP handle their mess while looking over their shoulder. This sets them up under US law to be fully liable, and means the BP managers know very well their fate, and that of the company, is on the line.

There's also another issue, the goverment isn't well known for its skills at drilling deep offshore wells. Therefore, I doubt they can do better than BP. And this isn't an issue for eggeheads from Los Alamos or NASA either. They don't have the experience nor the right skills.

I hope this helps, and sorry about the standing on the sandbox about US militarism, but that's something I really dislike about USA.

[Devil_Fish]

73. I disagree with one point, We won in Iraq. We went to stop Sudam from using WMD's

Turns out he didn't have any WMD's so we won.

Then we had to get Sudam. We found him and he was hung by the neck until dead. We won again.

I have no idea why we are still there.

Bush should have simply declaired victory and brought the troops home just as Obama should.

Could there posibly be an agenda that us Americans are not told about by faux????

Things that make you go Hmmmmm....

[daleo]

75. If Iraq didn't have WMD

Why did anyone "have to get" Saddam? Clearly, at that point it had been proven that he was no conceivable danger to the U.S., hence there was no need for the U.S. to remain there. I don't see what was 'won' by that, other than an ego trip for Bush.

[Devil_Fish]

77. I agree, as I suspect you know, my point is toung in cheek.

The point I was making is:

Wait... Why are we there? How do we "Win"?

[daleo]

80. Ok, got you

I guess my irony meter is a bit off today.

[protocol rv]

86. I think you mean Saddam?

You "won" if you achieved your objectives. But the Bush dream was shattered, and the neocons didn't achieve their objectives at all. I would say Iraq is a defeat for the US empire. The US wasted over $1 billion, lost a lot of military gear, and 40 thousand casualties, of which 4000 were killed. The Iraqis today really hate the USA, so it made a lot of enemies. And soon the US forces will be kicked out of Iraq. So what if Saddam was hung? Saddam wasn't really a problem for the US.

The neocon agenda was to build an empire in the Middle East, this agenda is defeated, because the US imperial forces are being rolled back out of Iraq. And the interesting thing is, the rulers will be shiites, whose natural ally is Iran. So what did the neocons achieve with their imperial thrust? They put shiites allied with the Iranians in charge of Iraq. And don't kid yourselves, the Shiites are indeed driven to follow the mandates of their Grand Ayatollah Ali Huseini al Sistani, the religious leader born in...Iran. So you got an Iranin born cleric dictating the broad outlines of the Iraqi government actions. And this, my dear American friends, you won't hear on Faux news. You were defeated, the Iraqis kicked you in the teeth, and in the end, the iranians won. And it should serve you as a lesson not to pick wars which you don't seem to know how to win.

[lonestarnot]

131. bullshit! 26 days into this and all they have managed to do is recover 2% of the spew. Not such

experts IMO. Not too bright either. We need some brighter bulbs working on this solution that they clearly cannot handle. National interests are at stake. Government has subs that disappear to depths that are classified. Whether Navy or different experts, we'd be better off.

[marylanddem]

40. Yes, I guess the prospect of the destruction of the Gulf of Mexico

does make me a bit emotional. But this is a fucking national emergency isn't it?

[CLANG]

70. Nah, the total volume of oil is tiny compared to the size of the ocean

The BP CEO actually said that! :grr:

[defendandprotect]

92. There is no way that BP can be responsible for what has happened or will happen . ..

that's the point you're not getting --

Or do you see dollar bills as a replacement for nature?

Yes -- we should have immediately seized BP's operations/assets --

Nor is there any "punishment" sufficient for destruction of nature -- !!!

Even imagining such a thing is sadly amusing!


These aren't "legal issues" --- this is destruction of nature upon which we all depend.

Nature is ALL.


Try planting a dollar bill tomorrow -- drink it or eat it!!

And maybe then you'll get a bit "emotional" about reality!!

[terrapinwelcher]

94. Did You Even Bother to Read my Post (#84)?

The same government that runs Interior and MMS is the one you want to seize BP? Why? So they can fuck it up in their own peculiar way? Tell me how MMS (the federal government) is not culpable in this? And yet you advocate acting like Hugo Chavez to seize BP's assets? I understand the anger at this unprecedented environmental disaster, but your solution is a joke. Obama has failed here just the same as if the repugs were in charge with King George.

[defendandprotect]

97. People's government is the last resort . . . if they can't handle it better than

capitalist criminals BP and Halliburton, then we should know that right now!!

Who's advising Obama . . ?? Brownie??

[terrapinwelcher]

84. The Feds Need to Get Their Own Fricking Act Together

The Interior Department and MMS seem to be just as cozy with Big Oil as they were under Bush/Cheney. Wake up, people! The current crew is no better than the last crew. At least we knew that Bush/Cheney were greedy bastards who were greasing the palms of their oil industry buddies. But what's Obama's excuse? Outside of complete incompetence, I can't come up with any. Did you see this AP report?

Whatever the correct citation total — five or six — the Deepwater Horizon's record was exemplary, according to MMS officials, who said the rig was never on inspectors' informal "watch list" for problem rigs. In fact, last year MMS awarded the rig an award for its safety history.

[RainMickey]

112. What's next for this crew, issuing hits on American citizens?

Oh wait, they've already done that. My bad.

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[quaker bill]

30. Collecting the oil is an important step

in cleaning up any spill. There is a bit of thermodynamics going on here. Once the oil is loose in the environment, entropy takes over and it is virtually impossible to retrieve all the oil, ever again. Catching it at the source, where it is most concentrated. is an absolutely necessary first step for any clean up to be remotely successful. This is absolutely the right end of the problem to work first.

An an environmental scientist, I have never worked an oil well leak, but I have managed cleanup efforts for industrial solvents and fuel leaks. Stopping the leak has always been the first priority, because it makes sense.

[wordpix]

101. totally right on, their real concern is getting that oil to keep the profits booming

[madmax]

5. Damn - WaPo got me all excited for nothing? nt

[dipsydoodle]

7. Excited for nothing ?

Not really given that any contribution is a step in the right direction.

[madmax]

16. Bummed me out to read post #2

A test :( OTOH, they may be getting close to a real solution.

[JDPriestly]

18. The key question is "why did the tube become dislodged?"

If it was due to gas bubbles, how in the world will BP ever keep a tube in there?

[protocol rv]

32. Brute force?

I was wondering the same thing. I suspect the 6 inch tube has a packing element around it, which they activated it to cork up the pipe inside the larger 20 inch pipe which is laying on the sea floor. I'd love to see some pictures of what the contraption looks like, but maybe they also put some cables attached to the pipe, and pulled it in with robot submarines hauling from the other direction. Who knows what resources they got down there, they don't really talk much.

[Warren Stupidity]

8. The first attempt worked for a little while too.

Then it malfunctioned and had to be tossed. My understanding is that the only real solution is the drilling operation to open a second well that will divert the oil and gas to that functioning well and allow this one to be sealed off, and that operation is weeks away from completion.

[jus_the_facts]

14. I read where the drilling operation will have to be done within a 7 inch space ...

....into that well for it to work....with their track record so far...I won't hold my breath for anything to *work*. :(

[protocol rv]

24. I don't think so

If you mean what the relief well will have to do, the target is a 7 inch piece of pipe encased in cement, but the relief well doesn't have to hit exactly on target to be effective. Let me explain:

The oil reservoir is a sandstone layer, something similar to a sponge. I don't know how thick it is, but let's assume it is 100 ft. This means there's a 7 inch pipe set in a vertical position across a 100 ft tall oil "sponge" - which could extend for thousands of acres around the well.

The "sponge" or sandstone reservoir, is filled with oil and natural gas at high pressure. I would guess the high pressure gas is dissolved in the oil, as if it were a very high pressure fizzy soda - in this case the natural gas is the CO2 in the soda, and the oil is the soda liquid.

The oil is "blowing out", my guess is via a channel in the cement set between the rock they drilled and the 7 inch pipe. This channel could be say 2 inches wide by one inch thick.

To stop the oil flow, the relief well has to be drilled close to the well that is out of control. The target distance depends on the nature of the rock, the pressures, the actual layer thickness, etc. But let us say this is 10 feet. Once the relief well is within 10 feet, then it can be prepared, and it is used to pump in water into the oil reservoir, the sponge full of oil. As water is pumped, and I assume they will pump in excess of 30 thousand barrels of water per day, some of the water will go towards the existing well, and will enter the cement channel - this means the fluids leaving towards the surface will become increasingly water and less oil.

Once a good flow is established, they can pump in with a very expensive but effective type of water, salt water brine loaded with special salts, which make it extremely dense. This water slug would cost several million dollars, but the materials are easy to find. As they flood the reservoir around the two wells with this brine, a lot of it goes inside the existing well, and because it is very dense, the pressures at the well head will drop - and the flow will drop because the oil is seeing the back pressure from the heavy brine.

This is where it can get tricky. Depending on the pressures and circumstances, they can then proceed to increase the pressure in their injection pumps (the ones pumping the brine into the relief well) and begin to pump even heavier mud - this in turn makes it harder for the well to flow. The trick in this case is the problem caused by the wellhead location at 5000 feet below sea level. They only have 13 thousand feet of well to fill with very heavy mud, and this may not be enough.

So at this point they can try to pump in a cement slurry, and start filling the well up with cement. The slurry heads from the relief well towards the producing well via a fracture induced in the rock - and if they control it properly, they will have a column of cement and heavy brine headed up the channel and then the wellbore itself. Since I don't have all the relevant information, it's hard to say how to proceed in detail, but the point is, there's no need to hit the seven inch pipe, it can be done from a distance, and the acceptable distance depends on the actual conditions.

They will have tools available to detect the well as they approach it - magnetometers and electricity resistivity measurements will do. So they can approach it using inertial guidance instruments, and then detect the existing well, and steer towards it. it's tricky but I'm sure they'll have very skilled people aboard.

How do I know this? I talked to people who know, and they sketched it for me in detail. I am not a real expert, but I am very curious :-)

[salazarmms]

135. How do THEY know??

[drm604]

19. What percentage of the leak can this capture?

That's the big question.

Will BP allow objective observers to come in and monitor the situation or will we have to take their word on things?

[marylanddem]

20. Well, they're not letting scientists near the site they think they own...

Guess we just have to take their word on things. Or you could email the White House...http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

[protocol rv]

28. The site is "owned" by the US Coast Guard

Under the prevailing rules, the permit to approach such a site has to be given by the US Coast Guard. The presence of adhoc vessels when conducting relief and clean up operations isn't good practice. If I were the incident commander on scene, I would establish a perimeter of about 12 miles around the site, and require all vessels approaching to change course, only allowing vessels which have a permit or an authorized reason to be there.

I know this sounds a little harsh, but this area is covered with oil on the surface, and there is natural gas escaping from the well. There are opportunities to conduct surface burns at times, and it doesn't help clean up operations to have vessels approach and interfere. Furthermore, such a vessel will itself become contaminated, and if it moves away would have to have the means to clean itself before entering clean water. Therefore, this isn't about not letting scientists enter the area, this is about the US Coast Guard making sure there's no more contamination than there already is, and that a bunch of amateurs aren't burned to a crisp if the oil on the surface catches on fire. :-)

[drm604]

62. What?

This isn't about a "bunch of amateurs". This is about letting some competent objective experts in to verify what BP is saying.

It's not about whether or not what you are saying is "harsh". We're not a bunch of school children asking to play in the ocean (the smiley won't convince us either), we're saying that we want some kind of expert confirmation of what we are being told by a company that is anything but objective at this point.

Surely there are people and equipment coming and going from this area all the time. Why is it suddenly a bad idea when we're talking about someone who might not be cooperative mouthpieces for BP?

[defendandprotect]

29. There MUST be a way to pick up surface, underground oil . . .

and it seems there isn't now and there isn't a way in future --

Therefore, offshore oil drilling should be ended.

This is suicidal concept!!

[protocol rv]

36. of course there is

There have been several thousand wells drilled offshore around the world, and this is one of the rare exceptions. I don't have all the information, but I do know a bit about industrial accidents. And they are usually caused by multiple human errors coupled to at least one equipment error. I suspect the investigation will show there were multiple errors in judgement, and some equipment which failed, which is the requirement for something like this to happen.

So the answer is to go over the equipment, improve its quality, improve personnel training, and make sure their policies and procedures are also more stringent. It would also help to have a better response system, for example, the well head should be equiped with a remote shut off device independent of the surface vessel controls which can be activated remotely by somebody sitting on a vessel on station near by. So if the vessel drilling the well blows, then the well can be closed by the stand by vessel using the remote shut off. This is the practice used in Brazil, and it's something the US industry can use - all they need to do is copy the Brazilian method :-)

[defendandprotect]

38. WHERE is the method to pick up surface/underground oil????

Answer that question --

Without such an ability there should be no future offshore drilling --

We've been 30 days without anyone picking up this oil -- rather the've insanely

dispersed it!!

[protocol rv]

50. The idea is to produce the oil without spilling it on the surface

The method is called a properly drilled and completed oil well. It is done all the time.

[defendandprotect]

51. Do you know how many wells Halliburn worked on exploded?

"Many a slip 'tween the cup and the lip" --

How many spills have there been -- including ExxonValdez?

How many spills don't destroy nature/animal life -- and ultimately humanity?

Again -- there should be no future off shore drilling until some oil company

can show us that they can recover oil from the ocean -- on the surface or underground.

In fact, NATIONALIZE the oil industry --

and let's get on with alternative/renewable energy --

Burning fossil fuels is suicidal -- as is capitalism!!

[protocol rv]

66. Comments one by one - which you may not like but....

How many spills have there been -- including ExxonValdez?

Answer: I'm not sure. You should differentiate between oil spills due to tanker groundings and oil spills due to oil well accidents. I've read the oil spills due to tanker groundings have been much larger than the ones due to oil well accidents. Thus far, the oceans suffer more from plastic contamination, and the effect of excessive fertilizer effluent, than from oil spills.

How many spills don't destroy nature/animal life -- and ultimately humanity?

Answer: None. Oil spills destroy animal and plant life. But they don't destroy humanity. In the rank order of problems we have, I would classify oil spills way down the line as a problem.

Again -- there should be no future off shore drilling until some oil company can show us that they can recover oil from the ocean -- on the surface or underground.

Answer: The oil can be recovered from the ocean, that's a fairly straightforward process because the oil is biodegradable, bacteria eat it, so it doesn't sit in the water forever. The fractions the bacteria don't eat turn into tar balls, and those tar balls are the ones you get on your feet on the beach. It's messy, but it's not such a big deal, tar balls we get today are mostly caused by tankers washing their tanks in an illegal fashion.

In fact, NATIONALIZE the oil industry --

Answer: That won't solve the problem. It will make the industry a lot more inefficient, and you will end up paying a lot more for gasoline and products. A better solution is to improve the regulatory mechanism.

and let's get on with alternative/renewable energy --

Answer: That's fine, as long as you are willing to pay for it. But the alternative has to be realistic - the US economy can't be supporting all those wars you Americans love to fight, bringing democracy to the Arabs, and other such garbage ideas you try to sell to the world. So you got an alternative, stop being so militaristic, rationalize your tax system, provide decent health care, protect your borders to control immigration and the possibility that Osama will send you a nuke disguised as a Mexican pinata, and get real about balancing the budget.

Burning fossil fuels is suicidal -- as is capitalism!!

Answer: That's a little hysterical, don't you think? First, burning fossil fuels isn't suicidal, even if we load the atmosphere with CO2, at worst we'll cause the death of a few 100's of millions people, sea level will go up about 60 feet, and on the other hand Inuit will own very nice real estate. It's bad, but it's not "suicide". Second, burning fossil fuels isn't "capitalist". Communist societies can burn as much if not more than capitalist societies. Checked the statistics for say Venezuela, where our government subsidizes gasoline and other fuels, so they are burned at a much more wasteful rate than in say the USA or Germany. In general, Capitalism is good, communism is evil :-)

[boppers]

79. A list of spills:

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

[wordpix]

103. a long list, and no wonder any beach you go to is stained with oil now, worldwide

Have not been to a beach lately where there is no oil stain or globbed up

[defendandprotect]

96. "...at worst we'll cause the death of a few 100's of millions people..."

You'll find the list of oil spills in post below provided by another poster and wiki --

Thus far, the oceans suffer more from plastic contamination, and the effect of excessive fertilizer effluent, than from oil spills.

As far as I know we make plastic and fertilizers from petroleum --



How many spills don't destroy nature/animal life -- and ultimately humanity?

Answer: None. Oil spills destroy animal and plant life. But they don't destroy humanity. In the rank order of problems we have, I would classify oil spills way down the line as a problem.

Have you never heard of Global Warming caused by burning of fossil fuels?

Where do you expect to humans may live should this planet become uninhabitable?

Perhaps you haven't noticed either there is less air in our air and our immune systems are

being impacted by the pollution of the planet by industry?

All in all, capitalism costs us all -- both in money and in loss of nature!

Wake up!

Again -- there should be no future off shore drilling until some oil company can show us that they can recover oil from the ocean -- on the surface or underground.

Answer: The oil can be recovered from the ocean, that's a fairly straightforward process because the oil is biodegradable, bacteria eat it, so it doesn't sit in the water forever. The fractions the bacteria don't eat turn into tar balls, and those tar balls are the ones you get on your feet on the beach. It's messy, but it's not such a big deal, tar balls we get today are mostly caused by tankers washing their tanks in an illegal fashion.

Have you heard the latest reports on the ExxonValdez spill and the still ongoing destruction

of nature there?

Leaving oil in the ocean to be eaten by bacteria isn't PICKING UP THE OIL!!

"No big deal" . . . for whom? For BP or for animal life in our oceans?

It would really be interesting to know where you get these insane ideas?

"Manifest Destiny" ... "Man's Dominion Over Nature" . . . Capitalism? Patriarchy?

All suicidal concepts!


In fact, NATIONALIZE the oil industry --

Answer: That won't solve the problem. It will make the industry a lot more inefficient, and you will end up paying a lot more for gasoline and products. A better solution is to improve the regulatory mechanism.

The industry couldn't be "more inefficient" than it is right now --

and the huge amounts of money this privatized natural resources supplies owners also

permits them to destroy democracy along with nature.

And, evidently, you don't understand that capitalists have just finished knocking over regulations?

The Democratic Platform of 1960 which JFK ran on called for the NATIONALIZING of the oil

industry -- better late than sorry!!


and let's get on with alternative/renewable energy --

Answer: That's fine, as long as you are willing to pay for it. But the alternative has to be realistic - the US economy can't be supporting all those wars you Americans love to fight, bringing democracy to the Arabs, and other such garbage ideas you try to sell to the world. So you got an alternative, stop being so militaristic, rationalize your tax system, provide decent health care, protect your borders to control immigration and the possibility that Osama will send you a nuke disguised as a Mexican pinata, and get real about balancing the budget.

If you have anyone to talk to, try these "answers" on them first before you post them --

We are paying for capitalism, over and again -- in loss of nature and in bailing out corrupt,

criminal, predatory capitalists. How have you missed that?

How about the wars -- by any chance do you see any connection there to OIL INDUSTRY?

Unfortunately, there is a connection between oil industry and militarism . . .

See: "War is a Racket!" -- Brig. Gen. Smedley Darling Butler -- google

No reason why we can't have alternative energy -- electric cars -- mass transportation --

and MEDICARE FOR ALL!!

Controlling the borders is nonsense . . . you need to control the "magnet" -- i.e., employers

who hire illegals.

Additionally, we need Mexico to stop funding the US Treasury/debt and move on to create jobs

for Mexicans in Mexico!! Unique idea, eh???

Osama . . . ?? The myth of 9/11 lingers!! Wow!! MIHOP


Burning fossil fuels is suicidal -- as is capitalism!!

Answer: That's a little hysterical, don't you think? First, burning fossil fuels isn't suicidal, even if we load the atmosphere with CO2, at worst we'll cause the death of a few 100's of millions people, sea level will go up about 60 feet, and on the other hand Inuit will own very nice real estate. It's bad, but it's not "suicide". Second, burning fossil fuels isn't "capitalist". Communist societies can burn as much if not more than capitalist societies. Checked the statistics for say Venezuela, where our government subsidizes gasoline and other fuels, so they are burned at a much more wasteful rate than in say the USA or Germany. In general, Capitalism is good, communism is evil

Unfortunately, it's what scientists have been telling us for decades and more --

It's the basis of "The Warning to Humanity" re Global Warming . . . which I presume you're

labeling "hysterical" . . . ???

And have you never heard the expression . . . Orwell . . re capitalism and communism . . .

"a pox on both their houses" . . . ???


Here's an old Russian joke . . .

Q: "What's the difference between Capitalism and Communism?

A: "Under Capitalism, man exploits man --

Under Communism, it is just the reverse -- "



This is the saddest part of your post ---


at worst we'll cause the death of a few 100's of millions people

in your own regard, that is.

Maybe someday you'll figure out the human attachment to nature --

of which we are all part.

[Trillo]

124. Oh my g. where to begin....

<_Nationalization_> "won't solve the problem. It will make the industry a lot more inefficient, and you will end up paying a lot more for gasoline and products. A better solution is to improve the regulatory mechanism."

Paying more, like folks in Mexico with Pemex? Every time I've ever checked (it's been a few years) gasoline is always less expensive there when price is converted to U.S. dollars.

"Oil spills destroy animal and plant life. But they don't destroy humanity. In the rank order of problems we have, I would classify oil spills way down the line as a problem."

We are absolutely dependent upon plant life particularly, as well as animal life lower on the food chain, indirectly. Destroy the food-chain base, and the effects most certainly will ripple up to humans. Destroy the plants, and there's less oxygen for us to breathe.

Seriously, your post reads like it's written by an oil industry lobbyist.

[golfguru]

43. WOW a voice of reason amongst knee jerk protests to offshore drilling eom

[drm604]

63. As opposed to knee jerk defenses of deep water drilling?

:eyes:

[protocol rv]

67. I hope you don't think I'm a knee jerker

I'm a very measured individual. Weigh the pros and cons look at the data, and analyse things with great analytical skills. Given that background, I'm also looking for a US visa to get out of Venezuela, which has a terrible economy. So I'm very happy to see the illegal aliens controlled, so I can become a legal immigrant the proper way. Since I'm fluent in English, and I'm highly educated, I can help US society a lot more then those lllegal aliens in Arizona.

Now that I made a pitch for potential employment....

Deep water drilling is a delicate enterprise, and requires tighter regulation in the USA. It is also my observation, based on their record (Texas City, Thunder Horse incident, and now this Macondo well) that BP has the improper safety culture, and needs special corrective actions. It would be good to see the BP board of directors start by dismissing the senior personnel, such as Tony Hayward, and putting in their place people who are engineers and familiar with the offshore industry. In other words, they seem to need more engineering and less bean counting.

I haven't seen all of the information, therfore it is hard to judge them yet, but it would seem the had the wrong procedures and decisions, possibly faulty equipment as well. I suspect some of them will end up in jail convicted of manslaughter. And this is a terrible fate for them, because I am sure some of them will have to be placed on suicide watch and will need a lot of psychological intervention. This is a tragedy for both the people who died, and those who are responsible, and we should not gloat over their fate. But the US government does need to step up the regulatory game, and make sure incidents like this don't happen.

On the other hand, shutting down the offshore drilling industry would be somewhat of an overreaction. This would be as if you decided not to drive any vehicles anymore because a drunk truck driver ran into a school bus and killed 30 children.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wordpix]

104. yes and nuclear is safe too IF

they can figure out the waste issues, human error issues, technical issues, transportation issues...

[golfguru]

42. and buy oil from Iran & Venezuela & Saudi Arabia?

Or just outlaw gasoline usage? Or furnaces using oil for heat?

[defendandprotect]

55. Ever hear of electric cars, mass transportation, trolleys . . . ???

Trains?

We have to stop burning fossil fuels -- we've known that for 60 years --

Tell me what humanity does with its gas-guzzling cars when we no longer have a planet?

[Codeine]

72. Electric cars need power,

and something tells me you're just as hysterical about nuclear plants as you are about fossil fuels.

[Devil_Fish]

81. ever hear of wind and solor?

www.windadvantages.org

[Codeine]

82. AHAHAHA!

Those won't be able to supply our NORMAL power needs any time in the foreseeable future; add in the enormous power load increase that switching to electric cars would entail (which I'm all for, BTW) and it becomes ten shades of Totally Fucking Impossible.

Wind, wave, and solar are charming little playtoys for people to feel all fluffy about, and we should keep them around because they're cute, but they aren't realistic power sources for a modern, technological society.

[defendandprotect]

90. So you know that solar batteries are impossible . . .

and wind and solar are "charming little playtoys" . . .


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Codeine]

93. Technology not ready for primetime,

but I don't expect the scientifically illiterate to understand that niggling fact. You're the poster who believes the moon landing was a hoax, so my expectations are suitably low.

[defendandprotect]

98. Since we haven't been investing in anything but burning fossil fuels ... why would it be?

PLUS didn't BP buy up the wind companies -- ?

[golfguru]

102. If solar and wind power was profitable, big money would be chasing

it already. Those rich investors will never let an opportunity
pass them by.

[defendandprotect]

108. Mass transit wasn't working either in America post WWII ...that's why they ripped that up...

And there's no real audience waiting for liberal TV/radio --

BP has bought up wind companies --

face it --


:evilgrin:

[kristopher]

133. Nuclear is a third rate solution to our energy problems. Renewables are better

Abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Full article for download here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm


Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[defendandprotect]

91. They don't want to hear about it -- that's the point, but what do you do with cars and no planet?

Capitalism is the most destructive power ever invented, second only to nuclear weapons!!

Exploitation of nature is a suicidal concept -- but there are many who will hang on until

their war on nature finally succeeds!!

[defendandprotect]

89. Electric cars don't need gasoline . . . concentrate on that!!

The hysteria is with those advocating "Drill, Baby, Drill!" . . . .

And the MIC which couldn't invade other countries without oil --

but has to invade them to get oil, for instance! See "Three Days of the Condor" --

And you can bet your ass anyone smart enough to figure out the insanity of the Gulf

of Mexico "spill" can figure out the insanity of more nuclear power plants!!



:nuke:

[golfguru]

100. Electric cars are polluters

because the electricity they use is from some coal fired power plant
or other fossil fuel power plant. Unless we were like France with
most electricity generated by nuclear power.

Another problem with electric cars is the cost. First the cars are
expensive to buy, the batteries wear out and replacements is also
expensive (several thousand dollars) and the disposal of used
batteries is another headache. So lower middle class will not be
able to afford them as easily as gasoline powered small car.

[defendandprotect]

110. Solar batteries will be polluters . . . ???

Nuclear power plants require petroleum to run --

When Nobel scientists start warning us about electric cars/batteries as they've

warned us about fossil fuels/Global Warming --

come back and post this again!!



We subsidized the start up of the gasoline-drive auto --

we can do the same with electric --

[golfguru]

113. Again, if solar power batteries is the way to go then

big money will be breaking down doors to get in.
Those rich fuckers never ignore a profitable product.

You don't mean solar batteries mounted on top of car of course?
You do not want to get stranded on cloudy days and they will not
generate enough horse power to keep up with traffic.

Here in Northwest we are cloudy almost the whole winter.
So my roof top solar will be mostly growing moss, as does
my roof. To clean moss on roof is bad enough, to clean moss
from solar panels will be a nightmare.

And believe me bikes are no fun on cold rainy days with lots of wind,
which is a typical day here from November through March-April.

[defendandprotect]

114. You mean . . . "when they own the sun" . . .???

See: "Who Killed The Electric Car?" -- probably at your library

Did you ever do your laundry and not unload it until late in the day . . .

and some of it is still hot?

You can save heat --

[golfguru]

116. Hey bud, can we smoke it together?

[defendandprotect]

120. And who owns what you smoke . . . ???

Prohibition makes profit for the elites while it corrupts government officials and

police enforcement --

Drug War = citizen control


If you haven't noticed that your car is hot during summer --

and how long it takes to cool it down --

Then maybe you better find something to smoke!



Aren't you supposed to be busy defending the elites on the oil spill threads?



:evilgrin:

[golfguru]

121. In case you want to know how I feel

I am against prohibition of Marijuana.
And other controlled drugs should be freely available from
either a government agency or your doctor.

[defendandprotect]

122. They why try to use "smoking ridicule" in a debate about oil . . . ???

What you're confessing to is your own disingenuousness --

[golfguru]

130. Because...

your arguments against oil are so illogical. "Feel good" is different from
"stark reality".

I am not a marijuana user but I defend every one's right to pursue whatever
brings them joy in the privacy of their home. If it is not hurting anyone
else why should government act as your mother and forbid it?

[defendandprotect]

137. Because you disagree with the arguments I'm making . . .

so you decide to try to belittle them to cover a lack of ability to respond --

[Codeine]

117. Nuclear power plants do not run on petroleum.

Where on earth did you get that?

[defendandprotect]

123. Nuclear power plants use petroleum . . .

http://www.depletion-scotland.org.uk/ds_nuclear.htm

Just came across the info somewhere in my files the other day --

I'll look for it again later --

That's all at the moment.

[Codeine]

125. Nothing in your article supports your assertion. nt

[defendandprotect]

127. Nor did I suggest that it did . . . it's a negative article on nuclear power ....

especially as a replacement for petroleum.

However, as I did say, I do have info on nuclear power plants and use of petroleum

and when I come across it again, I'll be happy to pass it on to you.

[Codeine]

128. Uh huh. I shan't hold my breath.

You've got nuthin', as usual.

[defendandprotect]

129. Well, by all means busy yourself . . . .

If I have "nuthin'" ... you have even less --

[imurhuckleberry]

45. system able to send SOME of the leaking oil to be captured aboard a drill ship on the surface

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/05/16/gulf.oil.spill/index.html?hpt=T1

How much SOME is :shrug:

[defendandprotect]

57. Yeah -- 30 days later!! This is a solution that should have happened immediately . . .

Any ship/tanker could throw a line down -- and could have done it 30 days ago --

to suction up the oil. Recovering it -- and taking it to central area -- refinery?

This has to be the response . . PICK IT UP!! -- but it's a very late response!

[Merchant Marine]

85. Is that all they had to do? Just throw down a hose and start sucking?

Are you serious?

For starters, not just "Any Ship" could do this. A bulker or container vessel doesn't even have tankage or manifolds outside of their fuel systems. And the vast majority of Tankers are what we call "Ungeared" vessels, that is they have no cargo hoses or cranes outside of a small stores/gangway crane. They're dependent on a shore-side facility to hook up and discharge cargo.

And then there's the problem of suction. A tanker has pumps designed to move cargo from its tanks to ashore, and nothing more. They're usually reliant on shore-side pumps for creating the pressure to load cargo.

BP is using a drillship to siphon this stuff for a reason. They have very strong pumps that are used in their drilling operations, so they can actually generate the suction needed to pull stuff up from 5,000 feet. It will likely be transferred to tankers and taken ashore from the drillship.

I don't think you dig how deep 5'000 feet is. Just for a tanker to have a crane capable of holding 5,000 feet of cargo hose is crazy, you're getting into heavy lift ship levels of weight there. I don't even know if a cargo hose would hold its own weight at that depth.

[defendandprotect]

88. Guess if oil industry only starts thinking about it today . .. you could put it that way . . .!!!

Is that all they had to do? Just throw down a hose and start sucking?
Are you serious?

Yes -- I'm serious --

The immediate area was like a gas tank which could be suctioned up.

Granted you need empty tankers and a central place to deposit the oil --

And, again, not something you BEGIN TO THINK ABOUT ONCE YOU'VE FLOODED THE GULF OF

MEXICO WITH OIL!!

That's why I'm saying repeatedly . . . unless oil industry can prove that they can

PICK UP oil from ocean from any spill, then there should be offshore oil drilling.


BP is using a drillship to siphon this stuff for a reason. They have very strong pumps that are used in their drilling operations, so they can actually generate the suction needed to pull stuff up from 5,000 feet. It will likely be transferred to tankers and taken ashore from the drillship.

Whatever they do have is based on need --

Obviously, this spill shows us how much there was a NEED to have a system to pick up oil from

Gulf!

I don't think you dig how deep 5'000 feet is. Just for a tanker to have a crane capable of holding 5,000 feet of cargo hose is crazy, you're getting into heavy lift ship levels of weight there. I don't even know if a cargo hose would hold its own weight at that depth.

So you're saying that we will never be able to pick up oil from oceans --

and, if that's true, then I conclude there should be NO OFFSHORE DRILLING!!

However, there is obviously oil on the surface which can be picked up . . . and lower.


Just as a parallel concern, imagine how well the nuclear industry is doing!!





:nuke:

[pinto]

22. Updates here (deepwaterhorizonresponse.com) -

http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/site/2931/

[lonestarnot]

47. 1:30 pm CST, Wonder if it will be breaking news?

[defendandprotect]

27. As the news worsens re underground plume . . . certainly hope this works . . .but ...

government should be either in charge of this or overseeing what is going on --

[lonestarnot]

33. U.S. Coast Guard is on duty protecting from invading 3rd party scientists apparently.

:shrug: Oh if we knew the truth it may lead to panic.

[defendandprotect]

41. Obama is really asleep on this one . . . very friendly with Exelon evidently . . .

big in off-shore oil drilling???

Campaign $$$ --

[lonestarnot]

44. Not.

He rounded up some scientists. 6 of them as I recall.

[defendandprotect]

49. Obama has to take over this well . . . BP assets . . .

Obama Weakened Nuclear Safety Bill After Consulting With Firm
Mr. Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to ... "Mr. Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to ...
huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/03/obama-weakened-nuclear-sa_n... - 125k - Cached
Taylor Marsh: Obama Hearts Nuke Giant Exelon
Mr. Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to ... Frank M. Clark, executive vice president to Exelon, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director ...
huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/obama-hearts-nuke-giant-e... - 156k - Cached.

PolitiFact | Exelon
staff supports Obama
And Hillary Clinton had her facts in order during a Jan. 15, 2008, debate in Las Vegas. ... Exelon is one of the largest companies and employers in Obama's hometown of Chicago. ...
politifact.com/truth-o-meter/.../exelon-staff-supports-obama - Cached

Politics: Obama's Lobbyist Connection - Newsweek.com
Newsweek gets you smarter, faster about what matters most now in politics, business, environment, tech, culture, world, and health ideas, news, and trends.
www.newsweek.com/id/138519 - 64k - Cached

Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate - New York ...
John W. Rowe, chairman of Exelon and also of the Nuclear Energy ... Mr. Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to ...
nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?... - 75k

In nuclear bill, an early Obama test - The Boston Globe
Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and ... Another Obama donor, John W. Rowe, chairman of Exelon, is also chairman of the Nuclear ...
boston.com/news/.../03/in_nuclear_bill_an_early_obama_test

Apologies, for some reason I can't pick up the Yahoo search page link???!!!

[lonestarnot]

60. hmmmmf.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8341806&mesg_id=8342705

[defendandprotect]

61. Agree: corporate America are our "terrorists" and core of capitalism is exploitation of nature...

There is no dollar bill which can remedy or replace nature --

Nature is ALL --

We have to stop judging everything by the yardstick of a dollar bill!!

You can't eat it, drink it, plant it --

Let's move on to democratic socialism --

[wordpix]

106. the US and history of world colonialism are based on exploitation of nature, unfortunately

Yes, the "tired and poor" may have come here for a better life and not for nature's exploitation but they quickly got jobs logging forests, harvesting the seas, mining, overgrazing...nature cannot keep producing her bounty for 6 billion people. Young people need to get angry about the fact that there's not much left for them, and they didn't create this mess. The likes of BP execs and Cheneyhollowburden should all be in jail. This whole system is insane---why aren't these people charged with crimes against the environment and humanity? And that goes for the MMS maladministration, too. Not to mention, Salazar should be fired for doing nothing on these issues when he came into office.

[defendandprotect]

111. Elites set the agenda . . .

I remember an analysis of capitalism I read some time back . . .

at the time they were saying that if there had never been any "bus-i-ness" we'd

be ahead on the costs!!

In fact, as we can see from the Gulf spill . . . we'd very much be ahead on costs had

Industrial Revolution/Bus-i-ness/Capitalism never occurred . . .

So what would we be doing if we didn't have logging, fishing, mining, animal-husbandry

and general exploitation of nature to occupy us?

I'm guess we'd probably be making love all day long!!

But that wouldn't earn a cent for elites, would it?

They had to get busy separating up -- war on women -- fear of one's fellow man/woman --

and two of their primary tools: Religion and Violence

Since elites invented "Manifest Destiny" and "Man's Dominion Over Nature," I presume that

they have blocked any recognition or acknowledgment of "crimes against the environment

and humanity"!! But, I agree with you!!


:)

[lonestarnot]

132. Right on.

[alcibiades_mystery]

68. Obama should scuba dive down there himself and plug it with the head of Osama bin Laden!

The only answer that will satisfy the lunatics.

[pinto]

54. Deepwater Horizon Marine Board of Investigation (US Coast Guard)

Coast Guard Fact Sheet

U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters Issue Date: 12 May 2010
2100 Second Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20953

Contact: LT Sue Kerver
Phone: [phone]

http://www.uscg.mil

E-Mail:
[e-mail]

Deepwater Horizon Marine Board of Investigation

On April 27, under authority provided by the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and in accordance with a pre-existing Memorandum of Agreement, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of the Interior directed the U.S. Coast Guard and the Minerals Management Service to conduct a joint investigation into the Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit Deepwater Horizon incident that occurred in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010. The incident resulted in the loss of 11 lives, the burning and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon, and the ongoing discharge of oil into the Gulf of Mexico eco-system.

The Coast Guard has classified its investigative efforts as a Marine Board of Investigation, the highest level of investigative effort following a maritime casualty. These investigations are intended to determine the cause of the casualty to the fullest extent possible, promote safety of life and property at sea, and obtain information for the purpose of preventing or reducing the effects of similar casualties in the future.

If the investigation reveals criminal misconduct on the part of any involved parties, then the Coast Guard will determine if the matter should be referred to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution.

The board has the power to administer oaths, summon witnesses, require persons having knowledge of the subject matter to answer questionnaires, and require relevant documents and any other evidence to be submitted. Furthermore, through its incorporation of public proceedings, the Marine Board of Investigation provides transparency of its processes to best serve the public’s interest.

The joint investigation will have the powers of both agencies and will be co-chaired and staffed by highly experienced and skilled representatives of both agencies. Upon completion of the joint investigation, the team will simultaneously issue a single report to the Director of the Minerals Management Service and the Commandant of the Coast Guard containing the evidence brought forward, facts established and its conclusions and recommendations. The Commandant of the Coast Guard and the Director of the Minerals Management Service will jointly sign and release the final report. The team has been given nine months, from the date of the convening order (April 27, 2010), to submit the final report.

The initial proceeding, held May 11-12, 2010, established the foundation for the investigation, including:

> The search and rescue aspects of the casualty

> Accounts/actions of the vessel involved in rendering assistance to the evacuated crew

> All aspects of the safety net (Coast Guard, Minerals Management Service, and Republic of the Marshall Islands’ Flag Administration1)

It is expected that there will be two or three more public proceedings of the joint investigation. The dates for these meetings will depend on the availability of witnesses, and any on-scene investigation which is being conducted to support the investigation.

Subsequent proceedings will examine the corporate safety culture of the Deepwater Horizon owner and operator, leaseholders as well as the recovery, examination, analysis and evaluation of the critical drilling and blow out preventer equipment. At this time, the second public proceeding is scheduled to take place on May 25-29, 2010 in New Orleans, La.

-uscg-

1 Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit Deepwater Horizon was flagged in the Republic of the Marshall Islands.

[wordpix]

107. stop fucking around and send it to DOJ immediately---this is a high crime

And what's with this Marshall Islands' flag---of course, Marshall Islands no doubt has less stringent standards than US, so let's fly their flag---BASTARDS. And the US sits there and does not have a law that says if you're drilling here, you're drilling by OUR standards. No, these international con men are out there with their corporate international loyalty, they could not give a shit about the US of A. :grr:

That goes for you, Dick Cheney you shithead/ I continue to predict he'll get his by spending the rest of his life fighting lawsuits. Let's hope this one sends him to jail. "Too rich to fail" shouldn't be a reason to keep this guy out of the slammer. :rant:

[lostnfound]

52. 10 miles x 3 miles x 35 stories high.. One plume.

My God this is huge. My son and I have been talking today about how big that one single plume is.

[lonestarnot]

56. Several have been found.

[defendandprotect]

58. Wow . . . hadn't read that -- but this is why I'm saying Obama has to have government

take this over -- NOW!!


And what if, as women have always said, oil is the earth's ballast -- ??

Also can't wait to hear how the nuclear industry is doing with their newly

ensured futures increased !!!

Yikes!!!

[Jeroen]

46. Hopefully this is true, but I am skeptical n/t

[truthisfreedom]

53. I drink your spewing milkshake.

With my tiny bar straw.

[rzemanfl]

59. !!!!! Well put. I predict the toothpick from someone's cocktail

olive will get stuck in the tiny bar straw.

[bluesmail]

65. We're not allowed to see what they see one mile deep in the freezing ocean

How can we know what's really happening?

[wordpix]

109. we're also not allowed to know what chemicals they're ""dispersing" the oil with

Obviously, the chemicals aren't working so why don't they give it up? I'm afraid they're getting rid of some toxic brew of solvents banned years ago. :scared:

[Bragi]

74. yay! There'll never be another blowout! /nt

[daleo]

78. The Navy should send a sub down there

And set up a camera and light source on the leak(s). Then that should be broadcast in real time to the world, a sort of environmental catastrophe webcam.

Then, we might just be able to believe what we are told about the efforts to stop the blowout.

[Codeine]

83. That's about five times deeper

than US naval submarines generally operate. A Los Angeles class sub will, as an example, rarely drop as low as 600ft, though some have claimed they can go down to nearly a thousand.

[protocol rv]

87. Disappearing Deep Sea Crab

http://www.inquisitr.com/13529/watch-a-deep-sea-crab-get-sucked-into-a-minute-crack-in-a-pipe/

The pressure at 5000 feet is enormous. This is a film of a deep sea crab sucked into a pipe laying down there, the pipe pressure is lower than the pressure at the sea floor, so it creates enormous suction and the crab...disappears.

[daleo]

118. So, let them send a remote vehicle or a deep sea submersible

The U.S. Navy has that capability. The point is to have transparency on this issue for the public.

Truth is, I would be surprised if the Navy isn't already monitoring the scene, but the public deserves to see things for themselves.

[Codeine]

119. You're right, for purposes of monitoring that makes perfect sense.

I think that's a great idea, but pretending that they can fix the gusher with their current skillset and tools is naive.

[Owl]

126. Agreed!

[LuckyLib]

95. Or so we've been told . . . .

[wordpix]

99. oh yeah, baby, these companies should pay out and go under

just like the fucking oil rig, they should spill their money in payouts until there's nothing left. Good riddance, BP, Hollowburden and Dickhead---maybe these lawyers will get the fuckwad up on the stand.

[Tx4obama]

105. Have they sent in Costner's 31 clean up machines on barges yet?

Video: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x465315
Article: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8328407

[fishnchips54]

136. "BP" and "succeeds" should be in the same title

Just saying...

[paparush]

138. New BP Spokesperson -

"We are siphoning up 110% of the oil. Absolutely no oil is unaccounted for as the blessed engineers of BP have successfully corralled every single drop of oil in the entire Gulf of Cheney. There is a less than zero percent chance that any oil will ever reach land and all citizens are encouraged to return to normal activities. The Heroes of BP (tm) are the bravest, smartest, most technically gifted team of engineers ever assembled in the history of liquid oil liberation."