Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Oil Arrives In Louisiana; Defense Booms Inadequate

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the looking-sticky dept.

Earth 359

eldavojohn writes "People in mainland Louisiana are seeing the beginnings of the oil's full effects on wildlife in the area. Sticky, rust-colored oil covers the reeds like a latex paint, indicating that the efforts to lay miles of floating booms to keep it away from the fragile marshes are useless. They are experiencing what the Plaquemines (mouth of Mississippi River) saw last week, and it now appears that their defenses were inadequate. Only time will tell how much worse it can get as BP still scrambles for a solution. NPR also ran a story critical of Obama's 'scientific approach' that he promised to use in office and how well it's being applied and holding up during this crisis."

cancel ×

359 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Not very critical, actually. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32308190)

NPR also ran a story critical of Obama's 'scientific approach' [npr.org] that he promised to use in office and how well it's being applied and holding up during this crisis."

The story isn't actually very critical. At least the editors/journalists involved in the creation of the article don't seem to be critical at all to me. If you feel the need to comment on this sentence, please please read the article first. It's mostly about how a couple of scientists are critical of the fact that stopping the flow has been prioritized over providing an accurate measurement of how much oil is leaking per time unit. Obama said he would release a directive detailing what his science policy (FTA: "he promised a science-based, data-driven approach to solving problems") means, but hasn't done so, even though the deadline he'd promised was already almost a year ago, and at least one scientist says it could have provided guidance that could have made a difference in this situation. It appears that the aforementioned prioritization might be in conflict with solving problems in a "data-driven" way.

Definition of Criticism? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32308328)

It's mostly about how a couple of scientists are critical of the fact ...

Sounds like it's critical to me. And they knock him for being a year late on a promised report when he campaigned on opening the government to the people. And this report could have helped in this situation?

How is that "not very critical, actually"?!

Re:Definition of Criticism? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32308442)

I could think of plenty of things to say to someone that should come off as much more critical than "Hey, you shouldn't be a late with your report". That doesn't sound "very critical" to me either. Depends on the definition of "very", of course.

Example of what would be very critical: "You, sir, are worse than Hitler!"

Re:Definition of Criticism? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32308476)

Example of what would be very critical: "You, sir, are worse than Hitler!"

I think that's just Glenn Beck merging of the terms 'critical' and 'trolling' screwing with your vocabulary.

Wrong Channel (1)

Iron Condor (964856) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308774)

They report a variety of folks statements, all of them critical of Obama. That makes it an article critical of Obama. That's all there is to it. Welcome to adult conversation.

There is no reason at all why the writer or the editor of the piece should insert their own voice in this. They're supposed to report the facts, not distort them. If, in your eyes, an article is only critical of the president if it is filled with cuss words, then by all means go back to Fox News.

Re:Not very critical, actually. (5, Interesting)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308426)

BP has lied about the flow rate and did not release data that would allow scientists to judge it. All they would have to do is release their data, which would not stop the effort to stop the flow. In fact, knowing the size of the flow is kind of crucial to stopping it.

From what I've read, the containment is inadequate. Double booms aren't being used in most places, they are aren't being anchored right, no catch basins are being used to collect the oil being trapped, with no pumps at the nonexistent catch basins to remove it. Meaning, the oil will build up and overtop or run under the booms instead of being collected and removed. In order to work, booms need to direct oil to catchbasins for removal. Meaning, they might as well not be booming at all. Best practices are not being followed. A science based, data driven approach would mean, at the very least, doing what has worked in the past, and not doing what hasn't worked.

The use of a more dangerous, less effective dispersant in an untried, untested underwater application is also far from science based. But that was the dispersant BPs sister company had on hand to sell them, and with multiple board members sitting on both companies, I think we can say profits trumped science once again. As a liberal, I am very, very upset with the man I voted for right now. At least Bush was just an idiot with Katrina. Obama seems to be deliberately pandering to Big Oil.

Re:Not very critical, actually. (2, Insightful)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308486)

Best reply so far. The biggest point you make should be the most obvious: We aren't doing what we have already have proven to work, boom and capture. This only reduces environmental damage, but it has to be captured one way or another, either before it hits land, or after. It is as if the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing, and there is NO meaningful leadership going on.

Re:Not very critical, actually. (0, Offtopic)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308618)

Don't any of you know what's going on? This so-called disaster is just a smoke screen [wikia.com] for setting up a secret weapon [wikia.com] able to control and manipulate the flow of all information with its powerful AI.

How can we hold the NSA accountable for something they're doing in international waters? Nothing to see here, move along.

Re:Not very critical, actually. (1)

epine (68316) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309400)

In fact, knowing the size of the flow is kind of crucial to stopping it.

The biggest point you make should be the most obvious: We aren't doing what we have already have proven to work, boom and capture.

I thought the premise is that first you have to know the size of the problem, before you can determine if the previously successful solutions are applicable or not.

If "what worked before" is irreproachably scale invariant, then BP is right in their conjecture that there's no scope for data to drive a more effective response. Wasn't part of the problem with Katrina more water than pumps?

What's completely stupid about the BP position on this is that there's no contention between assessing the scale of the problem and mounting the most effective response. People who aren't working on the clean up can work on assessing the data.

What's the downside to enlarging participation? The only aspect of the response that would be stretched thin by this approach is spin management by the BP PR flacks, who would view having a disaster *and* open data to contend with as too much like Germany fighting a war on two fronts.

For what purpose? The entire PR effort could be replaced with a simple pro-capitalist capitulation: "We screwed up, big time, and unlike the banks, we're solvent enough to pay restitution." As a sop to their shareholders they could also add "and we're going to litigate the hell out of our partners in crime after the tar settles". Capitalism is not such a bad system when the gears are allowed to mesh.

Re:Not very critical, actually. (2, Interesting)

slick7 (1703596) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308502)

First thing that should be done is to nationalize BP in American jurisdiction. Bill BP for the whole messy affair (no pun intended). Put the rest of the oil companies on notice. Seize and/or freeze all accounts of the government official who abruptly retired when this mess started. Identify all persons associated with the oil cartel in America, starting with all pro oil politicians, lobbyists, oil CEO's and their direct underlings. Monitor all oil company financial accounts.
As Jimmy Durante would say, "You ain't seen nothin' yet"

Re:Not very critical, actually. (1, Insightful)

wronskyMan (676763) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308554)

Not going to help. The rig, and many other deepwater ones, are in international waters - if we nationalize/kick out all the American oil companies, there will still be Chinese, Venezuelan, etc who will drill without ANY oversight from the U.S.

Re:Not very critical, actually. (1, Informative)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308580)

First thing that should be done is to nationalize BP in American jurisdiction.

But not Halliburton, who made the part that actually broke. Because they're good ol' boys.

Re:Not very critical, actually. (0, Troll)

slick7 (1703596) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308698)

But not Halliburton, who made the part that actually broke. Because they're good ol' boys.

Identify all persons associated with the oil cartel in America...
Does this help?

Re:Not very critical, actually. (1, Interesting)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308584)

If we nationalized just one company for screwing up, the rest would fall into line tout de suite. And then when the government agency screws up, we auction it all of to private industry again. This process would repeat itself until we found some entity, public or private, that could handle managing it right. But in the mean time, I think I just found a solution to our budget problems.

Re:Not very critical, actually. (2, Insightful)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308648)

Additional sources of revenue are only short-term solutions to government budget problems. Governments will always expand to consume any additional revenue they acquire, and invariably will commit to long-term spending obligations when faced with temporary windfalls.

Re:Not very critical, actually. (3, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308712)

Clinton managed to balance the budget by cutting the fat. It is possible to have a fiscally responsible government.

Re:Not very critical, actually. (2, Informative)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309040)

Clinton never ran a budget surplus. He got close though, but only because he robbed from the Social Security trust fund (just like every president has for the last half-century).

Bzzzt! Wrong, but thanks for playing! (5, Informative)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309184)

Clinton never ran a budget surplus. He got close though, but only because he robbed from the Social Security trust fund (just like every president has for the last half-century).

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html [factcheck.org]

Re:Not very critical, actually. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32308506)

Don't worry. The apologists for BP are in full swing. Everyone that is working to try to fix this mess only keeps yapping how BP is doing "a good job" and "trying their best", etc, etc. Too bad it was them that fucked it up in the first place.

There is also very little information about subsurface buildup of this goo. The "dispersants" only prevent most of the oil from reaching the surface. But I guess subsurface fish spawning areas, coral reefs, etc. are all fucked up now, or will be soon.

It's all PR while the oil keeps flowing.

Re:Not very critical, actually. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32308510)

You must have watched the same video [youtube.com] I did but you spelled "fucking proper fucking booming" wrong.

Re:Not very critical, actually. (2, Informative)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308558)

Mod parent up, the video might be too intense for liberal (Tipper Gore) ears, but it's something everyone needs to see in order to understand how BP fucked up and how this failure was inevitable.

It's not too intense... (3, Insightful)

IANAAC (692242) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308744)

...the video might be too intense for liberal (Tipper Gore) ears...

It's sort of tiring listening to it after a while though. It becomes profanity theater. Not really needed to get her point across.

Re:It's not too intense... (4, Funny)

rfuilrez (1213562) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308862)

Fucking Agreed. She makes some fucking good fucking points, but no fucking need to swear so fucking much.

Re:Not very critical, actually. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32308586)

What choice does Obama himself have in what dispersant BP uses?

Re:Not very critical, actually. (1)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308690)

The EPA is now forcing BP to use a different dispersant. Obama could have made that happen a month ago.

Re:Not very critical, actually. (1)

failedlogic (627314) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308636)

Its not a solution to the problem, but they should stuff all the BP executives into the leaking pipe. Seriously. At least this is how I feel about the situation.

Someone posted on /. yesterday that engineers from other companies such as Shell and Exxon should be consulting or overseeing the operations. I'd at least like to think that having more engineers experienced in the area would help. If they don't work as a "team" perhaps they can separately draft solution plans.

And, what of the Army/Marine Corps of Engineers. In my mind, these are really smart people that have to think through and implement engineering solutions in battlefields. Surely this mindset would be helpful as well as the fact that this would involve the Government.

Re:Not very critical, actually. (3, Informative)

IdolizingStewie (878683) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309188)

It's funny how many people keep suggesting things that are already going on. All the majors have contributed engineers and other assistance [noia.org] . They're just not broadcasting it, preferring instead to get on with the work.

Re:Not very critical, actually. (-1)

dbcad7 (771464) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308708)

Science be damned.. I think they should drop depth charges, and keep dropping them until it stops.

Re:Not very critical, actually. (1, Troll)

couchslug (175151) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308788)

"As a liberal, I am very, very upset with the man I voted for right now."

Bush II never did anything out of character.

Bush Light, OTOH, knew he could do whatever he wished because his base had no alternative but to vote for Change We Can Believe In.
No matter how pissed off they get this will not change in 2012, and it's hilarious. Who expected to be Pwn3d by a Chicago political shapeshifter?

Re:Not very critical, actually. (1, Informative)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308884)

"As a liberal, I am very, very upset with the man I voted for right now."

Bush II never did anything out of character.

Bush Light, OTOH, knew he could do whatever he wished because his base had no alternative but to vote for Change We Can Believe In.
No matter how pissed off they get this will not change in 2012, and it's hilarious. Who expected to be Pwn3d by a Chicago political shapeshifter?

Me. I knew what he was even back then, but what was the fucking alternative? Senator grandad and caribou barbie? I would have had to leave the country out of sheer embarrassment if they had been elected.

Re:Not very critical, actually. (4, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308834)

As a liberal, I am very, very upset with the man I voted for right now.

And yet you'll still vote for him next election, when he runs against Romney or Gengrich.

Or maybe you won't, maybe you'll be one of the few who decides to vote for an independent instead. But most people of your opinion will still vote for Obama.

Re:Not very critical, actually. (1)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309038)

I'll still vote for him as the lesser of two evils, yes. He's done some good things. IMHO, he's another Reagan, his stated favorite US president, did you know that? His law school adviser said that, on election night, on the Daily Show. It didn't sound like a joke. And Dubya made even Reagan look good, so yeah, I'll pick another Reagan/Clinton over another Dubya.

Re:Not very critical, actually. (4, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309324)

Wow, that's totally interesting, I was comparing Obama to Reagan just the other day. My rational was that both of them were easy to like, both of them were inspiring, and both of them had good ideas that were flawed in the implementation. It's like Obama is the Reagan of the left.

Re:Not very critical, actually. (1)

b4upoo (166390) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308966)

Yes, keep in mind that Bush was in office when the plans for this oil rig were put into action. Useless anti spill measures and falsified information by BP such as hooking the wrong hydraulic rams up to shut off the flow seem to be criminal in nature. Due caution was not in play.
                        And now we will see which insurance companies BP had hired. Are these policies capable of paying off the damages? Dream on! Will the loss bankrupt those insurance companies and take down the banks that own the insurance companies? Are they American companies? And what if BP has to pay 300 or 400 billion out of pocket beyond their insurance policies?
                      My point being that many damaged parties will never get a cent. And I'm not even talking about the people who will die from cancers caused by exposure to oil in the environment.
                      As far as black humor goes on the one hand we have Alquiida with Ben Laden and loonies attacking us and trying to do harm for eight years. On the other hand we have BP that was only trying to make money. BP turns out to be a far more serious enemy than a pile of radical Arabs.

Re:Not very critical, actually. (3, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309084)

BP doesn't have external insurance, they are self insured. Meaning, they have a fund. The damage cap is $75 million, how big do you think their fund is? They've said they will pay the whole amount, but how much do you think that will count for when this goes to court? They will blame it all on Transocean and tie this thing up in court for decades.

Re:Not very critical, actually. (4, Insightful)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309284)

Regardless, no amount of dollars will undo the damage to the gulf and surrounding area.

Accidents happen, but responding quickly and appropriately does help mitigate the damage. Instead, it's as if we are witnessing a case study on runaway oil spills...

Re:Not very critical, actually. (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309176)

"Yes, keep in mind that Bush was in office when the plans for this oil rig were put into action."

HOLY FUCK. people like you amaze me the way you still find ways to blame bush atleast in part, for EVERYTHING. whats your logic here, do you think bush was part of the fucking design team for this rig in a secret republican plot to ruin Obama's day?????

Re:Not very critical, actually. (0, Offtopic)

greg_barton (5551) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309258)

Remember that there are still many "burrowed in" officials left over from the Bush administration, particularly in the Minerals Management Service, which had "oversight" in this case. Thankfully that should be rectified soon. [google.com]

Re:Not very critical, actually. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32308576)

True, but not because there's no room for criticism. The focus of the article is an overdue policy document which, if actually completed in 120 days or even a year, would not have had much bearing on dealing with an environmental disaster like an oil spill (seriously, "solving problems" kinda covers a lot). That is, science policy and emergency management aren't as intertwined as the article implies.

Much stronger criticism should be applied to an initial lack of oversight and inspection by regulatory employees, and the gov't relying on BP for assessment and response.

This is how the conversation should have gone:

BP: Um, hi, we're uh, leaking some oil here...

gov't: OK. Is it a lot?

BP: Well, um, it's enough that we thought we'd let you know...

gov't: We'll be sending people in to look at it; if necessary, we will stopping it as quickly as possible. Oh, and don't worry, we'll bill you.

BP: But we'll lose money!

gov't: Too fucking bad. (dial tone)

So from the title... (2, Funny)

Sooner Boomer (96864) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308204)

...the booms went bust.

Re:So from the title... (1)

fbjon (692006) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308394)

The defense booms went bust. Military-industrial complex requires more war!

Re:So from the title... (1)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308524)

Rather than war, couldn't we just set the military-industrial complex to the task of breaking windows and then fixing them? [wikipedia.org]

Re:So from the title... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32308692)

Hmmph, if the military were able to sieze the Middle East's oil then this disaster wouldn't have happened because BP wouldn't have had to drill here. That's why we have to support our troops and take that sweet, sweet crude to power our oversized Chevy trucks.

DUH.

Also, what is the Middle East going to do with all that oil? They're still living in huts and barking at the moon every Friday. If the Russians didn't sell them AK's they'd still be chucking spears and rocks at each other.

Re:So from the title... (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309302)

Hmmph, if we were able to get off our asses and reduce/eliminate our oil dependence, this wouldn't have happened and we wouldn't be in the shitstorm commonly called the Middle East.

BP CEO Hayward Predicts 'very, very modest' Impact (1)

bird (12361) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308308)

See http://youtube.com/watch?v=dseMhu5IjHo

One suspects that this will go down with "Heckuva job, Brownie" as one of the stoopidest and quickly-regreted public comments of all time.

Re:BP CEO Hayward Predicts 'very, very modest' Imp (4, Insightful)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308342)

BP should pay a very, very modest fine.

Re:BP CEO Hayward Predicts 'very, very modest' Imp (1)

bersl2 (689221) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308386)

Modest fine my ass. If the stories about Schlumberger's test team being prevented by BP from running the tests and needing to call in a helocopter to GTFO before the shit hit the fan is true, BP's in deep shit.

Re:BP CEO Hayward Predicts 'very, very modest' Imp (4, Informative)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308530)

Re:BP CEO Hayward Predicts 'very, very modest' Imp (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309320)

That article misrepresents just who/what Schlumberger is. Take a look here [slb.com] . They are into almost everything oil that's more complicated than banging rocks together. If you hire them, you do what they fucking tell you.

This is what happens when you don't. They know what they are doing.

Re:BP CEO Hayward Predicts 'very, very modest' Imp (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32308696)

Whoosh.

Re:BP CEO Hayward Predicts 'very, very modest' Imp (3, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308456)

I'd consider twice or three time the company net worth quite "modest".

Maybe then oil compnaies will start taking security serious and not "the nuisance necessary to keep the insurance premium low".

Re:BP CEO Hayward Predicts 'very, very modest' Imp (1)

slick7 (1703596) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308742)

I'd consider twice or three time the company net worth quite "modest".

Maybe then oil compnaies will start taking security serious and not "the nuisance necessary to keep the insurance premium low".

It's too bad that O'bama doesn't read /.; He'd get better ideas than he gets from his oil paid lackeys.

Re:BP CEO Hayward Predicts 'very, very modest' Imp (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309194)

I kinda think this could help balance the budget. Easily. And without any cost to the taxpayer, ain't it great?

Re:BP CEO Hayward Predicts 'very, very modest' Imp (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32308358)

considering Congress just voted to NOT remove the liability limits for oil companies I'd say he was probably thinking this whole thing will have a very, very modest impact on their bottom line. BP will be liable for 75 million and the American taxpayers will foot the rest. Just remember to vote GOP this fall; they're the only ones that can save small businesses like big oil.

Re:BP CEO Hayward Predicts 'very, very modest' Imp (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32308436)

The top recipient of BP-related donations during the 2008 presidential election was Barack Obama, who collected $71,000, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

Maybe Obama will take some of the cash BP gave him and help out with the clean up.

 

Re:BP CEO Hayward Predicts 'very, very modest' Imp (2, Interesting)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308360)

It depends on what the actual flow rate is. If it is in the range of 20,000 barrels per day and they manage to close the thing off in the next few weeks, the gulf will probably shake the oil off fairly quickly (especially with various mitigation strategies eliminating thousands of those barrels).

If it is at 70 or 100 thousand barrels per day, then probably not.

Re:BP CEO Hayward Predicts 'very, very modest' Imp (1)

slick7 (1703596) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308410)

How can such an asshole say in the same breath "very, very modest" and "it's impossible to say"?
Only when the Earth itself rears its head in indignation will people begin to understand. I'm sure it will be very, very modest but impossible to say.

Re:BP CEO Hayward Predicts 'very, very modest' Imp (2, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308444)

No duh.

What did you expect? That he goes and says something along the lines of "we expect this to be the worst oilspill in the history of mankind, poisoning the beach of southwest US and Mexico for decades, if not centuries"?

The crap any corporate PR goon spills isn't worth the airtime given to it. They will of course downplay anything and everything, every time. Either they're lucky and it is actually less dramatic than everyone thought, then everyone will be happy they were honest. Or everyone will have forgotten about it by the time it impacts (not bloody likely, this is the coast of the US, not the coast of some godforsaken African country). Or IF the shit really hits the fan, everyone will be too busy worrying what to do to remember that the corp shill spilled more garbage than there is oil.

Frankly, is anyone still listening to these greasebags?

More worse? (5, Funny)

ari_j (90255) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308330)

It could easily turn into the most worst environmental disaster in US history. It is already affecting basic grammar skills.

Re:More worse? (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308422)

All that oil is greasing the vocal wheels and making them slip.

Re:More worse? (2, Funny)

game kid (805301) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308440)

Don't inflate its impact so much. They just accidentally thousands of barrels of oil.

Re:More worse? (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308816)

"It is already affecting basic grammar skills."

This is teh US. Thoze r lowng ded frum uther kawzes.

Oil Arrives In Louisiana; Defense Booms Inadequate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32308348)

They tried this approach with the Italians in New York in the early 20th century, but it didn't work then either.

Re:Oil Arrives In Louisiana; Defense Booms Inadequ (1)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308406)

They tried this approach with the Italians in New York in the early 20th century, but it didn't work then either.

They tried a hell of a lot harder [absoluteastronomy.com] than that right there in Louisiana back in 1891 and that didn't work either.

Booming school 101 (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32308402)

Maybe they just failed booming school 101 and didn't know how to fucking do the fucking booming properly [youtube.com] .

And if you are offended by the f-word, well, watch the video to the end, OK? I promise it makes sense.

Booms work (5, Informative)

swillden (191260) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308428)

Booms work when done properly [dailykos.com] .

This is a joke. (1, Offtopic)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308430)

This wouldnt even be a problem if we would stop relying on oil. Government and industry should invest more money into sustainable eco-friendly energy rather than defense or the next best entertainment unit. There is NO reason we shouldnt be relying on high speed rail between cities, solar energy plants, geothermal energy plants, nuclear energy plants, and wind farms. Additionally, we could easily use ultra-capacitors to power electric cars that would take us in a range of 500 + miles and have fast recharging. If you ask me, the entire system is designed to make the most profit for people that are already extremely well off. Its a joke.

Re:This is a joke. (1)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308446)

If you really think about it, we are using an almost prehistoric way of getting from place to place.

Re:This is a joke. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32308704)

Actually, it is prehistoric. Oil supplies that we are using now had their source back when dinosaurs were roaming the plains. Heck, some of the deposits *predate* the dinosaurs!

Re:This is a joke. (1)

lotho brandybuck (720697) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309032)

Yeah, I've been thinking lately that we're still using animal or plant based power.. just very old animals or plants. It's this paralytic american technosissyism. We need to go back to the moon, so we can claim we're capable of things becuase "they can put a man on the moon." Then we need to start doing shit. Quickly.

Well, I guess that came out a little disjointed. I'm very upset about a lot of stuff, and this blowout sorta put me over the edge.

Re:This is a joke. (5, Insightful)

RazorSharp (1418697) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308540)

If you ask me, the entire system is designed to make the most profit for people that are already extremely well off. Its a joke.

Sounds like capitalism to me.

Re:This is a joke. (1)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308632)

Unfortunately its not true capitalism. Frankly, our government is more like an oligarchy where instead of it being rich individuals its rich corporations. I wish someone would successfully implement Communism. Its an appealing concept that never worked because any communist revolution was always used as a vehicle to institute a tyrannical regime.

Re:This is a joke. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32309108)

Unfortunately its not true capitalism. Frankly, our government is an oligarchy

FTFY

Re:This is a joke. (4, Insightful)

couchslug (175151) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308844)

"Additionally, we could easily use ultra-capacitors to power electric cars that would take us in a range of 500 + miles and have fast recharging."

Wake me when I can order a suitable cap from Mouser or Digikey.

since BP fails Fucking Booming School (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32308432)

its no surprise that the Fucking boom didn't Fucking work.

Re:since BP fails Fucking Booming School (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308462)

Fucking boom? Is that sort of like dental dam?

Re:since BP fails Fucking Booming School (1)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308542)

Fucking boom? Is that sort of like dental dam?

This [youtube.com] will explain everything.

Re:since BP fails Fucking Booming School (4, Informative)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308628)

Go watch this [youtube.com] and it will make more sense. They are not, have not, and seemingly, WILL NOT use the booms properly. Booming without capture is useless, you are only slowing down the disaster, not reducing it.

Crisis Situation (4, Insightful)

starseeker (141897) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308738)

If that's the NPR story I heard, the simple refutation was given by an administration official, something along the lines of "there isn't a different response to a 1,000 barrels per day vs. a 5,000 barrels per day leak - either way its a disaster that must be contained, and the priority is to contain it."

Decisions driven by good scientific data are extremely important, but if there is only one possible decision (big oil disaster and major huge oil disaster both require an all-out response) then the details can wait until AFTER the bugger has been capped.

Sounded like a non-issue to me.

Re:Crisis Situation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32309308)

But, but, but, Obammy is a kenyan and this must be his fault!! Rabble rabble rabble. Fox News agrees!

could this be good news in the long run? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32308784)

the "delicate environment" often interferes with development, could this open the path to factories, refineries, and jobs along the coast?

The "scientific approach" (-1, Troll)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308890)

Obama's "scientific approach" appears eerily similar to the approaches that his predecessor used in response to crisis events... In other words not specifically scientific at all.

Just so you all know. (5, Informative)

OwP_Fabricated (717195) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308930)

No one will ever be held responsible for this. Ever. Not now, not ever. Ever ever ever.

BP will pay whatever it ends up costing them to "fix" the spill, or whatever it costs up to the point the government has to take over if that ends up being the case. The government (or at least the people in the senate and house who make any public statements regarding this) won't want to seem like idiots so they'll defend BP's stonewalling and ridiculously low damage estimates. Obama is a completely worthless shill to the right of Richard Nixon and will do nothing.

Then BP will appeal any and all personal liability related lawsuits to the supreme court where in a 5-4 decision (get used to hearing this for the rest of your life) the punitive damages will be thrown out, or dropped and sent back to the lower courts (like what happened with the Exxon Valdez spill) where it will be appealed until the affected people settle for pennies or drop the case since they won't live long enough or have enough money to see it out to the end.

Nothing ever changes, rich people never suffer, and again no one will ever be punished for it. There is literally no hope, and that's not even a joke. There seriously isn't.

The NPR article is HORRIBLE. Here's why. (4, Insightful)

Alaska Jack (679307) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308964)

I'm on the scene monitoring things in Louisiana, working for a government agency. Other than that I have no dog in this fight. I am neither a fan of nor do I hate Obama.

Now read the article carefully. Like this part:

"Francesca Grifo of the Union of Concerned Scientists says it could have been useful in the Gulf of Mexico.

"I'm just very frustrated with how long it has taken for us to have this order," she says, "particularly in light of these events, where this kind of guidance clearly could have made a difference in this situation.""

So what does the reader naturally expect? Obviously, an explanation of how the guidance would have made a difference -- oops, make that a CLEAR difference -- in this situation. Well, you can expect all you want, but you're not getting it from this article.

Then there's this:

"In a teleconference, Jane Lubchenco of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said a group of government scientists came together just this week to seek a scientifically defensible measurement.

"We've always said that it is extremely important to get a reliable flow rate," she said. "But we've known all along that doing so would be extraordinarily difficult.""

I hope you, as a reader, aren't expecting to find out why it would be important -- let alone EXTREMELY important -- to get a reliable flow rate figure. 'Cause you aren't getting it from this article.

I don't know why Lubchenco said this. Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen addressed this issue early on. He said it's NOT important whether it's 5K barrels or 200K barrels -- we'd be doing the same thing in either case, and so it would be a waste of time and resources trying to figure out a number that, in the end, would be at least 50 percent speculation anyway.

    - AJ

Re:The NPR article is HORRIBLE. Here's why. (4, Insightful)

MartinSchou (1360093) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309276)

He said it's NOT important whether it's 5K barrels or 200K barrels -- we'd be doing the same thing in either case, and so it would be a waste of time and resources trying to figure out a number that, in the end, would be at least 50 percent speculation anyway.

It's not a waste of time nor resources, if the time spent is that of a PR person who simply has to forward a (bunch of) video to scientists, and the resources spent are those of people who aren't otherwise occupied with this. Like, for instance, scientists who aren't useful for fieldwork.

As for what you'd get out of it? Well, what's the point in telling people if they're going to be hit by a category 4 or a category 5 hurricane? Their house is going to be blown away either way, and they'll die if they stay. Why bother? Because accurate and reliable information is a good thing. Having hostile claims that vary by a factor of 20 (5k vs 100k) does no one any good. Especially when the ones with the raw data are the ones with the financial stake in it.

tubgi8yl (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32308968)

Oil is $70/bll (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32308972)

Have the gov force BP to pay about $1 per gallon to any boat that pulls up along a designated barge and pumps out what they have captured.

All those fishermen/boats docked at port suddenly have a new source of revenue. Let free enterprise figure out how to capture that oil.

PR Booms (0)

speedlaw (878924) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309026)

If what we know and don't know (or are being told) is anything to go by, the booms are really just a PR effort. BP knows how much oil is there. The US Govt. probably knows from sonar and our sub fleet. The only people out of the loop are us. BP is hoping that some miracle will occur and they can stop the well OR nature will co operate somehow. It is clear that BP did not learn the lessons of the Tylenol scare, which is own up to the problem, and fix it. BP is still working PR and cosmetics.

BP, you're horseshit. (3, Insightful)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309102)

Are we to believe that a company with profits equal to a middle sized nation's GDP cannot afford to plug this hole? Sure, it may take hauling 500.000 tons of rocks from the coast, and would cost a few billions of $, but BP can very easily afford that.

Believe you me, the only reason why this crisis is lasting this long, is because BP is doing it piece-meal, so as to not affect the profits almost at all. The upper management at BP are nothing but goons of the worst kind, the most die-hard corporate psychopaths you can imagine. So what if the ecosystem is completely compromised, if it will never recover, if livelihoods of millions will be affected? They don't give a shit. They didn't give a shit when they lobbied (and continue to do so) the govt. to decrease safety regulations, when they cut costs and increased workloads for cost cutting and profit, and when they decided to overlook the reports of pieces of the blowout preventer valve breaking off - and in fact, forcing the oil rig workers to continue as if nothing happened.

Oh yeah, and these executives don't give a shit about the people who died on the platform, either.

Please someone tell me, why shouldn't these soulless suits be lined up and shot, and the event televised for the education of other similar corporate psychopaths?

Re:BP, you're horseshit. (1)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309128)

Please someone tell me, why shouldn't these soulless suits be lined up and shot, and the event televised for the education of other similar corporate psychopaths?

Because those same psychopaths fund the election campaigns of every important member of Congress as well as the President, and they are important providers of high-paying jobs for former bureaucrats and regulators.

Re:BP, you're horseshit. (2, Insightful)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309248)

Because those same psychopaths fund the election campaigns of every important member of Congress as well as the President, and they are important providers of high-paying jobs for former bureaucrats and regulators.

Well, what you provided here, was a (or one of the) reason why they won't be lined up and shot, but not why they shouldn't.

Re:BP, you're horseshit. (3, Insightful)

Alaska Jack (679307) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309252)

To everyone who modded this post up...

So. The top scientists and engineers in America and around the world are huddling their heads together in Houston, having pulled a month's worth of 20-hour days desperately trying to brainstorm every possible way to make the well stop.

And... you're modding up a guy who doesn't think they thought of DUMPING ROCKS ON IT????

Or wait ... they did think of dumping rocks on it but don't want to? Even though they're looking at BILLIONS in cleanup/restoration/litigation costs? Not to mention potential penalties like, you know, no more deepwater drilling?

If blocking it with rocks would work, why would it take 500,000 TONS of rocks? The pressure coming from the wellhead is less than 5,000 POUNDS. And why would simply hauling loads of rocks and dumping them on the wellhead cost "few billions"?

I understand you are upset. The question is, why do you let your emotions turn you into a complete blathering idiot?

    - AJ

Re:BP, you're horseshit. (1)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309274)

To everyone who modded this post up...

Just FYI, nobody modded my post up at this time. The parent post is astroturfing.

Re:BP, you're horseshit. (0, Flamebait)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309298)

So. The top scientists and engineers in America and around the world are huddling their heads together in Houston, having pulled a month's worth of 20-hour days desperately trying to brainstorm every possible way to make the well stop.

And... you're modding up a guy who doesn't think they thought of DUMPING ROCKS ON IT????

Or wait ... they did think of dumping rocks on it but don't want to? Even though they're looking at BILLIONS in cleanup/restoration/litigation costs? Not to mention potential penalties like, you know, no more deepwater drilling?

If blocking it with rocks would work, why would it take 500,000 TONS of rocks? The pressure coming from the wellhead is less than 5,000 POUNDS. And why would simply hauling loads of rocks and dumping them on the wellhead cost "few billions"?

I understand you are upset. The question is, why do you let your emotions turn you into a complete blathering idiot?

I see that you're nicely in the pocket of big oil (I read your other posts in this thread). A thin veil of masquerading doesn't fully disguise your affiliations.

So I do understand what turns youinto a complete blathering idiot.

Re:BP, you're horseshit. (4, Insightful)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309412)

I'm British, BP is British and I think those short-cutting, profiteering fucks should be nailed to the wall over this.

I'm actually disgusted that the US government has passed legislation making BP only liable for the first $500,000,000 of the cleanup operation - as far as I'm concerned, BP should pay for all of the cleanup AND compensate those who have had their livelihoods affected by this.

And if the money runs out, hell, sell the BP execs houses, cars, Learjets and everything else they own - the oil companies have been price-fixing for years, its time for the tide to turn (if you'll excuse the pun).

Booms are a scam (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32309134)

90% of the oil is below the booms so all they are meant to do is block some of the surface oil to hide the problem. Most of the oil forms cloud like plumes below the surface and is unaffected by the booms. Also booms don't work in even mildly rough seas. The dispersants are a similar issue. They only allow the oil to drop below the surface and potentially all the way to the sea bottom. I heard an representative from the dispersant company actually call oil "nutritious" as in providing nutrition for microorganisms. He stopped short of saying the oil and dispersants were good for the environment. That's how scary these people are. Their goal is to hide the oil not solve the problem. Dropping the oil to the bottom hides it. The problem is the natural processes they are quoting happen more slowly in deep water due to less oxygen and colder temperatures so the oil will actually break down more slowly using dispersants but it will be out of sight. So long as you don't eat sea food from the area I guess it can be seen as a plus. The oil will be affecting the area for decades and potentially much longer. The spill was caused by bean counters trying to save a buck. Until they fear the fines this will keep happening. They need to make it hurt. Fine them a billion a week on a spill of this size. Over the top? The area is facing tens of billions in losses so it isn't out of line. If they know they can get hit with a fine in the billions they will be much less likely to cut corners to save a few million. Already we've had politicians saying we shouldn't be too hard on BP. You can tell it's election time and they are going to be looking for handouts. Anyone accepting money from BP after this disaster should be voted out of office, period!

DKOS Booming School (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32309154)

This is a pretty informative article (from a left wing political blog but by a guy who works in the oil industry) about how BP and the coast guard fucked up the defensive booming:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/5/11/865387/-Fishgrease:-DKos-Booming-School

Re:DKOS Booming School (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32309256)

Thanks for posting that. I've been following his diaries [dailykos.com] on there for a while now and it's really helped me figure out the situation beyond what's in the news.

Not enough booming? (1)

Ken_g6 (775014) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309236)

If the booming they're doing now isn't working, maybe they need a bigger boom? Like a nuclear boom? [slashdot.org]

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?