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!

Gulf Oil Leak Plugged?

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the no-harm-done-right dept.

Earth 611

RobHart writes "The LA Times is reporting that the Gulf oil leak appears to have been plugged by the 'top kill.' 'Thad Allen, who is coordinating the government response, says the well still has low pressure, but cement will be used to cap the well permanently as soon as the pressure hits zero.'"

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

glad to see this (4, Funny)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32362960)

I'm glad to see that this solution seems to be working well. The aftermath, however, is going to be a freakin' political circus. I'm simultaneously excited and dreading it.

Re:glad to see this (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32363288)

I wish Microsoft made more hardware products. They are truly a great company and the brilliant minds working there could do us a lot of good dealing with this oil rig mess.

Re:glad to see this (3, Funny)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363490)

Dude, they're the ones responsible for the spill. Environmental agencies are referring to the oil slick as the "black screen of death".

Re:glad to see this (1)

BeerHat (1048036) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363358)

I still think a sizeable kevlar bag inserted halfway down, quickly filled with expanding foam would have done the trick much quicker. That would have given them the opportunity to seal the top days ago, at millions cheaper.

Re:glad to see this (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32363474)

My idea is to gather up all of the 'Drill, baby, drill' campaign materials and 'junk shoot' it into the well head. The republicans won't be dusting that chant off any time soon.

Re:glad to see this (5, Insightful)

tweak13 (1171627) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363508)

I have a feeling expanding foam doesn't expand too well at over 2,000 psi.

Re:glad to see this (0, Redundant)

BeerHat (1048036) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363574)

Ah, good call!

Re:glad to see this (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32363512)

I'm looking forward to seeing BP get raked over the coals. Bastards. The way they attempted to cover up how bad the spill is is really disgusting. See http://www.newsweek.com/2010/05/26/the-missing-oil-spill-photos.html

BP will not confirm (2, Informative)

dk90406 (797452) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363568)

They (BB) say they can't confirm that. They will give an updated status later today. This is from Danish TV, so no link, sorry.

Too early (4, Informative)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#32362966)

This is just step one of the top kill. It's just plugged with mud, which is still streaming out of the hole. Don't start celebrating until they actually top it with concrete.

I've got to wonder, if this does work is BP going to go ahead with their "relief well".

Re:Too early (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32363072)

Humidity's risin'
Barometer's getting low
According to all sources
The street's the place to go

Cos tonight for the first time
Just about half past ten
For the first time in history
It's gonna start raining oil

It's raining oil - Hallejulah
It's raining oil - Amen
It's raining oil - Hallejulah
It's raining oil - Amen

relief well ... bet on it (1)

bobs666 (146801) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363104)

I've got to wonder, if this does work is BP going to go ahead with their "relief well".

You can bet on it, got to keep up the cash flow.

Re:relief well ... bet on it (4, Insightful)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363320)

Right, because the relief well doesn't have anything to do with, you know, being a relief well.

Re:Too early (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32363144)

Big piece of rock? With oil inside it? So much that it's spurting up? You bet'cha.

Re:Too early (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363236)

I don't understand why they didn't just do this in the first (or even second) place. They had immediately started construction of a second well to collect oil from the same reserve. So why not go straight for the plug and tell everyone what a hero they are for saving the day?

Re:Too early (5, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363312)

Possibly for the reason that it's never been done before at this depth. Remember, whatever finally works will be paraded around by armchair generals as "what they should have done first".

Hindsight can be a cast-iron bitch sometimes.

Re:Too early (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363526)

They should have done it second. I really wished they took the nuke approach first...

Re:Too early (5, Informative)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363330)

Because there was a chance that it could make the situation worse. They were trying things first that if they went wrong would not make the problem worse.

Re:Too early (5, Informative)

bratloaf (1287954) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363406)

They were working on this from the start, as well as the "top hat" that will probably not be needed now. They had at least 3 different methods working in parallel. This one took this long because it was unbelievably complicated and had never been tried at anything even close to this depth. This (the actual stoppage) is an amazing success for the many 100's of skilled engineers that have been working around the clock on it for weeks. (Mostly not BP people BTW)

Re:Too early (1)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363410)

Because it's risky.

Re:Too early (4, Interesting)

fireduck (197000) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363414)

My understanding was that there was a chance it might make things worse. If the mud didn't actually slow the leak, but was pushed out as fast as it was applied, there was the fear it might further damage the already broken valve. So, rather than a partially open valve somewhat checking the flow of oil, you'd have a fully open pipe.

Re:Too early (2, Informative)

Sollord (888521) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363478)

Here the basic steps BP had to follow to do this top kill now guess which one took the longest. 1. BP had to get the ships and oil rig in place 2. BP had to deploy special gear and lines for this topkill which it also happens to be something no ones ever done before 2. BP had to load several pump ships full of mud 3. BP had to get permission from the feds to do it. Also they didn't start the wells to start collection of oil. The two wells being drilled are going to be used to divert the oil and then pumped full of cement to fully cap and seal the well. Then the wells once they are sealed will all be abandoned. Though I'm sure in the future a new well will be drilled into the same field maybe somewhat near the current one but it will in no way interact with any of the three wells once they are seals off.

Re:Too early (4, Informative)

Andy Dodd (701) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363488)

"They had immediately started construction of a second well to collect oil from the same reserve."

Um, I have not seen any evidence of this. Do you mean the relief wells? Those are a bit of a misnomer - the name implies that it relieves the pressure forcing the leak by sucking out oil, but apparently a "relief well" is actually the standard way of injecting kill mud deep into a well (as opposed to a "top kill" which is apparently less likely to work.).

Not sure if they'll continue the relief well to ensure that the current well is 100% dead by getting kill mud deeper down into the well.

in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started (4, Funny)

swschrad (312009) | more than 4 years ago | (#32362980)

to control the flow of nonsense over the failed well, contractors will first pump T5000 cement into his mouth under pressure, then fit ankle weights, and send him to inspect the work personally in the Gulf.

Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started (5, Insightful)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363016)

So you hold the CEO personally responsible for this mishap? If that's the case, then I don't think anyone gets to complain about how much money CEOs make.

I mean, if I were the head of BP and every decision that was made pointed directly at me, then I'd for sure want a bajillion dollars a year.

That's a lot of pressure to be under.

I mean, what if that BP truck driver falls asleep at the wheel and kills a family of 4? That's on me, right?

Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32363056)

Yes.

Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started (3, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363092)

That's what Officers and Directors indemnification insurance is for.....

Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32363142)

I mean, what if that BP truck driver falls asleep at the wheel and kills a family of 4? That's on me, right?

Yes, it is exactly on you. That is supposedly the entire reason CEOs are paid so much. The whole "responsibility" and "buck stops here" thing. What kind of a coward wants to be in charge of everyone, but take no responsibility for anyone?

Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started (5, Insightful)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363366)

I think what he is pointing out is that most of the people who want the CEO's to be directly responsible for everything are the same people who think they can set a cap on what private citizens can earn.

Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32363440)

I am all for letting the free market decide CEO pay... as soon as we strip all legal protections afforded to them and their corporation.

Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363456)

That is supposedly the entire reason CEOs are paid so much. The whole "responsibility" and "buck stops here" thing. What kind of a coward wants to be in charge of everyone, but take no responsibility for anyone?

Wait and see if he accepts that nice big, fat golden handshake if he steps down. One guess what I'm betting... :-{

Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363146)

If a CEO has no higher responsibilities than anyone else in the company, there's no reason they ought to be paid more otherwise they'd just be a corporate parasite.

Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363160)

It works the other direction, either we get to complain about their money making, or they have to take personal responsibility for this kind of tragedy. They can't earn the money with no responsibility for the performance of the organization.

Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started (2, Insightful)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363182)

What if that BP truck driver went into coma and went into a sleeping killing rampage that lasted a month? The original explosion could have been an accident, if well could fall into company responsibility, it could be seen as accident. But the unsucessful "solutions" till this one, and the damage that happened and will still happen for weeks or months because no appropiate measures taken aren't accidents, are company decisions, and definately responsibility too.

Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started (2, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363286)

But the unsucessful "solutions" till this one, and the damage that happened and will still happen for weeks or months because no appropiate measures taken aren't accidents

That's pretty unfair. Do you think you could have come up with a better solution and deployed it in less time than BP did? Do you think it's that easy to cap a failed oil well under 5,000 feet of water?

Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started (2, Insightful)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363382)

That's pretty unfair. Do you think he's an undersea oil well engineer with the resources of the company the size of BP?

Easy has nothing to do with it. They weren't prepared and got publicly caught with their pants down and little intention of pulling them back up anytime soon. If they can't fix it 5000' maybe they shouldn't be drilling at 5000'.

Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started (3, Insightful)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363496)

Well if they can't drill it at 5000', maybe you shouldn't be driving your car?

Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started (2, Informative)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363546)

Do you think he's an undersea oil well engineer with the resources of the company the size of BP?

Resources take time to deploy. Research has to be done before repairs can be attempted. The criticism still isn't fair.

It's my understanding that they had plans for Top Kill from almost the beginning of this crisis but were doing investigation/research to ensure that it wouldn't make the problem worse. Or would you prefer that they move ahead blindly and ignore the possibility of doing more harm than good?

Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32363506)

Do you think you could have come up with a better solution and deployed it in less time than BP did? Do you think it's that easy to cap a failed oil well under 5,000 feet of water?

Of course he can. Just like 99% of the general population that thinks that there is some big conspiracy as to why BP's CEO didn't just snap his fingers and have the solution appear at the bottom of the Gulf that instant. BP is going to be rolling in the money thanks to this spill and the cleanup effort!

Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started (1)

frizop (831236) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363576)

I don't think "we" as in the government could have come up with a solution quicker, what I think is the solution should have already been mapped out BEFORE ANY DRILLING TOOK PLACE. You know, like a "oh shit, all my servers are dead, what do I do?" The fact that things took this long is a sign that nobody is really looking over the shoulders of the guys in charge here. This was a slow and lethargic bullshit response that started with BP trying to make money off the spilling oil and spiraled into "welp, guess we can't fix it, might as well plug it up." btw, I live about 100 miles from the coast, have family who live on the coast, more family who fish on that coast and plenty of friends who've been down there and shunned off by the local law enforcement (read: BPs minions). This is a catastrophic failure and totally pisses me off to no end.

Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started (3, Informative)

CheshireCatCO (185193) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363200)

First of all, that's now that the grandparent is saying at all. The GP is talking about what the CEO is saying, not the decisions made that caused this disaster. (And he's joking, at that. That much should have been obvious.)

So really, you're off on a tangent to grind your own ax, here.

There's a big difference between blaming someone and actually holding them to accounts. If the BP CEO is willing to pay for the cleanup and potentially go to prison for any malfeasance, then sure, he deserves the massive salary. However, past experience shows that this never actually happens and that the CEOs get a huge salary and take none of the real consequences. It's more likely the little guys with the low salaries who get canned, fined, or jailed.

Either way, I doubt that the GP can do anything against the CEO of BP, so again, you're sort of off on a tangent of your own making here.

Depends (5, Insightful)

stomv (80392) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363208)

if you had a policy which ignored industry and federal and state and local standards on driver hours per week or hours per day, and it was reasonable to conclude that your policy played a role in the driver falling asleep, then yes.

If, on the other hand, you had a policy which reinforced (or even outdid) the safety procedures, and despite quality employee and contractor screening, despite training, despite good policy, something bad still happened (individual negligence or simply bad luck), then no.

In short, management's role is reducing the likelihood of major disasters. Did they do their job? I don't know the answer, but I suspect that the next few years will include a number of investigations to figure that out.

Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started (4, Insightful)

daid303 (843777) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363216)

Not responsible for the mishap, responsible for the inadequate response. Keeping officials away and not trying to solve the leak *period*, but trying to solve the leak by extracting the oil.

Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started (1)

wygit (696674) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363250)

I mean, if I were the head of BP and every decision that was made pointed directly at me, then I'd for sure want a bajillion dollars a year.

You have it backwards.
The CEOs are ALREADY getting a bajillion dollars a year, and in return for that that they SHOULD be personally liable for anything that happens on their watch...
Instead of the present setup, where they say "Oops!", and leave with a half a bajillion dollar golden parachute before they move on to their NEXT bajillion dollar a year gig.

Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started (5, Insightful)

bratloaf (1287954) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363256)

Actually - that's almost exactly it. Right there. If it is shown that this resulted from systemic faults or negligence on the part of BP management, and is something that results from decisions of the "Very High Up" - i.e. safety shortcuts, speed at the expense of safe(er) procedures, known faults with safety equipment and/or a culture of "get it done fast".

Things that management knew about, condoned, encouraged or "looked the other way", then I believe we should hold the CEO and entire personally responsible. That is (one of the many things) that is wrong with corporate culture in the world now. All the profits and percs of a "human" and none of the responsibility. I think if the CEO and board of corporations were held personally responsible then we'd see a lot less screwing of the public. I'm all for that and the "corporate death penalty".

If you were the CEO of said trucking company, and encouraged or looked the other way when your drivers were falsifying log books, driving extra hours, and ignoring the safety concerns of your maintenance contractor, and your tired driver plowed into a shopping mall with a tanker truck of propane because he was tired, then yes I DO hold you responsible. If that's not the case, and the guy was just an idiot or had too many tacos at lunch and got distracted, then no.

I generally consider myself to lean libertarian - but what we have now in the US is too many cases of privatizing profits and socializing losses/screwups - and that to me is the worst of all worlds.

Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started (3, Insightful)

rednip (186217) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363264)

I mean, what if that BP truck driver falls asleep at the wheel and kills a family of 4? That's on me, right?

Yes, it would be, but only if your negligent business decision made the event happen; like demanding an exceedingly long work day, crazy shift work, or revolving door employment.

Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32363316)

Depends. There's a very good reason why corporations have limited liability. Lets say you're a drug manufacturer, and you make a very effective drug, it does great in reasonable scientific studies, then when it is released, people with a rare genetic mutation have side effects, and a hundred people die. Lets say you make cars, and despite all efforts, some weird freak accident in the factory produces a few that explode, and fifty people die. Now lets say you're drilling off the coast, and even though you've got all the proper safety nets in place, some act of God spews oil everywhere. In those cases, limited liability is a good thing because, when you're dealing with millions of products going to millions of consumers, it isn't reasonable to expect the head honcho to be at fault when the law of truly large numbers rears it's ugly head. Now lets say that the CEO knowingly cut corners to save money, if the lied about drug trials, used cheap manufacturing, or skipped safety regulations, and then those effects occurred. In that case, screw him and everyone else involved. They should rot in jail. In the case of BP, they lied about the flow and did not take all the precautions they should have. I have no sympathy here.

Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started (2, Insightful)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363390)

So you hold the CEO personally responsible for this mishap? If that's the case, then I don't think anyone gets to complain about how much money CEOs make.

Well, uh, yes? Fact: CEO's make about a bajillion dollars a year, give or take a few million. The job is so cushy that they can run a company into the ground in 6 months, and still retire in luxury after getting fired. Right now, the risk is exclusively carried by worker bees who actually do stuff - they're the ones who get hauled in front of a jury when something goes wrong, regardless of what idiotic policies were put into place by the CEO.

I mean, what if that BP truck driver falls asleep at the wheel and kills a family of 4? That's on me, right?

If you put in a policy that mandates overtime, no break on overnight gas trucking and 24 hour driving shifts, then yes, it is on you.

At the very least what needs to happen is that everyone in a position to make executive decisions about how the well is drilled and how the equipment is maintained and monitored needs to be hauled in front of a grand jury to investigate whether there was criminal negligence anywhere, or if there was a knowing disregard of standard safety and accident mitigation procedures. The spill has a chance to cause $1 trillion in damages over its lifetime of existence (the economy tied to the Gulf of Mexico is estimated at $250B), and you're damn straight that I want people in jail for that. They all have the right to due process, but they don't get to cause that much damage and then simply get off by saying "shit happens". No it doesn't, especially not if numbers like that are involved.

Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32363404)

Corporations, such as we allow them to be today, are essentially nihilistic amoral money hoarders; they value their own lives very little, and they see other people's lives and livelihoods in no terms other than possible financial risks. The lack of responsibility for institutional failures -- sending BP reps to the rig to have them override safety procedures in order to save a few million of their billions in profit is a sign of an institutional failure -- is exactly why corporations act with such irresponsibility. The people who the run the corporations will make off with their money regardless of the outcome -- deaths, environmental disasters, bankruptcy -- and therefore saving a few bucks while putting at risk other people's lives or resources is just part of the calculations necessary to figure out how they'll make the most income. This is not sustainable.

Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started (1)

epiphani (254981) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363438)

I hold the entire company, its subsidiaries, and its partners in this specific well, responsible.

As far as I'm concerned, they should have to pay every cent of clean up costs and lost revenue costs, as well as a multi-billion dollar fine for screwing up so badly.

If they go out of business as a result, so be it. Liquidate their assets to pay it off, I care not.

Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32363464)

I don't think it is reasonable to hold the CEO responsible for the spill starting. However it is reasonable to hold management responsible for the decisions they made after the spill started. For example the decision to not start the kill process on day one. The top kill method has been an option from the begining, but the choice was made to try save the well and spill millions of gallons of oil rather than killing it right away and maybe only spilling a tiny fraction. It is that decision that management should be responsible for.

Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363476)

So you hold the CEO personally responsible for this mishap? If that's the case, then I don't think anyone gets to complain about how much money CEOs make.

If the CEO of that mining company that was fined time and time again for the very conditions that caused the catastrophe that killed two dozen miners, and the CEO of BP both went to prison for negligent homicide (as they should, IMO) then I wouldn't complain about their excessive pay.

But as it is, they run a corporation into the ground, even bankrupt it (let alone kill a lot of people), and get a "golden parachute". They get tons of money and no risk or accountability.

Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32363484)

So you hold the CEO personally responsible for this mishap? If that's the case, then I don't think anyone gets to complain about how much money CEOs make.

Isn't that what CEO's claim is the reason that they deserve to earn more? Because they have more responsibility?

Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started (1, Funny)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363022)

Maybe Obama can join him down there for a beer or two.

Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started (1, Troll)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363124)

Obama only drinks beer for photo-ops aimed at extracting his foot from his mouth. Occasionally he might also chug one back at a bowling alley to show that he's really a common man after all....

Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32363322)

better than your boy bush. he drank until he got into an accident.

Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started (-1, Offtopic)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363340)

Bush isn't my boy and did not receive my vote in 2000 or 2004.

Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started (1, Interesting)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363352)

Obama only drinks beer for photo-ops aimed at extracting his foot from his mouth. Occasionally he might also chug one back at a bowling alley to show that he's really a common man after all....

While repeating his "Wall Street and Main Street" meme. It's such an empty series of repetition devoid of all meaning, as evidenced by the (radio) commercials I've heard that have adopted it. I think they were local branches of multinational banks and perhaps also financial advisor firms who wanted to capitalize on the latest buzz phrase.

Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started (1)

rednip (186217) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363324)

Dick Cheney would likely be the best known man at the 'mile down' club, he'd have a lot of friends down there.

Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32363532)

Yeah, we've had enough of that uppity negro! Dubya would have cleared some brush off his ranch and then plugged the BOP himself with the branches. Damn lazy negro just wants to sit on the porch in his rocking chair.

Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started (4, Funny)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363068)

to control the flow of nonsense over the failed well, contractors will first pump T5000 cement into his mouth under pressure, then fit ankle weights, and send him to inspect the work personally in the Gulf.

Typical. There's a flippin' crisis going on in the Gulf and the CEO is out getting fitted for his new fancy concrete shoes. What's next? Some exotic underwater hotel where he can sleep with the fishes? That is, if there are any fish left.

:)

Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363368)

Some exotic underwater hotel where he can sleep with the fishes?

Just when I thought I'd stumbled across the strangest fetishes ...

Thank God (1)

CasualFriday (1804992) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363008)

Pretty soon we can move on to fining BP off the face of that planet.

Re:Thank God (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32363080)

Guess you should be fining the regulators that didn't perform the safety checks too.

Re:Thank God (1)

GameMaster (148118) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363158)

No, but if they really were accepting bribes and doing drugs then there is a nice cell waiting for them in Federal prison.

Re:Thank God (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363244)

No... No... see corporations can regulate themselves they don't need "regulators."

Re:Thank God (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32363314)

Clearly...

Re:Thank God (2, Insightful)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363492)

Regulators don't work - the companies just buy them off directly or indirectly.

The only thing that works is accountability.

Of course, they'll buy off the prosecuters too.

Maybe the best thing we can do in cases like this is publish the home address of the individuals responsible and let nature take it's course.

Well they are FIRING some of them... (4, Interesting)

RobertLTux (260313) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363246)

The person at the top of this mess in the US gov (the director of mineral resources) got invited to resign (and did). Im sure that a few of the others are going to follow her example.

Re:Thank God (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32363106)

And watch all the US oil companies move their production operations to the Middle-East and elsewhere - bang goes the US energy self-sufficiency that has been such an important agenda recently. Oh whoops.

Re:Thank God (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363204)

Corporate responibility for environmental damage is limited to 75 million$ + the cost of stopping the leak. Last I've heard there was a bill that would have increased the ceiling to 10 billion which was later shot down by the republicans. Free market my ass.

Re:Thank God (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32363524)

Republicans' idea of a free market: give us lots of subsidies and exemptions from free market forces. And we want socialist protection and government creations such as limited liability, plus additional limits on the limited liability, but we don't want any sort of social contract, such as having to serve the common good. We want something for nothing.

The Dems aren't any more in favor of a free market, but at least they're not hypocritical about it. I trust a card-carrying communist who marches in the street yelling about the proletariat, a lot more than a non-card-carrying communist infiltrator who pretends to be western.

Typical (-1, Flamebait)

p51d007 (656414) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363226)

Typical response from a brain dead kool-aid drinking liberal. Ok, so you get rid of BP.....you keep getting rid of oil companies who are willing to take a huge financial RISK to drill for oil, where do you think all of your gas, heating oil is going to come from? Oh, and if you think plastics, gas etc are the only things to benefit from oil, get rid of it and watch a bulk of your drugs that keep you alive disappear too. They wouldn't have to drill do far offshore if the enviro-nazis would shut up and let them drill closer to where the oil pockets are known to be!

Re:Typical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32363544)

Just wow. Do you (or can you) read? They are drilling exactly where the oil is, that's the reason its coming out in such a flow.
Oh, and just to be clear, you do know that BP stands for BRITISH PETROLEUM, right? How exactly are they helping AMERICAN energy independence?

Typical response from a brain-dead, listens-to-Hannity-too-often-to-think-for-themselves righty. Next we will hear about how we should be donating to BP, to help them overcome this terrible tragedy.

About a week and a half before this incident, a similar explosion was reported in the same well. The response? Nothing. keep drilling, gotta have that money. Two weeks before that, they pulled rubber and plastic from the well, remains of the gasket at the bottom, designed to prevent this sort of thing. Response? Nothing, it costs money to fix, keep drilling. Now we have a major spill incident, and its time to put their disaster planning in place.... oh wait! That costs money too, so lets just skip that part. They admit no recovery plan was ever put in place, in an area where they know they are taking a 'huge financial risk'. Why do you think that is?

I know why. Because they know they will get taken care of, just like they always do, and it won't end up hurting them a bit.

Re:Typical (1)

testghost (1817556) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363572)

I am sure that later in the year when gasoline spikes to $7.00 a gallon if not more, that people will be not just asking, but begging BP to drill again. Not just gasoline will spike, but every single item's price at a store will go up. Someone has to pay the higher prices, and that someone is the same consumer cursing BP out for doing state of the art drilling.

So we see BP chewed out in the press, but when gas prices spike, they will be considered as heroes the second they start opening up new areas to drilling so oil goes down under $200 a barrel.

Yes, this may be shocking news, but be honest: To most of America, especially where I live in California, the price of gas means more to us than what happens to some failed flyover states. The Gulf of Mexico has -zero- relevance to my life, while the price of gas does on a daily basis.

Re:Thank God (1)

ClubStew (113954) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363482)

How would that help? Yeah, they screwed up by making shortcuts and not properly inspecting equipment and they should be fined. Fixing this disaster would cost them big. But to get rid of BP - one of the largest oil companies in the world? Consider the economic impact of that - many jobs lost, decreased tax revenue, and certainly OPEC will raise oil prices from a drop in competition (they do that).

Ixtoc and BP disaster comparison (5, Interesting)

jcwren (166164) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363064)

An interesting comparison between the 1979 Ixtoc oil disaster and the BP disaster. Note that indeed Transocean and Sedco merged in 1999.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=127_1274931222 [liveleak.com]

Little Dutch Boy (2, Funny)

tedgyz (515156) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363078)

Why didn't they just call the Little Dutch Boy?

Re:Little Dutch Boy (4, Funny)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363166)

He's somewhere in Amsterdam's red light district, sticking his finger in dykes.

Re:Little Dutch Boy (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363184)

It takes too long to get scuba certified.

Re:Little Dutch Boy (1)

93,000 (150453) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363194)

He's busy making paint.

A dude's gotta work.

Re:Little Dutch Boy (3, Interesting)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363282)

Why didn't they call Aquaman? This is probably the only time where his superpower would actually be useful.

5000 barrels? (1)

srothroc (733160) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363132)

I thought the 5000 barrel estimate came from BP, but the article lays it at the feet of the Coast Guard... is this just mistaken reporting, or did it really come from the Coast Guard? If I put on my paranoid hat for a minute, this is BP engaging in post-operation PR cleanup...

Re:5000 barrels? (2, Insightful)

Jawnn (445279) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363230)

I thought the 5000 barrel estimate came from BP, but the article lays it at the feet of the Coast Guard, BP's willing PR lackey,...

There. Fixed that for ya'.
The lack of leadership on the part of the federal government, and the Coast Guard in particular, is a national embarrassment.

Re:5000 barrels? (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363530)

An initial estimate was at 5000. However that was the initial estimate based on visible oil on the surface. That had been taken and spun to hell by BP. It was never intended to be the final word. They knew it would probably change with new data.

about time (1, Troll)

bemenaker (852000) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363140)

Good thing we waited over a month to do this.

Re:about time (1)

swb (14022) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363234)

That is a good question. Why did they wait? Was there suspicion that it wouldn't work, or were they trying to protect the well so that once they "stopped" the leak they could fix the well without having to redrill it?

Re:about time (4, Insightful)

Pahroza (24427) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363306)

There is an insane amount of engineering that had to go into this. Getting it wrong would have been an even bigger disaster.

For some excellent discussions on all of this, head over to http://theoildrum.com/ [theoildrum.com]

Re:about time (4, Informative)

bratloaf (1287954) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363348)

They had to fabricate all kinds of gear that had never been made before. This was a herculean effort by 100's of the most skilled deepwater engineers in the world, and they actually did it in record time. This was not a small task, it would normally take months to pull something like this off.

Re:about time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32363442)

The effort required to drill through some mud and concrete is trivial compared to what they had to do to develop the well in the first place. I think they were actually concerned about damaging the existing broken valve, which was at least limiting the flow of oil. If the "top kill" approach failed, it could fail in such a way that it increased the flow of oil by widening the outlet.

Fvruist psot (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32363178)

Victory for Obama! (4, Insightful)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363220)

Whew...I was getting worried about this one. But, it looks like we can chalk up another victory for Obama and his environmental record. This incident should put a stop to offshore drilling, which is good. The price of gasoline should go up to eight dollars a gallon, that should keep people from wasting it.

Re:Victory for Obama! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32363388)

is this sarcasm? It has been 30 days of indecision and inaction by the feds. Still do not have the permits to build berms to protect the marshes. The 1994 plan for this exact problem to use fire-booms to hold and burn (and not use detergents which made a dangerous emulsion) was not executed at all.

Re:Victory for Obama! (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363430)

Heh, you're funny. The next time you pull on your hemp sandals and pedal to the Beans and Bongs store to buy 200lbs of lentils, consider that growing and transporting those lentils relies on petrochemicals. How much more do you want to pay for, well, everything?

Re:Victory for Obama! (3, Insightful)

Jawnn (445279) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363554)

Well..., more, as in whatever it takes, as long as we're doing what is necessary to move away from that dependence on fossil fuel. And spare me the arguments about the limitations of alternative energy. I am well aware of them and I can do the math. Doing that math also reveals that at some point, either sooner, because we did the R&D and got ahead of the curve in a global market for such things, or later, because we continued to let the oil companies have their way, alternative energy will be cheaper. Sooner, seems like a better plan, to me.

Well, it was good while it lasted (3, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363308)

Sometimes we need to toughen up those pansy-ass dolphins, birds, and turtles. If we hadn't cuddled them for so long they wouldn't be going extinct. Adversity breeds strength.

And the same goes for you, Pandas. You're next! Oh, you'll be mating up a storm when we finish.

4 8 15 16 23 42 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32363350)

And then every 108 minutes someone will have to enter the correct code in time or the well will blow again.

That's a relief (1)

bugs2squash (1132591) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363450)

Now maybe we can bring in Kevin Costner to clean up the water. To be fair to Costner, I don't see why at least some significant portion of the oil could not be centrifuged out of the water if one had a big enough cream separator and access to the 30,000HP engine that they used for the top kill pumping.

Premature Statement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32363494)

The well is NOT plugged. BP has YET TO CONFIRM ANYTHING. This mud that is now spewing out is just as toxic as the oil, and as long as it's still spewing out this is still going on. Until they can equalize the pressure, this is not over. Fox is reporting that the report was pre-mature, as well as several other news companys, and BP itself. Once again, this is not over yet!

hmod down (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32363500)

any doubt: Fre3BSD
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?