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!

BP Claims Gulf Well Has Been Stopped

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the ha-ha-only-serious dept.

Earth 601

An anonymous reader writes with word that BP has announced the Gulf oil spill has been stopped. Another reader adds more detail: "The last valve on the new cap has been closed, and the flow of oil and gas into the sea has stopped. That doesn't mean it's over. It is unclear whether the steel casing deep in the well can contain the pressure. The risk is that it could burst, which would eventually cause a rupture on the sea floor that would make things much messier to deal with. However, they're monitoring the pressure buildup carefully and if the pressure holds over the next 48 hours (indicating there is no leak below the sea floor), they'll assess what to do next. If it doesn't hold at the expected readings, then they'll re-attach the pipe used for producing to the surface and start collecting again. Regardless of what happens the relief well still has to be completed to permanently plug the well with cement, which could take a couple more weeks."

cancel ×

601 comments

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

Picture or it didn't happen! (3, Interesting)

Kepesk (1093871) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920012)

Picture or it didn't happen!

Re:Picture or it didn't happen! (5, Funny)

impaledsunset (1337701) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920044)

Now that they stopped it, let's Slashdot it from the inside.

Re:Picture or it didn't happen! (5, Informative)

bhlowe (1803290) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920070)

Link to multiple video feeds.. [jtnog.org] Looks good to me!

Gratuitous conspiracy theory (5, Funny)

poly_pusher (1004145) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920382)

Pfffft.... Documentation means nothing. Just look at the amazing work done on the faked moon landing!

Whew (5, Funny)

Kell Bengal (711123) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920018)

Thank god they got it closed before it became an ecological disaster.

Oh wait...

Re:Whew (5, Insightful)

kvezach (1199717) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920062)

It does seem that they were very focused on being able to extract the oil rather than just stopping the leak. Now, I'm not an engineer, but could their desire for continued extraction of oil have delayed their plans, made the stack more complex?

In any case, we'll see whether it works. Hopefully it'll at least buy them enough time to drill relief wells.

Re:Whew (4, Insightful)

Low Ranked Craig (1327799) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920118)

Now, I'm not an engineer, but could their desire for continued extraction of oil have delayed their plans, made the stack more complex?

Not based on my understanding since they are continuing with the relief well, the purpose of which is to plug the well with cement.

Now that they have the cap in place, if it works I don't see why they don't just turn the well into a producing well. Might as well get something out of the disaster...

Re:Whew (5, Informative)

Rakishi (759894) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920536)

The well was a write off from the moment the thing started leaking. Everyone knew that. I mean seriously, they can barely cap the thing, how in god's name do you expect them to repair all the damage that was done to it?

It's orders of magnitude cheaper and easier to just drill another well, they're not some magical things that suddenly shows up in the middle of the ocean, we can make more of them.

Re:Whew (5, Informative)

x_IamSpartacus_x (1232932) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920542)

You know, I was going to lament the waste that it seems it will be to pump the relief well and seal off this oil well because of the vastness of the reserve and how much oil and natural gas they could get from it since they can collect it now with the cap on it.

Before I did that though, I did a little digging to find out how many other projects BP has in the Gulf of Mexico just to see if maybe they have a high percentage rate of success and this is just one of hundreds or something,
It turns out BP has only 9 (admittedly huge) projects in the Gulf of Mexico. Source [archive.org]
(count the number of projects in the ride hand column)

I had to find that in the way back machine because BP took down the page listing their Gulf of Mexico projects. They even still link [bp.com]
to it (again, look at the column on the right "Gulf of Mexico Facilities) but they broke the link. It's funny, when I peruse that page (via the way back machine) BP brags about their "new and untested" tech that they use to go to "unprecedented depths". It looks like their a little ashamed of it now.

Anyway, after seeing that they only have 9 facilities in the Gulf maybe this well is better sealed off. I went looking for a reason to trust BP with reopening this well and getting the oil and gas they went there for but a 1 in 9 failure rate is not impressive. Seal that sucker off.

Re:Whew (5, Informative)

snowraver1 (1052510) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920134)

If they could have just stopped the leak, they would have one the first day. In fact, they tried that, but the BOP was broken... That is what this whole issue is about.

The collection of oil was to prevent that oil from going into the water, and also gave them something positive to report on.

In addition, the collection effort required some stops that made the capping of the well possible at all. As part of the capping process the cut the riser of the well (and eventually removed the riser cap) which is where this cap is installed.

I'm sure that no one wanted to stop this well leak more than BP.

Re:Whew (5, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920186)

BP is a corporation. Corporations don't have empathy or remorse. They could give a rat's ass about the leak. They only wanted to stop the bad publicity and liability, and secondarily, to start producing oil. If they could somehow have all three on the cheap without stopping the leak, they would have.

Re:Whew (5, Insightful)

RoFLKOPTr (1294290) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920352)

BP is a corporation. Corporations don't have empathy or remorse. They could give a rat's ass about the leak. They only wanted to stop the bad publicity and liability, and secondarily, to start producing oil. If they could somehow have all three on the cheap without stopping the leak, they would have.

Corporations aren't the uncaring robot beasts you seem to be convinced they are. Corporations are still run by people. And there's no way that the people running BP would have allowed themselves to continue pumping unthinkable amounts of oil into the ocean without putting up a real effort to stop it, bad press and huge fines or none.

Re:Whew (0, Troll)

Korin43 (881732) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920446)

Corporations aren't the uncaring robot beasts you seem to be convinced they are. Corporations are organizations run by uncaring robot beasts.

Fixed that for you. You don't become the head of a huge corporation by having human emotions.

Re:Whew (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32920460)

Do you believe in Jesus ?

It seems you sure do believe some other fairy tales.

Re:Whew (4, Insightful)

Omega Hacker (6676) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920496)

> Corporations aren't the uncaring robot beasts you seem to be convinced they are. Corporations are still run by profits.

Fixed.

Re:Whew (1)

Tsiangkun (746511) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920518)

thanks for correcting that.

Re:Whew (2, Insightful)

Tsiangkun (746511) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920526)

BP is run by a profit driven capitalist terrorist group. Money makes the decisions at BP. To think people run the corporations is just plain silly.

Re:Whew (4, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920544)

Wow are you naive. They would have done whatever would make them the most money. The reason is not because they are so horrible, but because blame is so spread around no one feels guilty for the problem.

Re:Whew (0)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920404)

Individual people in the business may have empathy or remorse though. Correct, the corporation is not human... but many people in the corporation are human and may, in fact, have empathy or remorse. Most probably do. To say that BP is a corporation and thus everyone working on the spill didn't really care is unfair.

I am not trying to defend BP. I am trying to defend BP workers who are not at fault for what other workers, managers, or executives did that caused this leak. For all I know, the CEO or any number of other executives had little or nothing to do with this. In my experience in a large corporation, most of the execs know very little about details of any given project, heh. I guess that is something we'll find out.

Re:Whew (5, Funny)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920192)

I'm sure that no one wanted to stop the news leaks more than BP.

You're welcome...

Re:Whew (2, Informative)

Aeros (668253) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920154)

I had read a few articles and spoke with a few people that there actually was a reason they didnt just plug it up. There were some issues concerning the seabed and if they just 'plugged' it there could be some disruption to the seabed and possibly cause more problems. Who knows if this is true or not but I thought it was kind of interesting. I mean when you think about it, why would they really want this crap going all over the place when it just keeps costing them more money to clean up. Im hoping there is some truth to this and that was the reason they took their sweet ass time...but again who knows. Im glad they got this in place and there is finally some relief.

Re:Whew (4, Insightful)

SleazyRidr (1563649) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920316)

Basically, we know that the cementing job is faulty to some degree, if we completely stop the flow then that'll put all the pressure on the casing below the point where we stop it. It is quite likely that it will then just rupture further down, and then we'll back in the same position as before, except it'll be even harder to stop.

Re:Whew (5, Interesting)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920256)

The primary reason it took a long time is that they had no contingency plan for BOP failure. They had to invent the plan, invent the needed equipment and then build the equipment.

(They had a notion that they would build a relief well if it blew, but that isn't a short term containment plan, it is a hole in the ground plugging plan).

So if you want to be outraged, be outraged that they were drilling outside of their technical depth (they clearly did not have a reasonable contingency plan in place, nor a sufficient amount of equipment), there is no need to foment anger about their motivations since the blowout.

Re:Whew (5, Interesting)

SleazyRidr (1563649) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920346)

The scary thing is that basically everyone out there is assuming that the BOP will never fail and they don't need any contingency plans. I've done one or two studies with these people (not BP) and whenever anyone raises the question, "What if the BOP fails?" the answer is always, "it won't."

Re:Whew (1)

Marillion (33728) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920538)

The industry still don't have a plan in case of BOP failure. On of the reasons the administration is fighting so hard to stop new work, it because they've asked industry experts what do you do the next time something like this happens and nobody knows what to do. The plan had been to never let a blowout happen.

Re:Whew (4, Insightful)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920276)

The 'extraction' is more that it's easier to funnel some of the leak somewhere, and it has to go somewhere, than it is to actually stop the leak (which IMO isn't a bad plan really). AFAIK basically they've always needed relief wells or nuclear weapons or a working blowout preventer to get stuff to stop. Imagine an outside tap on your house that won't close, sticking something on there which will actually plug the leak, while under pressure is pretty hard. Screwing on a hose is messy, but once it's on at least you're funnelling the (in this case) water wherever you want it, it'll be leaky, but a lot better than nothing. Fitting on a new tap while there is flow is pretty tough, not impossible though, and if you stick a cap on it, and the cap bursts you're probably further behind than if you'd just left the partially connected hose.

The whole thing has been to some degree theatre. Dumping dispersant on light oil is dramatically worse than just letting it get to the surface and evaporate, but they had to be seen to be doing something. Building a cap to hold it in was always, at best a temporary solution, and everything they do risks making the problem worse. Funnelling as best they could until relief wells could be made was probably the only viable choice, at this point whether they can cap the leak for a week or two isn't going to make meaningful impact on the overall size of the spill, a useful learning exercise for the next time something like this happens, but not all that useful now.

The question will be what to do if the relief wells fail in some way, because then the number of options is pretty low.

I doubt the amount of oil they could get hardly justifies worrying about. Even if they're getting 20K barrels of actual oil a day that they can sell at say 80 bucks a barrel, that's only about 1.6 million bucks a day, for a business that's doing ~690 million USD in revenue a day, and spending probably 20 or 30 billion dollars on this, a few hundred million here or there is unlikely to even make notice on a balance sheet, and risk extremely bad press for very little gain.

Re:Whew (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32920312)

They wanted to extract the oil instead of plugging it so the oil wouldn't start leaking elsewhere.

There is a certain amount of pressure down there pushing the oil up. If you just plug it up and have no ability to relieve that pressure, something else will break.

The explosion in April created weak spots all around the area, hence BP's desire to extract the oil and relieve the pressure.

Of course they also wanted to recoup some of their losses on this thing, but don't pretend that that's the only reason.

Re:Whew (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920334)

Nooo...

They would make far less money on the extracted oil than they are having to pay already. They would have saved much more money than they are making if they could have plugged it in the first place. How much money so far? Somewhere around $4b.

That means they have spent about as much cleaning this up as they profit in an entire year. There is no way this not particularly large well would have made that much money for them.

Numbers? Let's assume they were *getting* 100,000 barrels per day (which is probably way too high). If my math is correct, that's roughly $6 million at $60 per barrel, right? But their operating costs were about $1m per day, which means $5 million per day.

At $5m per day, it would take them 20 days to get to $1b. To get to their current $4b mark, that would be 80 days.

But we already know they were getting no more than 20k barrels per day ... they were capturing 5k at first, and then somewhere between 15k and 30k as I recall. So it would probably take over a year, at that speed, to even break even to what they have paid for so far... and I doubt they have paid as much as they will pay, since this would not include most of the claims and they already put up $20b to that escrow thingy.

Re:Whew (5, Funny)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920212)

Try not to think of it as an ecological disaster. Think of it as unproactive redistribution of wealth by giving some of the worlds unwealthiest wildlife a large sum of one of the worlds most sought after resources. They should be able to increase their underwater infrastructure a great deal if they use it all wisely.

Re:Whew (4, Funny)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920366)

they are unwealthy wildlife because they have proven themselves unable to use it wisely.

Great News (5, Insightful)

gregrah (1605707) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920026)

All skepticism aside, this is f-ing great news.

Seriously.

Re:Great News (0, Troll)

Itninja (937614) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920246)

Or at least an f-ing positive headline. I am dubious that it's been closed given the BP controls all video feeds from the well. Give me an independent view and I will believe.

Re:Great News (3, Insightful)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920332)

So, you're assuming that they've spent the last couple months building a dummy wellhead on an underwater movie set? I suppose stranger things have happened. I can't think of one at the moment, though.

Re:Great News (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32920376)

You mean like the moon "landing"?

Re:Great News (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920406)

That was positive, it could be WORSE [xkcd.com]

Re:Great News (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32920432)

Oh for fucks' sake, why don't you build some open source underwater cameras and then dive down in your open source submarine to check they really have closed it.

It's a fucking massive oil leak. If BP have tried to pull a Capricorn One on us, we'll know soon enough because the sticky black stuff will keep on coming out.

Re:Great News (1)

lawnboy5-O (772026) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920268)

we are not out of the woods yet though - preasure tests could fail, and there is the risk of tapping into this thing to cement it permanently that can cause additional leaking.

Re:Great News (1)

SleazyRidr (1563649) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920394)

Not really, this is just a temporary fix. If it's left on for too long it'll more than likely cause a blowout further down. It's just to stop the flow for a couple of days in case they need to leave the site to get out of the path of a hurricane.

Any gay men out there want to fuck? (-1, Troll)

ILoveMacsandDicks (1857026) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920032)

So I heard this was a site for gay Mac users to find other men to have sex with. Anyone want to meet up for some fun? I do bottom or top but I prefer top. I have a 7.5" long penis that is 6.5" in circumference. Please bring your iPhone so we can use it to dildo each other's butts.

What a shame (4, Funny)

Kenoli (934612) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920034)

I was getting rather used to it.

Thar's oil in them oceans . . . (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32920036)

Now BP will beg not to kill the well so they can resume pumping it later. . . . .

Re:Thar's oil in them oceans . . . (0, Troll)

RobertLTux (260313) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920102)

and what should be said is not only no but HELL NO in fact both BP and the drilling company should be banned from US waters. (currently online rigs should be forfeited as part of the fines BP will be paying for the next hundred years)

Re:Thar's oil in them oceans . . . (1)

BluBrick (1924) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920502)

and what should be said is not only no but HELL NO in fact both BP and the drilling company should be banned from US waters. (currently online rigs should be forfeited as part of the fines BP will be paying for the next hundred years)

Why's that? So that the next Big Oil Co. that suffers a major leak just walks away from their disaster without even trying to fix it or clean up?

I can imagine the sentiment in the board meeting going something a little like this:
How can we justify spending any money on assets that we know will be confiscated? And what incentive do we have to clean up the resulting spill if we are no longer permitted to operate the well? We know it is spewing toxic muck into the sea, but if they're going to seize our wells in the end, they can have the lot now.

Re:Thar's oil in them oceans . . . (1)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920210)

I thought I read somewhere that it was an exploratory well that they were planning on abandoning. Just because oil is coming out doesn't mean that it is currently economical to collect it there. If oil exploration continues here, whoever does it would certainly just drill a new well anyway.

Re:Thar's oil in them oceans . . . (4, Informative)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920480)

They weren't abandoning it, no producer in their right mind would abandon a well that can pump out 60,000+ barrels a day, that's a fucking gusher!

The accident actually occurred while they were capping it with cement - which is done when the exploratory drilling is finished and they want to bring in a production rig.

Granted, it's the exact same procedure to permanently abandon a well (because they never really abandon them permanently), but a well like that they definitely would produce. The average well in the gulf produces something like 1,800 barrels of oil a day, for a comparison.

Re:Thar's oil in them oceans . . . (1)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920510)

Thanks for the info.

How long (3, Insightful)

mark72005 (1233572) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920050)

How long until Washington starts claiming credit for it?

Re:How long (2, Funny)

syntheticmemory (1232092) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920076)

I was wondering how long it will be until DHS takes credit for it....

Re:How long (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32920094)

How long until we collectively pull our heads out of our asses and take the blame for it?

Re:How long (2, Funny)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920142)

Okay. I'm sorry. It was me. Now its your turn.

Re:How long (1)

JDmetro (1745882) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920162)

If i pull my head out of my ass people will see how much shit is behind my ears.

Re:How long (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32920176)

that will never happen, not as long as its easier to blame somebody els then to blame yourself.

also, i believe videogames are the cause of this, they probably tought drilling a well would be like motherload.

Re:How long (2, Insightful)

bonch (38532) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920294)

How is it everyone's fault? By your logic, every automobile driver is at fault when there's a massive pileup on a highway. It's BP's fault as well as the fault of the administration, which essentially did nothing to clean up the spill. That ass Obama said he was looking to kick? It was a whopping 20-minute meeting with the head of BP. This is Obama's Katrina.

And if you're going to go down the "oil addiction" line, that's completely retarded. We're not "addicted" to oil. It's just the best resource we have to get things done at the moment, so that's what we use. If there was a superior resource, and we got rid of our use of oil, it's not like we'd suffer physical symptoms of oil withdrawal. The addiction comparison makes no sense and has more to do with trying to make people feel guilty for existing on the planet and using technology to live their lives. Sorry, but I'll never feel guilty for using technology--especially since oil drilling is always dangerous, there will always be the risk of accidents, and BP has been forced to drill in riskier, deeper waters in the first place because of restrictions that prevent them from drilling in safer areas closer to the shore. Idealistic attempts to fix things often end up making things worse.

Re:How long (0, Troll)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920096)

How long until a conservatard tries to bring Obama up in regards to this...

Oh wait.

Re:How long (1, Insightful)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920282)

He didn't bring up Obama. He brought up Washington, which generally means the entire government... but don't let the English language cloud your political prejudices.

Re:How long (2, Interesting)

NiceGeek (126629) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920330)

Remarkable how these anti-government types only got this shrill after Obama was elected, isn't it?

Re:How long (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920550)

Yeah there werent any anti-government types at all! I am quite amazed at how well loved Bush was, for instance.

Re:How long (1)

gangien (151940) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920306)

i just searched this entire slashdot page and the only instance of Obama i found, was yours.

Re:How long (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Psychopath (18031) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920336)

How long until a conservatard tries to bring Obama up in regards to this...

Oh wait.

Please. You probably used to mock people who said things like this when Bush was President. Don't be naive.

Re:How long (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920438)

That's because it was Bush's fault. But this isn't Obama's fault, he couldn't help it.

[/sarcasm]

I'm waiting for someone to somehow say that this was an inherited problem from the previous administration. Like everything else bad that will happen in the next 2.5 years :)

Re:How long (1)

copponex (13876) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920360)

In all fairness, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the federal deficit, the bank bailout, the lack of oversight in the oil industry, and the phenomenon of waxy buildup are all recent developments under the Obama Administration. And, as everyone knows, 9/11 happened because Clinton didn't take national security seriously. If Bush had been in office just a few months longer, he would have found a way to stop it.

See, when a Democrat is the president, the recession can be his fault [latimes.com] even before he's inaugurated. When a Republican is president, I'm not even sure any blame can be assigned to him, especially when he had no information to go on [wikipedia.org] . I have been assured that this viewpoint is entirely rational.

Re:How long (1)

gewalker (57809) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920422)

Too tempting to ignore. Part of the delay in fixing the oil leak is a fault of the US government. I have no love for BP, but I don't for the gubment either. I sure blame fixing will require decades of hindsight. Maybe you will believe me if you read this , generally liberal news source [nytimes.com]

Re:How long (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920478)

About as long as it takes a libertard tries to blame a conservatard for something a conservatard never did...

Oh wait.

Re:How long (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32920498)

Who's government approved every step of the way? Who had 18 months to get some rational and effective regulatory changes through Congress? Who's been asleep at the wheel for the clean-up effort. Obama doesn't even have to tip-toe around the over-sensitive state's rights issues with this; at least Bush and Palin know what kind of weasels the oil companies and especially BP are, Obama is a babe in the woods here and the wolf says "trust me".

Re:How long (1)

bonch (38532) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920506)

Maybe you haven't been following, but liberal environmentalists are pissed at Obama too. Accusing someone of being a "conservatard" for bringing up Obama smells of pre-emptive defensiveness on your part, trying to brush off critics by portraying them as being part of some biased group. You maybe an Obama supporter, but it's hard to argue that his response to the disaster was anything but passive and absent-minded, and that's how the public sees it.

Part of the reason America never solves its problems is that people like you are too partisan to see anything objectively.

Re:How long (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920512)

Seems you did right at 03:59 PM July 15th, 2010

Don't worry (1)

bonch (38532) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920532)

Going by the pace at which the administration responded to the disaster in the first place, they'll be claiming credit sometime around Christmas.

Not a permanent solution. (4, Informative)

BitterOak (537666) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920056)

Let's hope the fix holds.

Actually, this isn't meant as a permanent fix at all. This cap is a temporary solution to prevent excessive leakage in the event that a hurricane prevents them from collecting the oil that does escape. They are still going ahead with the relief valves which are intended to be the permanent solution. That said, I do hope the cap holds the oil for as long as necessary.

Re:Not a permanent solution. (4, Informative)

lmnfrs (829146) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920248)

Not even close to permanent. The current plan is to monitor "for up to 48 hours before reopening the cap while they decide what to do".

They Deserve No Credit (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32920080)

They didn't fix it, the deposit just ran out.

Yes it's true, I've confirmed it.... (1)

d474 (695126) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920098)

BP must have stopped the leak, I'm at Wikileaks right now and I don't see any new info from whistle blowers. Must of been the WBOP.

A low tech solution .... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32920116)

It involved a Dutch boy in a wet suit.

Re:A low tech solution .... (4, Funny)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920236)

It involved a Dutch boy in a wet suit.

I put my finger in a dyke last night. She didn't seem to appreciate it very much.

Re:A low tech solution .... (0, Offtopic)

SpongeBob Hitler (1848328) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920308)

I put my finger in a dyke last night. She didn't seem to appreciate it very much.

Remember, we can't say "dyke". We can't even say "lesbian". It's "women in comfortable shoes".

BP Claims Gulf Well Has Been Stopped (2, Funny)

omar.sahal (687649) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920126)

Rubbish get it from the horse's mouth BPGlobalPR [twitter.com]

Re:BP Claims Gulf Well Has Been Stopped (2, Informative)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920458)

Lest anyone is confused, BPGlobalPR is a parody/joke. Not BP. I find it distasteful that they are so angry at BP that they don't even appear to be happy that BP has actually stopped the leak for the time being.

So, can we confirm that? (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920140)

Are we allowed to go there and take pictures now to be sure, or are we going to have to rely on BP's unbelievable honesty and trustworthiness for this statement?

Re:So, can we confirm that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32920222)

There's been a live camera stream at the site for a very long time now. The US government mandated it, and it's been running pretty much nonstop.

Re:So, can we confirm that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32920238)

Are we allowed to go there and take pictures now to be sure, or are we going to have to rely on BP's unbelievable honesty and trustworthiness for this statement?

Sure, just dive right on down with a camera and go to town. A bit deep, though, so you might want flippers.

Re:So, can we confirm that? (3, Insightful)

black3d (1648913) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920392)

You say that with sarcasm, but I don't remember them lying at all.

Re:So, can we confirm that? (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920464)

Or, you could look at the live video feed that was perfectly honest and trustworthy when it was leaking. I assume you just didn't know about it, hehe.

Well... (4, Informative)

Auto_Lykos (1620681) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920226)

Seeing is believing: http://mfile.akamai.com/97892/live/reflector:45683.asx?bkup=45684 [akamai.com] Odds are the feed will cut out after a few seconds with how swamped it is now. Oh and if you're really interested here's one of the bottom of the BOP which is being watched so it doesn't explode. http://mfile.akamai.com/97892/live/reflector:31499.asx?bkup=31500 [akamai.com]

Re:Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32920320)

Anyone else has a video feed that doesn't require Windows Media Player?

Re:Well... (1)

Cthefuture (665326) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920482)

It works in Linux with VLC if you cut and paste the URL. I have all the Medibuntu codecs installed but I don't know if that's required.

To bad Billy Mays is not around. (1)

Zarf_is_with_you (1382411) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920232)


They could have used Mighty Puddy!

Re:To bad Billy Mays is not around. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32920288)

My solution was similar. It involved plugging it up with Vince Offer.

This about sums up... (1)

pongo000 (97357) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920262)

...my thoughts about BP [comics.com] .

Re:This about sums up... (1)

black3d (1648913) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920416)

Dissing a company which doesn't exist? Clever. The majority US-owned company hasn't been "British Petroleum" for several decades now.

Re:This about sums up... (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920466)

I must say so as well, it's going to be much harder for us environmentalists to push our agenda unless there is an ongoing man made disaster. #%$& you BP for closing this up. I hope it fails so we can proceed with shutting down all drilling and oil related industry.

Re:This about sums up... (1)

gilgongo (57446) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920488)

"F***k you British Petroleum"

I'm curious: how does the fact that BP happens to be registered in the UK change anything? If it had been Shell, would Americans start calling Shell "Royal Dutch Shell" all of a sudden and start ranting about how the Dutch were awful? Shell is only Dutch because it's registered in Holland. BP is only British because they're registered in the UK. But BP (and indeed Shell) are substantially part-owned by Americans, employ thousands of US citizens in the US, and the drilling operation in question was in partnership with US and Japanese companies.

If the US president refers to "British Petroleum" when lambasting them, should the British remind Barack Hussein Obama that Union Carbide was an "American" company?

Back to business as usual then... (3, Insightful)

fantomas (94850) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920304)

Back to business as usual then. US government will make noises about it clearly being a British conspiracy to destroy America, demand BP gets sued for quadratrillions, gets banned from US trading, say it wouldn't have happened if it was a good ole US oil company from Texas. Local lawyers sue on behalf of local residents for quintillions, combined wealth of ten planet Earths etc. BP puts lawyers on to the case, forms holding company to take over US operations, carries on drilling, settles for a few million ten years from now. Local fishermen out of jobs, local environment messed up for the next 50 years, local lawyers get rich, politicians get promoted and oil companies carry on drilling and make substantial profits every year, held up by US government as fine examples of free market pioneers who are great examples for the world's entrepreneurs. Rinse and repeat.

Stock Price (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32920314)

Stock price rose 7.5% right after this was announced....

Re:Stock Price (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32920396)

Heh, I bought 500 shares at about $30, now it's $39. I will make a profit off this disaster.

BP Claims Gulf Well Has Been Stopped (1)

omar.sahal (687649) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920340)

Great news!
It better not be some stupid PR trick. If these guys put a big camera 24/7 next to a gushing leek, so all the people out of work can watch it on 24hr news, could you put it past them

Re:BP Claims Gulf Well Has Been Stopped (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32920494)

gushing leek

A bumper crop?!?

nature (1)

parasite (14751) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920344)

It's about time this idiotic saga ended, it is getting old hearing the same idiots who talk about how good natural food is and decrying everything 'artificial', stop condemning the leak of NATURAL OIL into the sea.

IT's NATURAL FOLKS, why should it cause any harm?

fu3k ma homo (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32920378)

there are only sho]ut 7he loudest right now. I tried, told reporters,

As a contractor... (3, Insightful)

awjr (1248008) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920436)

I still don't get why this is BP's fault and not the sub-contractor. As a software contractor I have a professional duty to deliver sound good quality code. If not I get sued. At what point is Halliburton or one of the other contractors involved not financially responsible for their poor work.

Re:As a contractor... (1)

SleazyRidr (1563649) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920514)

Halliburton did do a 'substandard' cementing job, but they immediately told BP that it wouldn't be safe to continue, and they have do fix it. The powers that be at BP decided that it would cost too much to fix, so they'd just go with it.

Making mistakes is human, ignoring mistakes is criminally negligent.

It had to happen sooner or later (1)

osgeek (239988) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920524)

I assume that the well went dry.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?