Gulf Coast rig leaking buttloads of oil/day

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Fri Jun 04, 2010 8:57 am

Yeah, I hate seeing the animal pics. Really makes me mad.

I take issue, however, with all the comments about how because I drive a car I'm somehow to blame for dying pelicans. That's like saying because I travel by airplane I'm responsible for 9/11.

Vorret · Post by **Vorret** » Fri Jun 04, 2010 9:05 am

sad pictures... what angers me is BP management don't give a damn about the wildlife affected and try to play it down as it's "no big deal"

they should be executed.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Fri Jun 04, 2010 9:48 am

YellowKing wrote:I take issue, however, with all the comments about how because I drive a car I'm somehow to blame for dying pelicans. That's like saying because I travel by airplane I'm responsible for 9/11.

A better analogy would be that because you travel by airplane, you're responsible for the death of birds sucked into engine intakes. Or for air pollution.

The dying pelicans are the unintended by-product of an industry, not the result of a deliberate and criminal act of violence. As a whole, yes we are to blame with our insatiable thirst for oil. Drilling for oil under a mile of water is only made worthwhile because of the demand.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Fri Jun 04, 2010 11:19 am

Good news:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/04/gulf.o ... tml?hpt=T1" target="_blank

Carpet_pissr · Post by **Carpet_pissr** » Fri Jun 04, 2010 12:29 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote:
YellowKing wrote:I take issue, however, with all the comments about how because I drive a car I'm somehow to blame for dying pelicans. That's like saying because I travel by airplane I'm responsible for 9/11.
A better analogy would be that because you travel by airplane, you're responsible for the death of birds sucked into engine intakes. Or for air pollution.

The dying pelicans are the unintended by-product of an industry, not the result of a deliberate and criminal act of violence. As a whole, yes we are to blame with our insatiable thirst for oil. Drilling for oil under a mile of water is only made worthwhile because of the demand.

+1

Sandpuppy · Post by **Sandpuppy** » Fri Jun 04, 2010 12:38 pm

Enough wrote:The Big Picture has a short but very sad photo update of birds mired in oil that nearly made me sick.

Jesus. That first one is barely recognizable as any kind of animal. Are these birds even recoverable, assuming they haven't already ingested a lethal amount? That pelican has a coat of oil on it's eyeball, FFS.

Dogstar · Post by **Dogstar** » Fri Jun 04, 2010 2:43 pm

Sandpuppy wrote:
Enough wrote:The Big Picture has a short but very sad photo update of birds mired in oil that nearly made me sick.
Jesus. That first one is barely recognizable as any kind of animal. Are these birds even recoverable, assuming they haven't already ingested a lethal amount? That pelican has a coat of oil on it's eyeball, FFS.

I'm guessing not. The birds do try to clean themselves, and when they're that covered, chances are they've ingested a significant amount of oil already while attempting to do so. I do wonder what the standards are for animal triage though in terms of cleaning off the oil, whether it be for birds or other forms of wildlife. The amount of ecological devastation is just crazy. And even with the cap, oil continues to leak out.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Fri Jun 04, 2010 3:29 pm

Dogstar wrote:
Sandpuppy wrote:
Enough wrote:The Big Picture has a short but very sad photo update of birds mired in oil that nearly made me sick.
Jesus. That first one is barely recognizable as any kind of animal. Are these birds even recoverable, assuming they haven't already ingested a lethal amount? That pelican has a coat of oil on it's eyeball, FFS.
I'm guessing not. The birds do try to clean themselves, and when they're that covered, chances are they've ingested a significant amount of oil already while attempting to do so. I do wonder what the standards are for animal triage though in terms of cleaning off the oil, whether it be for birds or other forms of wildlife. The amount of ecological devastation is just crazy. And even with the cap, oil continues to leak out.

I belive they try to save what they can. If the birds die, they're chucked into cold storage for further study/as evidence. The EPA keeps freezers full of dead birds in situations like this.

Enough · Post by **Enough** » Fri Jun 04, 2010 4:17 pm

Hayward gets his life back, maybe he can go fishing in the Gulf now with Brownie.

Freezer-TPF- · Post by **Freezer-TPF-** » Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:37 pm

Enough wrote:Hayward gets his life back, maybe he can go fishing in the Gulf now with Brownie.

"This shite is taking up way too much of time, and the World Cup is starting soon. Good luck with all the petrol, Yanks!"

Chaz · Post by **Chaz** » Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:58 pm

The live stream from the ROVs has been showing a black "No Video" screen since last night. Have they said anything about why the feed's been cut? Do they just not have any subs down there, or do they not want us watching them trying to put the cap thing on?

Terrified · Post by **Terrified** » Sat Jun 05, 2010 4:07 pm

Sandpuppy wrote: Are these birds even recoverable, assuming they haven't already ingested a lethal amount? That pelican has a coat of oil on it's eyeball, FFS.

You know when you see volunteers helping clean oil covered birds? They get them nice and clean and send them on their way? Well, from tagging, we know that roughly 14% of birds that are cleaned survive. In other words, 86% of the birds that are 'rescued' are dead within a week. And the pelican in that picture? They wouldn't even try to clean that one, unless there was a TV camera on them. But even then, they know they're cleaning a dead bird walking.

Chaz · Post by **Chaz** » Sun Jun 06, 2010 8:04 pm

The live cam is looking directly at the capped well right now. You can see that tons of oil is still pouring out from underneath it. I'm hopeful that this winds up working after they complete the valve closing process. I'm not optimistic.

msduncan · Post by **msduncan** » Sun Jun 06, 2010 8:32 pm

The oil has now his Gulf Shores Alabama, my childhood beach spot. Some of the most beautiful beaches in the world.

In less than two weeks we are going to Panama City Beach for vacation. We haven't cancelled. The beaches will probably be covered with oil.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Mon Jun 07, 2010 2:29 pm

Was Waterworld not a complete waste after all?

http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/05/19/kev ... n-therapy/" target="_blank

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Mon Jun 07, 2010 5:29 pm

LordMortis wrote:Was Waterworld not a complete waste after all?

http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/05/19/kev ... n-therapy/" target="_blank

Interesting but the capacity is minimal compared to the size of the Gulf.

According to the New York Daily News (via Erin Equill’s Twitter) “Costner has 300 machines in various sizes, with the largest able to clean water at a rate of 200 gallons per minute.”

With an estimated volume of 643,000,000,000,000,000 gallons, 10,000 of the high capacity 200 gal/m machines (2 million gallons per minute) would need 611,681 years to process the Gulf.

If we're satisfied with processing just one one-thousandth of the Gulf, say a portion of the affected area, that's 611 years of pumping.

I have to wonder what the process will do to all kinds of micro-organisms. And where do you put the cleaned water?

Enough · Post by **Enough** » Mon Jun 07, 2010 7:10 pm

In case you missed this bit of levity, "Massive Flow Of Bullshit Continues To Gush From BP Headquarters."

Though no one knows exactly how much of the dangerous bullshit is currently gushing from BP headquarters, estimates put the number at somewhere between 25,000 and 70,000 words a day.

"We're looking at a truly staggering load of shit here," said Rebecca Palmer, an environmental scientist at the University of Georgia, who claimed that only BP has the ability to stem the flow of bullshit and plug it at its source. "And this is just the beginning—we're only seeing the surface-level bullshit. It could be years before we sift through it all and figure out just how deep this bullshit goes."

Lassr · Post by **Lassr** » Tue Jun 08, 2010 10:19 am

msduncan wrote:The oil has now his Gulf Shores Alabama, my childhood beach spot. Some of the most beautiful beaches in the world.

In less than two weeks we are going to Panama City Beach for vacation. We haven't cancelled. The beaches will probably be covered with oil.

I've heard from a few that have been to the Gulf, not Panama City, but west of there Close to Gulf Shores, and they say the stench of oil is overwhelming and burns the eyes even though no oil has washed up on the beach where they were.

And it just kills me to think of those beautiful bright white sand beaches tarnished with oil.

Odin · Post by **Odin** » Tue Jun 08, 2010 11:10 am

Enough wrote:In case you missed this bit of levity, "Massive Flow Of Bullshit Continues To Gush From BP Headquarters."

Awesome! Also amusing - Stephen Colbert's beat-down on the BP CEO.

Exodor · Post by **Exodor** » Tue Jun 08, 2010 8:15 pm

Obama looking for whose ass to kick

President Barack Obama bluntly defended his administration's response to the undersea gusher fouling the Gulf of Mexico on Monday, telling an interviewer he has met with experts to learn "whose ass to kick."

"I was down there a month ago, before most of these talking heads were even paying attention to the Gulf," Obama told NBC's "Today" show in an interview that aired Tuesday. "A month ago I was meeting with fishermen down there, standing in the rain talking about what a potential crisis this could be."

"I don't sit around talking to experts because this is a college seminar," Obama continued. "We talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers, so I know whose ass to kick."

Awesome.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Tue Jun 08, 2010 8:56 pm

Exodor wrote: Awesome.

As long as there is some ass kicking. Otherwise it's just another soundbite.

helot2000 · Post by **helot2000** » Tue Jun 08, 2010 9:07 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote:
Exodor wrote: Awesome.
As long as there is some ass kicking. Otherwise it's just another soundbite.

It'll be hard to deliver much of a kick when BP hits the bankruptcy button.

New York Times financial reporter Andrew Ross Sorkin notes that many industry watchers doubt BP can survive. Rivals Exxon and Shell are already circling like buzzards in anticipation that the company may stagger into oblivion. Or, as Sorkin puts it, they're "licking their chops" hoping to acquire a BP in bankruptcy: "Flinty legal minds are dreaming up scenarios in which BP would file a prepackaged bankruptcy and separate the costs of the cleanup — and potentially billions of dollars in legal claims — into a separate corporate entity."

Sorkin reckons that the company's legal liability and long-term cleanup costs could work out to a red-ink tally of $15 billion to $40 billion. He writes: "The company has about $12 billion in cash and short-term investments, but there is already a debate about whether it should cut its dividend out of fear that it could run out of money. Of course, it could sell assets or seek loans, which in this environment is still not that easy."

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Tue Jun 08, 2010 9:11 pm

Yeah, I've seen a lot of ass kissing (the American public), and not much ass kicking. I don't blame Obama for the mess, just as I didn't blame Bush for Katrina. I blame the bureaucracy - I don't think any President has the power to move the wheels of government faster than the bloated, sluggish speed it was designed to go. It also shows the other edge of the double-edged sword that is the separation of state and federal government.

However, it is frustrating to see that no matter who is in power, we as a country seem sadly ill-equipped to deal with major unforeseen catastrophes. It really makes me pessimistic about our chances should something happen like a nuke going off in a major city, or California getting hit by the Big One.

theohall · Post by **theohall** » Tue Jun 08, 2010 9:20 pm

YellowKing wrote:Yeah, I've seen a lot of ass kissing (the American public), and not much ass kicking. I don't blame Obama for the mess, just as I didn't blame Bush for Katrina. I blame the bureaucracy - I don't think any President has the power to move the wheels of government faster than the bloated, sluggish speed it was designed to go. It also shows the other edge of the double-edged sword that is the separation of state and federal government.

However, it is frustrating to see that no matter who is in power, we as a country seem sadly ill-equipped to deal with major unforeseen catastrophes. It really makes me pessimistic about our chances should something happen like a nuke going off in a major city, or California getting hit by the Big One.

2 key words:
Unforeseen
Catastrophe

Was Indonesia equipped to deal with the unforeseen tsunami catastrophe?
Was Haiti equipped to deal with the unforeseen earthquake catastrophe? No one in the world was prepared for something on that scale.

Unforeseen catastrophes aren't planned for or they would not be unforeseen. As to this BP mess, the fact it happened 31 years ago in shallower waters, this should have been foreseen and something developed by now to deal with this type of event.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Tue Jun 08, 2010 9:48 pm

We talked about BP surviving this at lunch today. I think the general consensus is that BP will cease to exist, it will be sold off, and the only thing that will have changed is who owns the assets.

None of us are oil industry experts though. Perhaps obviously.

tjg_marantz · Post by **tjg_marantz** » Tue Jun 08, 2010 10:31 pm

"Flinty legal minds are dreaming up scenarios in which BP would file a prepackaged bankruptcy and separate the costs of the cleanup — and potentially billions of dollars in legal claims — into a separate corporate entity."

If this is allowed to happen, whoever let's it happen should lose their jobs... all the way up to Obama. Splitting the company after the fact to hide the costs into some shell corp. Fuck off.

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Tue Jun 08, 2010 11:33 pm

Was Indonesia equipped to deal with the unforeseen tsunami catastrophe?
Was Haiti equipped to deal with the unforeseen earthquake catastrophe? No one in the world was prepared for something on that scale.

Poor analogy. Neither Haiti nor Indonesia are anywhere close to having our nation's wealth and resources. In addition, both the tsunami and Haiti earthquake were truly unforeseen events that happened without warning.

How many days in advance did we know Katrina would make landfall? How many days are we into this oil spill?

I'm not saying the government is not doing anything. They had crews on the ground within days of this spill. And as we saw with Katrina, it simply takes time to mobilize the amount of supplies and such that are required for events like this. But even so, there is no disputing the bureaucratic bungling that has gone on in each of these disasters. I would wager a pretty penny that when this oil spill fiasco is finished, we'll see the same kind of government red tape and political gridlock that happened during Katrina.

theohall · Post by **theohall** » Tue Jun 08, 2010 11:58 pm

YellowKing wrote:
Was Indonesia equipped to deal with the unforeseen tsunami catastrophe?
Was Haiti equipped to deal with the unforeseen earthquake catastrophe? No one in the world was prepared for something on that scale.
Poor analogy. Neither Haiti nor Indonesia are anywhere close to having our nation's wealth and resources. In addition, both the tsunami and Haiti earthquake were truly unforeseen events that happened without warning.

How many days in advance did we know Katrina would make landfall? How many days are we into this oil spill?

I'm not saying the government is not doing anything. They had crews on the ground within days of this spill. And as we saw with Katrina, it simply takes time to mobilize the amount of supplies and such that are required for events like this. But even so, there is no disputing the bureaucratic bungling that has gone on in each of these disasters. I would wager a pretty penny that when this oil spill fiasco is finished, we'll see the same kind of government red tape and political gridlock that happened during Katrina.

It's still unforeseen. As to Katrina - how come no one blames the state of Louisiana which basically told the Feds we don't need your help (72 hours prior to landfall when evacution help was offered) and then started screaming for help (24 hours before landfall) when it was too late? This does not get mentioned enough. Had the state listened, lots of crap that happened afterwards, probably would not have happened in as severe a manner.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Wed Jun 09, 2010 12:01 am

I blame the entire city of New Orleans for existing, so there's that.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Wed Jun 09, 2010 12:41 am

The feds have an agency -- FEMA -- designed to cope with natural disasters. During/after Katrina they were revealed to be unprepared and inept. The feds do not have a comparable agency designed to cope with oil spills. That expertise is entirely employed by private industry. Natural disasters are the government's business whereas industrial accidents are not.

I reckon that both liberals and conservatives can agree that socializing industrial disasters would be a bad idea.

Incidentally, when Obama declared my county a disaster area because floods destroyed my water heater, I applied for help via a web form. Even though I screwed up an answer and had to phone in a correction, FEMA put an inspector in touch with me within 48 hours. He showed up on time, was polite and thorough, and was out within an hour. A week later we got a check. A week after that they phoned to ask if there's anything else we need. Some time after that I got a satisfaction questionnaire.

I'm a FEMA cheerleader since they paid for my water heater, and I credit W for shaking them up.

Enough · Post by **Enough** » Wed Jun 09, 2010 1:14 am

Ironrod wrote: I reckon that both liberals and conservatives can agree that socializing industrial disasters would be a bad idea.

They already basically are at least in terms of deleterious impacts. Bhopal anyone?

Victoria Raverna · Post by **Victoria Raverna** » Wed Jun 09, 2010 4:56 am

Another screw up: Too successful in collecting the oil?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 55994.html" target="_blank

U.S. officials said Tuesday that BP PLC was collecting so much oil from its broken well a mile under the Gulf of Mexico that it didn't have a big enough boat to hold it—the latest in a series of miscalculations stoking a political backlash against BP and the global oil industry.

Chaz · Post by **Chaz** » Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:35 am

I'VE BEEN WAITING FOREVER TO BE ABLE TO SAY THIS AND MEAN IT LITERALLY!

We're gonna need a bigger boat.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:52 am

BP announced, in the face of criticism that they're collecting the oil for revenues, that they would donate all net proceeds from the oil to wildlife recovery efforts.

NYT wrote:In its news release, the company said the money will be spent to create, restore, improve and protect wildlife habitat along the coastlines of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida and will go to projects beyond the cleanups and wildlife rescues that BP is already paying for or has pledged to undertake.

No wonder they skimped on the boat.

Odin · Post by **Odin** » Wed Jun 09, 2010 8:09 am

Ironrod wrote:Obama declared my county a disaster area because floods destroyed my water heater

Scene

Int: The oval office. Barack, a middle-aged black male, is sitting at an elaborate desk, hunched over a computer. His secretary, Katie, is off-screen.

Barack: Katie... is the Internet up for you?

Katie (OS): Hang on. Yes, sir. It's working fine for me.

Barack: Dammit. Dammit. You sure?

Katie (OS): I'm positive. Google's up. CNN's up. It's fine, sir. Can I help with something?

Barack: I don't... dammit. It's just, I'm trying to get to Curio City and it's down. I wanted to get a Panther Vision LED Power Cap for Rahm's birthday.

Katie (OS): Hmm. Well, that site isn't coming up for me either. One minute, sir, let me make a call.

Barack: Hrum. Supposed to be at a meeting with the Joint Chiefs in five minutes. I don't have time for this. Damn.

Katie (OS): Sir, it looks like that site's run out of the area in New England where they're having the heavy rain and flooding.

Barack: Motherfu- you mean? Dammit! That's not going to fly. Katie, clear my schedule and get Janet on the phone for me, would you please? This is a disaster!

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Wed Jun 09, 2010 8:10 am

It's still unforeseen. As to Katrina - how come no one blames the state of Louisiana which basically told the Feds we don't need your help (72 hours prior to landfall when evacution help was offered) and then started screaming for help (24 hours before landfall) when it was too late? This does not get mentioned enough. Had the state listened, lots of crap that happened afterwards, probably would not have happened in as severe a manner.

Oh I totally agree. It's not just federal bureaucracy I'm against.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Wed Jun 09, 2010 8:53 am

Enough wrote:
Ironrod wrote: I reckon that both liberals and conservatives can agree that socializing industrial disasters would be a bad idea.
They already basically are at least in terms of deleterious impacts. Bhopal anyone?

Well, duh, it's not like you can tell a cloud of gas or oil slick to target only certain people or areas, is it?

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Wed Jun 09, 2010 8:56 am

LawBeefaroni wrote:BP announced, in the face of criticism that they're collecting the oil for revenues, that they would donate all net proceeds from the oil to wildlife recovery efforts.

NYT wrote:In its news release, the company said the money will be spent to create, restore, improve and protect wildlife habitat along the coastlines of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida and will go to projects beyond the cleanups and wildlife rescues that BP is already paying for or has pledged to undertake.
No wonder they skimped on the boat.

That's a stupid criticism. It's all one pot of money. BP's going to pay for the clean up anyway and that amount isn't going to change whether they sell the oil collected or not. People should hope BP has lots of revenue if they want the damage paid for. The funds for this aren't going to appear magically out of thin air. BP has to sell oil - that's what they do when they're not spilling it.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Wed Jun 09, 2010 9:01 am

helot2000 wrote:
LawBeefaroni wrote:
Exodor wrote: Awesome.
As long as there is some ass kicking. Otherwise it's just another soundbite.
It'll be hard to deliver much of a kick when BP hits the bankruptcy button.

I don't see it happening, and most of what I've read discounts this possibility.

The max estimated liability noted in the article is $40B. But BP pays out $10B a year in dividends. If they just stopped paying dividends, they could pay off any losses due to the spill in 4 years. That's not the cash flow of a company likely to be overwhelmed by loss claims given the highest estimate. Given how long the litigation will likely last, they could easily pay for this from just eliminating the dividend or a combination of earnings and dividends for a few years.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Wed Jun 09, 2010 9:11 am

Grifman wrote:
helot2000 wrote:
LawBeefaroni wrote:
Exodor wrote: Awesome.
As long as there is some ass kicking. Otherwise it's just another soundbite.
It'll be hard to deliver much of a kick when BP hits the bankruptcy button.
I don't see it happening, and most of what I've read discounts this possibility.

The max estimated liability noted in the article is $40B. But BP pays out $10B a year in dividends. If they just stopped paying dividends, they could pay off any losses due to the spill in 4 years. That's not the cash flow of a company likely to be overwhelmed by loss claims given the highest estimate. Given how long the litigation will likely last, they could easily pay for this from just eliminating the dividend or a combination of earnings and dividends for a few years.

I think the idea is that it would be part of an acquisition. BP has lost something like half of it's market cap since this began. It makes it an appealing target for Exxon or Royal Dutch Shell. It's even more appealing if they can shed some of the liability. Granted the government would have a big say with antitrust and bankruptcy court but that's the thinking behind the BK talk.

Grifman wrote: That's a stupid criticism. It's all one pot of money. BP's going to pay for the clean up anyway and that amount isn't going to change whether they sell the oil collected or not. People should hope BP has lots of revenue if they want the damage paid for. The funds for this aren't going to appear magically out of thin air. BP has to sell oil - that's what they do when they're not spilling it.

Since when has bad press been 100% rational?