didn't bp reject the dutch's offer to let them use their supertankers that could have separated the oil and water back when the explosion first happened? i think the u.s. govt finally stepped in and told them to use the supertankers.
are they using supertankers, I think this idea has been debunked. the situation in the persian gulf is not the same, where that solution was used.
Hello, I've been out of town but I thought I'd come in with an update and maybe come in with some thoughts. The LMRP has been the most successful operation yet to try to capture as much oil as possible. They are up to 10,000 barrels a day and rising. One of the four release vents has been closed and it very well may be able to capture the vast majority of the oil in the next couple of days. The goal, of course, is to capture as much oil as possible to start fighting the slick enough to actually start decreasing the size, and it is very possible that by the end of this week you may see this happening. Some notes: there will still be oil escaping, and by the videos, it LOOKS bad, you just have to remember that this is just oil coming out of the vents and around the edge of the seal, not freeflowing out of the top of the riser anymore. Plans are already in place so that when they maximize production out of the main LMRP to begin additional capturing operations from around the seal. They may, in fact, connect additional capturing risers/pipes to the pre installed vents to maximize the flow rate. They also continue operations to pressurize the seal better as well and there are probably going to be operations to do so. So the operation in order: 1. Maximise the flow rate as much as possible from the operations on the drill ship. 2. Close the vents. 3. Perhaps connect even more containment devices. 4. Maximize the seal. I think its important to realize that if they maximize production from the current set-up, they are NOT stopping containment operations, but will continue to tweak until the relief wells are completed. There is also a rumor floating that now that they have a somewhat decent seal on the top, they may actually run a fresh drill pipe down the new riser, try to thread the needle through the BOP and into the actual well itself, if possible, and retry the topkill by blasting mud directly into the well. Not sure if this will come to fruition, but rumors are floating. As far as clean up goes, despite what Anderson Cooper is telling you, there are a lot of people working hard at cleaning up. There are pretty heartbreaking pictures of some birds on shore, and it tears everyone up, but keep in mind that beaches are not a priority by anyone. Not the EPA, not BP, not the Coast Guard. The priority is getting the oil out of the water, as much as possible, out in the open. Cleaning up beaches is easy, and they are really planning on leaving those for last. Cleanup priorities are: 1. Open water: burn and skim gets more oil than anything 2. Keep out of wetlands and fisheries 3. Beaches Open water operations have been blessed, for the most part, with good weather. Skim/burn is getting a huge amount of oil. The wetlands, other than a very few spots, have not been affected too much. There is one area that the media likes to show you that was the initial spot to get oil in about 12 days ago due to some boom seperating and about 50-100 barrels of oil invading. This is the same grassy area that you see guys sponging off for the last 12 days. Beaches have started seeing some oil, but these are low impact areas. Pressure has been put on by the gov't and media to really start cleaning these areas, but its too soon. The initial plan was to let the oil take some beaches, then go back much later and completely clean. Now, due to pressure, resources are being used to clean and reclean the same beaches that have very little environmental impact, but make bad pictures for the news. Other than that, I can guarantee you, personally, that all parties involved are working their butts off and putting in huge hours to fix this mess.
This spill is very different and supertankers would make little if any impact. As Thad Allen said today, this is like a lot of little spills, the oil is spread thin and wide. If it were a ship spill, and most of the oil was in one place, a supertanker solution might very well be a good idea. This operation, however, is fighting lots of little "globs" and slicks spread over many miles. This is good and bad. The few and further between these are, the faster it naturally degrades and evaporates. The bad is that you have to spend a lot of time skimming into bigger pools to be able to collect or burn. So it is much more effecient to fight his with lots of little boats skimming into larger and larger collections, then burning. One or two supertanker vacumming would have very little impact as the oil is just not concentrated enough.
The second that they started drilling the relief well, this well was dead. If BP could have destroyed this well earlier to NOT have to pay BILLIONS, they would have. The amount of oil they are collecting is NOTHING compared to the amount that they will pay in clean up/fines/litigation. Several of the methods they have tried would have killed the well anyways, and like I said, its a moot point, the relief well, which has/would be drilled would have rendered any "saving" of this well useless.
Batman, how much did you donate to the Big Campaign? all that money raised, i thought it was supposed to buy competence? [rquoter]Obama 2008: I ran a big campaign, so I can handle a Gulf emergency By: BYRON YORK Chief Political Correspondent 06/06/10 9:52 AM EDT It’s not mentioned much now, but in the late summer of 2008, a major hurricane, Gustav, was in the Gulf of Mexico and headed toward New Orleans, threatening a replay of the disastrous Katrina experience. On September 1, 2008, Barack Obama, fresh from his Roman-colonnade speech on the final night of the Democratic convention in Denver, talked to CNN’s Anderson Cooper about Gustav and the Gulf. The question: As president, could he handle an emergency like that? Obama pointed to the size of his campaign and its multi-million dollar budget as evidence of his executive abilities. “Our ability to manage large systems and to execute, I think, has been made clear over the last couple of years,” Obama said. That executive ability, he added, “indicates the degree to which we can provide the kinds of support and good service that the American people expect.” Cooper asked the question in terms of Sarah Palin, who had just been selected for the Republican presidential ticket: COOPER: And, Senator Obama, my final question — some of your Republican critics have said you don’t have the experience to handle a situation like this. They in fact have said that Governor Palin has more executive experience, as mayor of a small town and as governor of a big state of Alaska. What’s your response? OBAMA: Well, you know, my understanding is, is that Governor Palin’s town of Wasilla has, I think, 50 employees. We have got 2,500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe $12 million a year. You know, we have a budget of about three times that just for the month. So, I think that our ability to manage large systems and to execute, I think, has been made clear over the last couple of years. And, certainly, in terms of the legislation that I passed just dealing with this issue post-Katrina of how we handle emergency management, the fact that many of my recommendations were adopted and are being put in place as we speak, I think, indicates the degree to which we can provide the kinds of support and good service that the American people expect. Just for accuracy’s sake: Alaska’s budget in 2008 was $11.2 billion, and the state employed about 15,000 people, so while it was nowhere near the size of the federal government — no state is — it was considerably larger than the Obama campaign. But the bigger point of the interview was Obama’s argument that his ability to run a good campaign proved he had executive ability, even though he had no executive experience. Now we are in a situation that cries out for executive experience and leadership — ironically enough, in the Gulf again — and some who accepted Obama’s argument back in 2008 are rethinking things this time around.[/rquoter]
That's one of the problems of OBama's response. If he had done a big White House press briefing and stood in front of the cameras right when this first happened and said, "My fellow Americans, today, we face an ecological diaster of epic proportions and we need to begin preparing ourselves for the worst" If he had told people from the onset this was going to be bad, and that it was likely to not be fixed for months and was going to destroy the lives of many. Then people would not have bashed him so hard later on. That's why leadership is critical. Not only that, but if he had done it before the oil hit the shoreline and early on...he could have said, "let this be a lesson when the anti-gov't regulation and drill baby drill crowd get their way and why we must never allow our gov't to let business run amok and do whatever they please" If he had done that on day one - the Tea Party would have been crushed.
How much though as the widespread use of dispersants, particularly at the site of the leak, contributed to the nature of this disaster? Have the dispersants possibly made it harder to clean up as the oil has broken down into smaller globs that are spread out through the water column rather than as a large slicks that would've been easier to contain and skim?
I guess quitting like Sarah Palin did running Alaska would show more competence. Why anyone would criticize Obama by using Sarah as a counterpoint, particularly her experience as governor is beyond bizarre
Possibly. Hard to say at this point. I'd argue the use was excessive. Not the use, generally - but the quantity. I would wager that at some level that was intentional by BP to limit the "visible" signs of how vast the spill was/is.
He could have and in hind sight probably should have but I am going to give Obama a break on this. The problem that I see with this disaster is that its nature is unlike any we have seen. Its not a hurricane where there are multiple sources of information coming in but in more like an earthquake with initialy very limited info coming from only one source, BP. From everything that I have heard it sounds like the US government doesn't have ability to independently verify the scope of this problem and is dependent on BP to tell them what is going on. In this case at the beginning of the crisis I can understand why Obama didn't come out and make a tough speech since the Admin. wasn't aware of what was the true nature of the problem and if he had made a tough speech about the worst case scenario and things weren't that bad it would've been just as bad politically, possible worse as the Drill Baby Drill! crowd would've used that as political ammo that Obama isn't for drilling and is trying to magnify a minor issue. I think there is an argument for that maybe the US government should have their own capabilities of dealing with this but three months ago how many people would've been for it if the Admin had proposed setting up and equipping teams to deal with deepwater oil well blowouts? I bet you would hear many of those critizing the governments response now complaining about how the government is spending money on things that private industry already has the capability of doing. I doubt it would crush the Tea Party. The Tea Party is primarily driven by a nebulous sense of anger and as long as there is something to be angry about the Tea Party, or something like it, will be around.
I think that's a ridiculous idea. Nothing against you personally, judoka, of course. The crowd demanding this type of capability is just silly. Far easier to just mandate relief wells in place prior a la canada. I think there is a sort of valid argument (someone made it in this thread earlier) that bans on coastal drilling led to this sort of ultra-deep crisis. I don't think it's that cut-and-dry per say, since you drill where the oil is, but it's an interesting discussion point at least.
Its actually a result of the oil being a mile underwater, it just shows up over many miles of surface. The dispersants may have contributed, but the dispersants are NOT a bad thing. They will greatly help in the long term clean up of this oil, and have been used in many oil spills world wide. No matte what humans do, the biggest cleaner of this spill is nature, and the dispersants help nature clean it up much faster.
How? How would he know at the onset that this would be an ecological disaster of this proportion? Some sort of magical clairvoyance? How does he know it's about to be 10-20x worse than what was initially estimated by scientists and folks who know about this sort of stuff? I'm not sure what people are expecting of him, but it appears to be magical in nature. And if he had predicted doom and gloom and it wasn't so bad, what do you think the criticism would have been then?
Sadly....Canada's no smarter. (they previously required a relief well plan...but have been relaxing that ). Let's hope some sense is shaken into ALL nations and companies who drill off-shore.
Days after the Deepwater Horizon rig blew up, Carol Browner, head of the White House's Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy, told Obama the explosion would result in a never-before-seen disaster, senior White House aides told The Daily Beast. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...told_how_bad_gulf_oil_spill_would_be_day.html If Obama had taken this to the press instead of reacting to it, he could have framed this as why industry needs regulation. He could have turned this disaster into a moment to galvanize his presidency and say, "America must never allow this to happen again. For too long we've allowed lack oversight to result in pain and suffering of everyday Americans. We saw it with the financial crisis, and now we see it here with this oil spill. The role of gov't is clear - to ensure Industry plays by a set of rules that will prevent common people from getting hurt by reckless decisions or shortcuts to make a quick buck by greedy tycoons" He had the information. He could have been strong and crushed his opponents. That's what Clinton would have done. That's what Reagan would have done. That's what great leaders do - they take crisis and turn it into a means to rally a nation and consolidate their leadership. Obama failed himself here.
read the facts above - he knew of the enormity of the disaster from the get-go. He knew it would be really bad. What you wrote below is not factually correct.
