Louisiana Oil Rig Fire / Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill - Page 5 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

FuglyStick · 05-24-2010, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

this is an interesting side-bar: the efforts bp continues to go to in order to manage independent press access to the beaches off louisiana which are affected by the oil spill, with the full, um, co-operation of local "law enforcement" people:

?It?s BP?s Oil? | Mother Jones

just in case you may be under the mistaken impression that information about this situation is not being managed. o yeah--if you go into the media area from the "official" site linked above, you'll also get a nice glimpse of how infotainment is being streamed, who's doing it, for what ends and that sort of thing. it's good, if not happy-making, to know that in **any** situation of any size flows of information without prior shaping are now seen as being a Problem in this o-so-democratic united of states.

yeah.

Mother Jones is not a credible news organization.

roachboy · 05-24-2010, 12:22 PM

there's alot of different types of information in this thread. there's links to bp's website (gasp!) to the "official" response site (managed information if there ever was any)...
i presuppose that folk can think for themselves and read critically.

so there's not a whole lot of point to the drive-by bullshit.
save it for another thread.

aceventura3 · 05-24-2010, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

you know, ace, i really don't care what you think of how i write. i could be much more blunt about your specious reasoning and frequently bogus information, but i guarantee you that you wouldn't like it.

but it's nice that you think people control capital. shame it doesn't really square with anything you say.

meanwhile, out in the world of stuff that matters....

LOL! Yes, it is all me, I am the one with all the problems. Got it, but I continue...

---------- Post added at 08:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:22 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

So just to clarify you want big government come in and tell a private business how to run their business?

Yes. I am not an anarchist. I believe "government" has a responsibility in a capitalist system. The issue for me is where the line gets drawn.

---------- Post added at 08:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:25 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

so there is no governmental white knight to ride in to save us.

there are only fucking capitalists, the same people whose laxity with respect to planning and stewardship and those other aspects of plundering natural resources that are not cost-effective to think a whole lot about. you know, the people who caused this disaster in the first place.

Who do you think could have/could, saved/save us from this? In what alternative universe is there, where "bad" things don't happen?

roachboy · 05-24-2010, 01:06 PM

ace, dear, its not a matter of "bad things not happening." it's a matter of it being kinda predictable that something could, say, go wrong with an oil rig that's drilling at the bottom of the ocean. you'd think there'd be an actual plan for dealing with contingencies. but bp seems to have decided that the way to play things in this regard is to cut corners, avoid development and/or studies and/or regulation to the greatest possible extent and when the shit hits the fan pay the fines. they've demonstrated this "business model" for 20 years. the data's above, in this thread.

you'd think that a sane regulatory system would have taken into account the responsibilities of stewardship of a complex ecosystem like the gulf of mexico and even if you manly man conservatives can't get your manly heads around notions of environmental conservation or protection then you should at least be able to recognize that there are multiple stakeholders in the gulf of mexico, from fishing to tourism to plants animals fish and other things, and this not only close to the deepwater horizon site, but quite far away and potentially very far away as the oil from the spill reaches the main gulf currents and starts getting pulled out to sea and toward florida. for starters. none of these stakeholder interests have been protected by the existing regulatory system.

so you have a corporation with a history of negligence and a policy of fuck it when something happens we'll pay the fines all in the interest of profit maximization, which is of course in the manly man world of capitalism a necessarily good thing until something horrific happens like this at which point all the manly defenders of uncontrolled capitalism start looking for Daddy to bail them out or some Superhero to come in to save Everybody at the last moment because that's how invisible hands roll---but in this unfortunate situation, you not only have a corporation with a history of negligence and a host of specific instances of negilgence in the period leading up to the explosion and collapse and spill, but you have this corporation operating in a "regulatory" system that requires very little of them, that is passive, that does not protect other stakeholder interests, that does not protect the commons, that does not steward resources, but instead follows the lead of oil corporations. and the oil corporations have paid big money for this set-up. and for the political consent which had enabled it. and for the consent of people like you, ace. those were the priorities. not designing systems to contain leaks a mile below the surface of the ocean. so there are no systems. there are no systems and there are no ideas for systems. so there are no solutions at this point.

but there sure as fuck is a leak, and a massive one at that.

so it's entirely disengenuous to act as though this is just a bad thing that's happened.
this is a preventable thing that was not prevented in the context of a drilling policy that's risky and problematic at best which was not hedged round with regulation commensurate with that risk. so there's nothing in place or on the horizon that can stop this disaster from continuing. it's be nice were the junk shot to work, but like everything else that's never been tried a mile below the surface of the water. and we're just finding out about all these---um---gaps in testing and thinking now, 3 weeks into one of the worst oil spills ever.

meanwhile bp was dumping dispersants onto the oil at a mile below the surface that were not only unacceptably toxic but which didn't fucking disperse the oil. what they did was cause it to break up and then coagulate again, but with the dispersant as part of the new tar-ball masses, which float well below the surface of the ocean and below the reach of imaging technologies.

it just goes on and on ace. what happened is not just some random bad thing. what happened was an accident compounded by negligence corruption short-sightedness and greed.

aceventura3 · 05-24-2010, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

ace, dear, its not a matter of "bad things not happening." it's a matter of it being kinda predictable that something could, say, go wrong with an oil rig that's drilling at the bottom of the ocean. you'd think there'd be an actual plan for dealing with contingencies. but bp seems to have decided that the way to play things in this regard is to cut corners, avoid development and/or studies and/or regulation to the greatest possible extent and when the shit hits the fan pay the fines. they've demonstrated this "business model" for 20 years. the data's above, in this thread.

As a capitalist, a person who has been a corporate officer for a small public corporation and as a small business owner, I can assure you BP had plans for this contingency. These plans were known and accepted by regulators. If you saw the news conference today, everyone in the industry is in sync with BP's plans and what they are doing. By the end of this BP will have spent several billion. Now you suggest that BP "cut corners" and had no plan. Here is how it works, business people plan for "cat" losses. Planning for "cat" losses involves a lot of speculation, they are not predictable. Perhaps, your point is related to the unfortunate reality that even the best plans for "cat" losses will involve property and casualty losses and damages. In the case of this oil leak everyone knows the real solution is going to take 90 days - that was the plan. Our government knows it, BP knows it, everyone in the industry knows it. If they solve it in less time it is a bonus - but they are doing what they can to stop the leak.

That aside, my personal view is the BP should be "fired". They F'd up. If you F'd up, I would fire you, if I F'd up I would get fired. Our government needs to act, take control, fire BP, and hire another firm to fix the problem and then force BP to pay the costs.

Everything else is just commentary. Unfortunately we have an administration that won't be honest with the public for some reason.

The_Jazz · 05-24-2010, 04:04 PM

Ace, if they had a plan, it certainly isn't apparent given the lack of response. They still don't have enough booms deployed and no idea of how to stop the leak. One would think that a plan in place would have been used sometime in the last 5 weeks.

Baraka_Guru · 05-24-2010, 04:20 PM

Have they tried to junkshot yet?

The whole thing sounds like a crapshoot, so I don't see why not....

roachboy · 05-25-2010, 04:05 AM

ace, you can't assure me of anything. you have no idea. what jazz says is the case, and it should be obvious. there was no contingency plan that included a rational assessment of conditions a mile below the surface and technologies that were outfitted to deal with those conditions, so which had been tested even if only to withstand pressure and temperature conditions, not to get into questions of gasses in the environment which pose specific challenges because of these other factors.

but bp did appear to have a contingency plan in place to deal with damage to the bp brand. they did have a pretty effective media crisis team that sprang into action. so while oil is leaking into the gulf at some ungoldy rate that bp's media crisis team would prefer remain vague, those fine folk at bp are busy busy busy doing brand triage.

o and there's plenty of blame to go around on this:

Quote:

U.S. oil drilling regulator ignored experts' red flags on environmental risks

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 25, 2010; A01

The federal agency responsible for regulating U.S. offshore oil drilling repeatedly ignored warnings from government scientists about environmental risks in its push to approve energy exploration activities quickly, according to numerous documents and interviews.

Minerals Management Service officials, who can receive cash bonuses in the thousands of dollars based in large part on meeting federal deadlines for leasing offshore oil and gas exploration, frequently changed documents and bypassed legal requirements aimed at protecting the marine environment, the documents show.

This has dramatically weakened the scientific checks on offshore drilling that were established under landmark laws such as the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, say those who have worked with the MMS, which is part of the Interior Department.

"It's a war between the biologists and the engineers," said Thomas A. Campbell, who served as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's general counsel under President George H.W. Bush. "They just have a very different worldview, and sometimes the engineers simply don't listen to the biologists."

Interviews and documents show numerous examples in which senior officials discounted scientific data and advice -- even from scientists elsewhere in the federal government -- that would have impeded oil and gas companies drilling offshore.

Under the Bush and Obama administrations, red flags raised by scientists at NOAA and the Marine Mammal Commission have gone unheeded. Obama officials say they are taking steps to ensure that science guides drilling decisions; former agency officials say such questions are rarely as simple as they seem.
Process for leases

Several instances involving the leasing process for a section of Alaska's Beaufort Sea and the Gulf of Mexico illustrate the problems the agency faces.

In 2006, then-MMS biologist Jeff Childs wrote a detailed analysis of how the Exxon Valdez spill had harmed generations of fish in Alaska's Prince William Sound and how a future spill could do the same in the Beaufort Sea.

But Childs's conclusion that "a large oil spill . . . is likely to result in significant adverse effects on local [fish] populations requiring three or more generations to recover" would have forced the MMS to conduct a full environmental impact statement before auctioning off a lease in the Beaufort Sea.

"I have concerns about Jeff's analysis and will not insert it into the [environmental assessment] being sent to HQ at this time," Deborah Cranswick, chief of the environmental assessment section at the MMS, wrote in an e-mail June 23 to her Alaska colleagues. "I believe that Regional management needs to review it first because Jeff has concluded new significant impacts from oil spills. This will trigger an [environmental impact statement] -- and thus delay the lease for at least a year."

Six days later, Paul Stang, Alaska's MMS regional supervisor for leasing and environment, sent a hand-written note to Childs saying, "As you know, a conclusion of significance under [the National Environmental Policy Act] means an EIS and delay in sale 202. That would, as you can imagine, not go over well with HQ and others."

When Childs balked at deleting the finding, another manager rewrote it so that the lease process could move ahead without delay.

The government held the sale in April 2007, receiving $42 million in bids from Shell, Conoco, BP, ENI Petroleum U.S., and Total E&P USA. Groups representing Native Alaskans and a municipality unsuccessfully challenged the sale in court, and part of Shell's Beaufort exploration plan for this summer includes leases for part of the Beaufort Sea that were in sale 202.

On Monday, Stang, who is retired from the MMS, said managers concluded that Childs's analysis was misplaced because any accident "would be expected to affect a minuscule and insignificant portion of the pink salmon in Alaska. . . . It was a judgment as to what's included in an environmental impact statement."

As for the bonuses given for expediting leases, Stang said, they were based on "the timeliness and quality" of employees' work. Cranswick was on vacation and could not be reached for comment.

MMS staff analysts met with similar resistance after reviewing the exploration plan that Shell submitted for the Beaufort Sea in 2007.

One predicted that "the proposed action has the potential to cause significant impacts to a variety of protected wildlife resources." Another wrote that it "lacks sufficient detail and makes unreasonable conclusions; the details it does provide are disturbing." The agency approved the plan.

"Both in the case of MMS and NOAA, there's this agency culture that their job is to protect oil and gas activity," said Layla Hughes, senior program officer for the World Wildlife Fund's Arctic policy.
Evaluating effects

MMS actions are shaped in part by a 2005 regulation it adopted that assumes oil and gas companies can best evaluate the environmental effects of their operations.

The rule governing which information the MMS should receive and review before signing off on drilling plans states: "The lessee or operator is in the best position to determine the environmental effects of its proposed activity based on whether the operation is routine or non-routine."

MMS said in a May 2000 draft environmental analysis of deep-water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico that "the oil industry's experience base in deep-water well control is limited" and that a massive spill "could easily turn out to be a potential showstopper for the [Outer Continental Shelf] program if the industry and MMS do not come together as a whole to prevent such an incident."

But when the MMS finalized the document that month, it jettisoned those two statements and concluded that there was no need to prepare an environmental impact analysis for deep-water drilling: "Most deep-water operations and activities are substantially the same as those associated with conventional operations and activities on the continental shelf."

On Friday, Deputy Interior Secretary David Hayes said that the MMS had made decisions lacking scientific justification but that the administration had put Arctic leasing on hold and enlisted U.S. Geological Survey scientists to ensure that future decisions have scientific integrity.

"There are certainly historical issues there that we're interested in addressing and reforming," Hayes said. "I think we're in the process of getting a cultural change in the scientific part of MMS. We're making sure the science is not a means to an end, but an independent input to the process."

But the pattern of dismissing biologists' input has continued under the Obama administration. NOAA must judge whether companies have established adequate programs to monitor and minimize their impact on marine mammals before issuing a permit to operate offshore.

Last year, federal marine mammal experts told the MMS that it had minimized the environmental risks of drilling when assessing the impact of auctioning leases in four areas in Alaska's Beaufort and Chukchi seas.

Agency officials did not respond, although they are required under law to either adopt the experts' recommendations or explain within 120 days why they reject them. Their draft analysis was not finalized before the administration postponed further action on lease sales in March.

When asked why the MMS did not comply with the law, Interior spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff said, "We are going to continue to be aggressive in our reform agenda to ensure that all laws are followed."

In June, a review panel with NOAA issued a scathing critique of Shell Exploration and Production's plan to conduct an open-water marine survey in Alaska's Chukchi Sea. There "are no clearly stated 'scientific objectives' " in Shell's proposal, wrote Sue Moore from NOAA's Office of Science and Technology. "The plan makes a number of misleading statements that should be brought to the attention of the authors," wrote Tim Ragen, executive director of the Marine Mammal Commission.

But NOAA's Office of Protected Resources gave Shell the permit without demanding modifications. Ragen said the MMS has consistently minimized the environmental risks of offshore energy exploration.

"Policymakers need to know we don't have perfect information on many aspects of oil and gas operations. In essence, we're playing a game of probabilities involving significant uncertainty," he said. But the commission gets no "feedback on our recommendations, so I don't know how much attention they get."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...topnews&sub=AR

oops.

The_Jazz · 05-25-2010, 05:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Have they tried to junkshot yet?

The whole thing sounds like a crapshoot, so I don't see why not....

That's supposed to happen tomorrow (Wednesday). They're still getting equipment in place. Which seems odd assuming that they had a plan in place since it would then be readily available and everyone would know where to go to get it. Oh, wait, sorry. I just "made an ass of you and me", as the old saying goes.

Not to mention that they've been a souped up kitchen degreaser that toxic to ocean life to try to break up the spill. But that was planned, I'm sure.

aceventura3 · 05-25-2010, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Ace, if they had a plan, it certainly isn't apparent given the lack of response.

I will illustrate the problem here regarding a "plan" with a story.

I am the king of LaLa Land. My General comes to me a says that we face the possibility of an attack from a neighboring kingdom. I ask him to develop a plan. He comes back with a detail plan, in summary he says if we are attacked we must sacrifice Jazz City and Roachville, garrison resources and concentrate our defensive efforts on the grand city of Ventura. Then after 90 days we will be able to mount a counter attack and drive out the invaders from our land.

Given the above, if you are from Jazz City you would conclude, that "we" had no plan. You might go to the media and complain about the lack of response, about incompetence, negligence, etc. You may even confront me about "our" lack of a plan. But, the reality is that there was a plan, a plan that may be the best plan available to save the kingdom where the alternative of trying to do everything or save everything at once may have been more tragic than the loss in the two cities in question.

Given, BP and our government, we clearly know now what the plan is. And from the very beginning everyone in the know, knew it would take 90 days and that anything less was a bonus. I bet on the first day, Obama knew it was going to take 90 days to get the leak stopped.

roachboy · 05-25-2010, 06:04 AM

according to happy-face brand triage central

The Ongoing Administration-Wide Response to the Deepwater Horizon BP Oil Spill

brought to you by all the organizations which are hoping to escape this without ruin, bp is continuing to drill 2 relief wells. these seem the most likely avenue to stop the leaking, but they're also some time out yet before they'll do anything.

meanwhile, the administration had ordered bp to cut the amount of dispersant they're using, which is not only causing oil to coagulate hundreds of feet below the surface (which makes measurements a problem, which helps brand triage maybe) but is also toxic on its own:

Gulf oil spill: White House orders BP to cut use of dispersant by half | Environment | The Guardian

more great planning from those champions of the environment at british petroleum.

meanwhile, pulling this from the giant repetition-o-sphere that is the net, this could have come from anywhere because it's everywhere the same, but apparently the equipments' in place for a top-kill attempt. the junk shot is plan b.

BP To Start Unproven "Top Kill" Maneuver On Oil Spill - MyStateLine.com

o and ace: your story is stupid.

aceventura3 · 05-25-2010, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

ace, you can't assure me of anything. you have no idea. what jazz says is the case, and it should be obvious. there was no contingency plan that included a rational assessment of conditions a mile below the surface and technologies that were outfitted to deal with those conditions, so which had been tested even if only to withstand pressure and temperature conditions, not to get into questions of gasses in the environment which pose specific challenges because of these other factors.

but bp did appear to have a contingency plan in place to deal with damage to the bp brand. they did have a pretty effective media crisis team that sprang into action. so while oil is leaking into the gulf at some ungoldy rate that bp's media crisis team would prefer remain vague, those fine folk at bp are busy busy busy doing brand triage.

Do you really believe they had no plan? Or, is your point that the plan was inadequate, I am not clear on your position?

The_Jazz · 05-25-2010, 06:06 AM

If that's the case, Ace, then why did they have to construct both top hats? It's not like either was specifically designed for this leak. You'd have also thought that they'd have tested the technology at that depth especially given that it ultimately failed.

roachboy · 05-25-2010, 06:09 AM

ace...are we going down the road of crack-head literalism here?
why would that be of any interest?
do you work for british petroleum?
did you author the plan you're so sure exists?
if not, i am not sure i see the point of this entire line.

ok *if* there was a plan, it was entirely inadequate.
i think the plan was basically whatever the absolute minimum was and a decision fuck it, let's pay the fine.
if you read the article i posted above from the washington post about mms and gulf drilling, you'll see a wholesale breakdown in accountability on all sides already in place well before this disaster got started.

profits uber alles, ace. mms is full of people who think like you do.

Baraka_Guru · 05-25-2010, 06:12 AM

A 90-day plan to stop oil spillage doesn't seem like a very good plan. Should nobody be upset with BP's 90-day plan? Because it's a plan, right? As in it was made in advance, right?

aceventura3 · 05-25-2010, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

If that's the case, Ace, then why did they have to construct both top hats? It's not like either was specifically designed for this leak. You'd have also thought that they'd have tested the technology at that depth especially given that it ultimately failed.

In order to stop the oil from flowing the pressure has to be equalized one way or another. Drilling a relief well will work, everyone knows this and we know it will take about 90 days. In the mean time, other efforts are being attempted. These other efforts have much lower probabilities of success. Like in my little story - perhaps the folks in Jazz city can defeat the invaders even though the probability is small - and if they do the king won't complain.

---------- Post added at 02:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:25 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

ace...are we going down the road of crack-head literalism here?
why would that be of any interest?
do you work for british petroleum?
did you author the plan you're so sure exists?
if not, i am not sure i see the point of this entire line.

ok *if* there was a plan, it was entirely inadequate.
i think the plan was basically whatever the absolute minimum was and a decision fuck it, let's pay the fine.
if you read the article i posted above from the washington post about mms and gulf drilling, you'll see a wholesale breakdown in accountability on all sides already in place well before this disaster got started.

profits uber alles, ace. mms is full of people who think like you do.

Have you been paying attention to the CEO of BP, he has done several interviews, it is clear what the plan was. It is also clear from the WH press conference yesterday that BP is acting in accordance with industry standards and norms and even the WH's internal expert has nothing he would have BP do different. The WH stated that they have confidence in BP and what they are doing. BP has the blessing of the US government on how they are handling this and their plan. You seem to want to take issue with me, perhaps your focus is misdirected. You desperately want to believe there was no real plan, but the reality suggests otherwise and like the old saying -to make an omelate you have to crack a few eggs - in order to drill for oil 1 mile below sea level, some oil is going to get spilled - and it is spilling now - no one should be surprised, why are you? To me there are other issues much more important and more interesting here than if BP had a plan?

The_Jazz · 05-25-2010, 06:44 AM

If your scenario is correct, Ace, whoever at BP concocted this plan of getting the relief well started 2 weeks after the accident (knowing it would take 90 days to complete) -along with whoever in the government approved it - should be brought up on criminal negligence charges. That's the stupidest fucking plan I've ever of since it basically dooms the fishing and tourism industies during and after the spill. I find it impossible to believe that you honestly think that BP is going to knowingly have a plan in place that's going to open themselves up to billions of dollars in losses, millions in legal costs and years of court time. To drive their stock price down by 40%? If that's was really and truly the plan, as you seem to believe, then I hope that their Directors and Officers insurance premiums are paid because those insurance carriers are going to pay out whatever limits there are, regardless of what those limits are.

That's the only logical conclusion of your story, Ace. And it makes no sense at all.

aceventura3 · 05-25-2010, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

A 90-day plan to stop oil spillage doesn't seem like a very good plan. Should nobody be upset with BP's 90-day plan? Because it's a plan, right? As in it was made in advance, right?

BP is an entity playing by the rules. Like it or not our government let BP drill with the plan they had. Why did "we" do that? We will eventually find out, but I would send an immediate message to the industry by "firing" BP rather than making nice with them. I would take over the clean up, the effort to stop the leak and revoke the lease. I would increase the consequence of failure sending the industry a message. But unfortunately I am not in charge.

---------- Post added at 02:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:45 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

If your scenario is correct, Ace, whoever at BP concocted this plan of getting the relief well started 2 weeks after the accident (knowing it would take 90 days to complete) -along with whoever in the government approved it - should be brought up on criminal negligence charges. That's the stupidest fucking plan I've ever of since it basically dooms the fishing and tourism industies during and after the spill. I find it impossible to believe that you honestly think that BP is going to knowingly have a plan in place that's going to open themselves up to billions of dollars in losses, millions in legal costs and years of court time. To drive their stock price down by 40%? If that's was really and truly the plan, as you seem to believe, then I hope that their Directors and Officers insurance premiums are paid because those insurance carriers are going to pay out whatever limits there are, regardless of what those limits are.

That's the only logical conclusion of your story, Ace. And it makes no sense at all.

O.k., so your position is that they had no plan and you think that is more reasonable than what I presented?

Why did it take two week to initiate the drilling of the relief well? Did they ask that question during the Congressional hearings? Has anyone asked that question? Isn't that a good question to ask? Like I said I think the focus is misdirected and there are some other issues that should be discussed. And I can not stress enough how important it was to get BP out of the picture as soon as it could have been done - on things like this you have to have an outside-impartial involvement to solve the problem of this scale most efficiently. BP's interests may not always be in "our" interest.

The_Jazz · 05-25-2010, 07:09 AM

They've stated that they had to get the equipment in place. One would think that a major part of a prudent plan would have been to have that equipment standing by.

Ace, I would agree with you about getting BP out of the way if there was ANY other entity with the equipment, manpower and experience that was able to take over. The gulf has been an almost exclusive playground for BP (once you factor in the Gulf Oil purchase in the 90's) for decades. Who else in the world could possibly take over that's not already involved? I've heard exactly *ZERO* offers to take it over.

aceventura3 · 05-25-2010, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

They've stated that they had to get the equipment in place. One would think that a major part of a prudent plan would have been to have that equipment standing by.

Ace, I would agree with you about getting BP out of the way if there was ANY other entity with the equipment, manpower and experience that was able to take over. The gulf has been an almost exclusive playground for BP (once you factor in the Gulf Oil purchase in the 90's) for decades. Who else in the world could possibly take over that's not already involved? I've heard exactly *ZERO* offers to take it over.

Our government will take a private citizen's gas station under eminent domain but they won't force every available tanker to the gulf to suck up and filter the oil getting to the surface???? This is a question of leadership above all else at this point. That is one reason government needs to take control, the government under these circumstances has power that BP does not have. This is driving me crazy, and it illustrates the problem with academics and lawyers being in control. We can do better! But who am I to say, let's discuss BP not having a plan some more , or how BP is a bad, really bad company.

The_Jazz · 05-25-2010, 12:29 PM

Tankers aren't capable of "sucking oil" up off the ocean surface. They don't have anything close to the proper equipment. What you mean is an oil skimmer, and there are a finite number of those, and they're useless unless the water is calm.

Again, who's going to replace BP here? Who, in the free market, is capable of fixing this if BP isn't? You've yet to answer that, ace. The Coast Guard has already said they're not capable of dealing with this, and they're the most likely government agency to have the resources. Who else in the government is capable of handling this? FEMA's not (not to mention that Louisiana would probably justifiably go ape-shit if FEMA showed up again). Who else?

Many of us are still saying "how could BP have fucked this up so badly?", which is where the discussion about the plan comes from. But obviously this is all the government's fault, so let's talk more about that red herring.

roachboy · 05-25-2010, 12:37 PM

ace you really haven't a fucking clue do you? there's tons of information in this thread and still you haven't the first idea of what you're talking about. you seem to have a need to exculpate bp from the mess **they made** (enabled by those eager cheerleaders of private enterprise and royalties, the minerals management service).

it's like you decided at some point that it's ok to ignore all of reality and just repeat the same stupid point over and over as if you're waiting for the moment when reality will decide: "o for gods sake let's just change so that ace guy will stop hitting his face against that door."

you don't seem capable of admitting that there is no technology hiding anywhere that will just swoop in and fix this and the reason for that is---again---that bp didn't develop it because they didn't fucking have to because mms bought the half-baked line that bp fed them that a serious incident that involved more than superficial problems was "unlikely"

want proof?
look at the initial exploration document filed with mms in 2009:

http://www.gomr.mms.gov/PI/PDFImages/PLANS/29/29977.pdf

look at the environmental protocols that run throughout it.

you just want something Manly looking to happen no matter how empty no matter how meaningless because you like the illusion of "leadership" even when there's nothing to be lead, no real coherent options to be advanced, no secret weapon to be unveiled.

now in a sane world, you'd think that drilling a mile below the surface would be understood as a risk, wouldn't you?
but not in this case.

so now, ace, that's the situation. please stop repeating things counter to reality over and over. reality isn't going to change.

but maybe there is something we can agree on: we all should i think hope that the top kill works tomorrow. no matter what you think of the actors, no matter what political viewpoint you work from, we all should hope this works. the junk shot seems a farce. the relief wells are at *least* 60 days away from being able to do anything. so if this doesn't work tomorrow, we may in the short-to-medium term be fucked. and no matter what that might mean, you can be sure that it will mean something else, something much worse, for the ecosystem of the gulf of mexico and for everyone who works on it lives near it depends on it, swims in it eats in or from it.

aceventura3 · 05-25-2010, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

ace you really haven't a fucking clue do you?

I will first use this as an example:

Quote:

There's a potential solution to the Gulf oil spill that neither BP, nor the federal government, nor anyone — save a couple intuitive engineers — seems willing to try. As The Politics Blog reported on Tuesday in an interview with former Shell Oil president John Hofmeister, the untapped solution involves using empty supertankers to suck the spill off the surface, treat and discharge the contaminated water, and either salvage or destroy the slick.
1,239diggsdigg

Hofmeister had been briefed on the strategy by a Houston-based environmental disaster expert named Nick Pozzi, who has used the same solution on several large spills during almost two decades of experience in the Middle East — who says that it could be deployed easily and should be, immediately, to protect the Gulf Coast. That it hasn't even been considered yet is, Pozzi thinks, owing to cost considerations, or because there's no clear chain of authority by which to get valuable ideas in the right hands. But with BP's latest four-pronged plan remaining unproven, and estimates of company liability already reaching the tens of billions of dollars (and counting), supertankers start to look like a bargain.

UPDATE (May 24): Sources Say BP Looking Beyond 'Top Kill' with Supertanker Fix

UPDATE (May 21): Why the Supertanker Fix Works at Depth... but the Government Won't Listen

The suck-and-salvage technique was developed in desperation across the Arabian Gulf following a spill of mammoth proportions — 700 million gallons — that has until now gone unreported, as Saudi Arabia is a closed society, and its oil company, Saudi Aramco, remains owned by the House of Saud. But in 1993 and into '94, with four leaking tankers and two gushing wells, the royal family had an environmental disaster nearly sixty-five times the size of Exxon Valdez on its hands, and it desperately needed a solution.

Gulf Oil Spill Supertanker Solution - BP Ignoring Secret Saudi Supertankers? - Esquire

roachboy · 05-25-2010, 12:59 PM

so really, ace, the problem is that the obama administration isn't consulting with you about how to deal with this. but if you're such an expert then---again---why are you bothering to post stuff on a messageboard? why aren't you in louisiana bossing people around and being all "leadershippy"? i think your priorities are outta wack that you'd prefer to see the administration foundering than let them know that the Key to All Things is hiding out on a messageboard waiting to get a Call.

aceventura3 · 05-25-2010, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Tankers aren't capable of "sucking oil" up off the ocean surface. They don't have anything close to the proper equipment. What you mean is an oil skimmer, and there are a finite number of those, and they're useless unless the water is calm.

The technique has been used according to what I have read.

Quote:

Again, who's going to replace BP here? Who, in the free market, is capable of fixing this if BP isn't? You've yet to answer that, ace. The Coast Guard has already said they're not capable of dealing with this, and they're the most likely government agency to have the resources. Who else in the government is capable of handling this? FEMA's not (not to mention that Louisiana would probably justifiably go ape-shit if FEMA showed up again). Who else?

You miss the point. I can not make my position any clearer on our government leading this effort and getting BP out of the picture. BP is not the only major oil company in the world - I don't understand your point, just like I did not get the WH press conference response to the same question.

Quote:

Many of us are still saying "how could BP have fucked this up so badly?", which is where the discussion about the plan comes from. But obviously this is all the government's fault, so let's talk more about that red herring.

What a contradiction. BP is "bad" but you won't "fire" them from this??? BP delays drilling the relief well by 2 weeks and you and the administration give them a pass to screw up more? I don't get it!

---------- Post added at 09:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:04 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

so really, ace, the problem is that the obama administration isn't consulting with you about how to deal with this. but if you're such an expert then---again---why are you bothering to post stuff on a messageboard? why aren't you in louisiana bossing people around and being all "leadershippy"? i think your priorities are outta wack that you'd prefer to see the administration foundering than let them know that the Key to All Things is hiding out on a messageboard waiting to get a Call.

Back up. You said I did not have a clue that there was no technology that could fix this, suggesting I just make stuff up. There are things that could be tried that have not been tried - I admit I don't know what will work best (realizing there are two key problems, one the leak and the other the oil slick). I gave you something and you now ignore it with an ad hominem argument. Perhaps one day, you will re-read this or reflect. I am pretty secure with what I present here and you are not fooling anyone following this.

roachboy · 05-25-2010, 02:30 PM

no ace i said that you didnt have a clue about the regulatory system that this comes out of so dont have a clue when you wave your finger around and decry some imaginary lack of "leadership" on the part of the obama administration---of which i am no great fan in alot of ways, let me tell you---but this comes out of long-term negligence by minerals management and long terms sweetheart deals for oil corporations (which donate 3/4 of their campaign monies to republicans btw.) this comes out of a systematic construction in the image of oligarchy and there's plenty of blame to go around for it. if you look at this particular situation there's plenty. if you look at the obscenity that is the regulatory system, there's ALOT of blame to go around. and alot of it is heaped on the door of the right....PARTICULARLY the kind of thinking that's at the heart of the regulatory system itself, that bidness knows best and stay out of their way and help them make bigger profits and exempt them from stewardship or even from rudimentary safety at the regulatory level because bidness knows best....so to have someone like you, who happens to be the posterchild for this relationship to corporate structures that is on your kness facing forward with movements of the head region that cause one to raise one's eyebrows, to bitch about some imaginary "lack of leadership" when it is the way of thinking about regulation and bidess that **you** share that is above all responsible for the regulatory set-up that allowed this fiasco to happen in the first place....it's laughable ace.

so you misunderstood what i wrote, i doubt you read it.

ring · 05-25-2010, 03:00 PM

Bravo. I'm grateful for your time, dedication, & writing skills.

I'm sick of listening to those that spout disingenuous drivel,
just to to hear themselves speak.

Yeah, let's just fire BP. What an incredibly naive, uninformed statement.

The Associated Press: BP's own probe finds safety issues on Atlantis rig

aceventura3 · 05-25-2010, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ring

Bravo. I'm grateful for your time, dedication, & writing skills.

I'm sick of listening to those that spout disingenuous drivel,
just to to hear themselves speak.

Yeah, let's just fire BP. What an incredibly naive, uninformed statement.

I am still waiting for clarification of the position that you and others are in. First, you make accusations about BP regarding negligence, fraud, deception and other forms of corporate misbehavior, yet you want to rely on them to fix the problem????

For the record when I used "fire", it is kinda short hand for...do I really need to clarify this, gee?

ring · 05-25-2010, 03:25 PM

It's kinda like the DEA using druggies as paid informants.

It's a rob Peter to pay Paul, fiasco.

Gee.

aceventura3 · 05-25-2010, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ring

It's kinda like the DEA using druggies as paid informants.

It's a rob Peter to pay Paul, fiasco.

Gee.

Clear as mud to me. The druggies don't collect evidence, make arrests, etc, the DEA does the work.

roachboy · 05-25-2010, 04:00 PM

ace---stop it. either do the research and get a working understanding of the general framework that's in place here or stop blathering as if you know. it's obvious you don't. the absurdity of that last analogy removes any doubt.

i wouldn't mind informed debate with you---but it never happens because you don't do the research, you construct weak arguments and when you're called on it you pretend not to understand. this is the stuff fifth grades do. i'm tired of it. do the work of shut up.

i didnt know a lot about this scenario before the deepwater horizon exploded. i found out about it along with alot of other people as this fiasco has played out.

i'm beyond appalled that this happened in the gulf.
and i'm stunned and--i dont know what to call it--by what i've found out has been the case between mms, epa and oil corporations.
i obviously hope that something can happen to end the disaster in the gulf---but i really hope this exposure of the relations between oil industry and state spells the beginning of the end of this period, this arrangement, the way of doing business.

roachboy · 05-26-2010, 03:44 AM

this is pretty amazing, even in this context---an inspector general's report about minerals management's new orleans crew, a fine bunch of crank blowing porn watching folk, the absolute embodiment of an understanding of regulation that sees it as useless, as an obstruction and so fills enforcement if you want to call it that with people who fit that profile:

Quote:

IG report: Meth, porn use by drilling agency staff
By MATTHEW DALY, Associated Press Writer Matthew Daly, Associated Press Writer Tue May 25, 12:36 pm ET

WASHINGTON – Staff members at an agency that oversees offshore drilling accepted tickets to sports events, lunches and other gifts from oil and gas companies and used government computers to view pornography, according to an Interior Department report alleging a culture of cronyism between regulators and the industry.

In at least one case, an inspector for the Minerals Management Service admitted using crystal methamphetamine and said he might have been under the influence of the drug the next day at work, according to the report by the acting inspector general of the Interior Department.

The report cites a variety of violations of federal regulations and ethics rules at the agency's Louisiana office. Previous inspector general investigations have focused on inappropriate behavior by the royalty-collection staff in the agency's Denver office.

The report adds to the climate of frustration and criticism facing the Obama administration in the monthlong oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, although it covers actions before the spill. Millions of gallons of oil are gushing into the Gulf, endangering wildlife and the livelihoods of fishermen, as scrutiny intensifies on a lax regulatory climate.

The report began as a routine investigation, the acting inspector general, Mary Kendall, said in a cover letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, whose department includes the agency.

"Unfortunately, given the events of April 20 of this year, this report had become anything but routine, and I feel compelled to release it now," she wrote.

Her biggest concern is the ease with which minerals agency employees move between industry and government, Kendall said. While no specifics were included in the report, "we discovered that the individuals involved in the fraternizing and gift exchange — both government and industry — have often known one another since childhood," Kendall said.

Their relationships took precedence over their jobs, Kendall said.

The report follows a 2008 report by then-Inspector General Earl Devaney that decried a "culture of ethical failure" and conflicts of interest at the minerals agency.

Salazar called the latest report "deeply disturbing" and said it highlights the need for changes he has proposed, including a plan to abolish the minerals agency and replace it with three new entities.

The report "is further evidence of the cozy relationship between some elements of MMS and the oil and gas industry," Salazar said Tuesday. "I appreciate and fully support the inspector general's strong work to root out the bad apples in MMS."

Salazar said several employees cited in the report have resigned, were fired or were referred for prosecution. Actions may be taken against others as warranted, he said.

The report covers activities between 2000 and 2008. Salazar said he has asked Kendall to expand her investigation to look into agency actions since he took office in January 2009.

Salazar last week proposed eliminating the Minerals Management Service and replacing it with two bureaus and a revenue collection office. The name Minerals Management Service would no longer exist.

Members of Congress and President Barack Obama have criticized what they call the cozy relationship between regulators and oil companies and have vowed to reform MMS, which both regulates the industry and collects billions in royalties from it.

The report said that employees from the Lake Charles, La., MMS office had repeatedly accepted gifts, including hunting and fishing trips from the Island Operating Company, an oil and gas company working on oil platforms regulated by the Interior Department.

Taking such gifts "appears to have been a generally accepted practice," the report said.

Two employees at the Lake Charles office admitted using illegal drugs, and many inspectors had e-mails that contained inappropriate humor and pornography on their government computers, the report said.

Kendall recommended a series of steps to improve ethical standards, including a two-year waiting period for agency employees to join the oil or gas industry.

One MMS inspector conducted four inspections of Island Operating platforms while negotiating and later accepting employment with the company, the report said.

A spokeswoman for Island Operating Company could not be reached for comment. The Louisiana-based company says on it website that it has "an impeccable safety record" and cites Safety Awards for Excellence from the MMS in 1999 and 2002. The company was a finalist in other years.

"Island knows how to get the job done safely and compliantly," the website says.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., called the report "yet another black eye for the Minerals Management Service. Once again, MMS employees have been found culpable of performing shoddy oversight of offshore drilling. The report reveals an overly cozy culture between MMS regulators and the oil industry."

Feinstein, who chairs a Senate Appropriations subcommittee that oversees the Interior Department, said she will hold a hearing next month on Salazar's plan to restructure the agency.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100525/..._washington_12

this connects back to the 2007 report about bribes being accepted and sexual liaisons being conducted that involved mms and oil corporation people etc etc etc. continuity. what a fine thing.

a pox on all their houses.

meanwhile, back out on the deepwater horizon, here's a composite narrative of the hours just prior to the explosion:

Quote:

Panel Suggests Signs of Trouble Before Rig Explosion
By HENRY FOUNTAIN and TOM ZELLER Jr.

In the hours before the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded last month in the Gulf of Mexico, there were strong warning signs that something was terribly wrong with the well, according to a Congressional committee that was briefed on the accident by executives from BP.

Among the red flags, the panel said, were several equipment readings suggesting that gas was bubbling into the well, a potential sign of an impending blowout. Investigators also noted “other events in the 24 hours before the explosion that require further inquiry,” including a critical decision to replace heavy mud in the pipe rising from the seabed with seawater, possibly increasing the risk of an explosion.

The new information, released Tuesday night in a memorandum addressed to members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, confirmed many of the committee’s own findings from a review of documents and from statements and testimony given at Congressional hearings over the last two weeks.

The memorandum provides the most detailed accounting of the events and decisions made aboard the Deepwater Horizon before the accident on April 20 that took 11 lives and caused a so-far unchecked torrent of oil to pour into the gulf, and comes as BP prepared an ambitious “top kill” procedure in a new effort to stop the leak.

The findings are preliminary, and most come from BP, which owns the lease on the well and has at hearings pointed fingers at other companies for the problems on the rig, including Transocean, the rig’s owner. In a statement late Monday, Tony Hayward, BP’s chief executive, said, “A number of companies are involved, including BP, and it is simply too early — and not up to us — to say who is at fault."

Although one-sided, the account of procedural and equipment failures offers one road map for federal investigators as they try to determine who is ultimately responsible for the accident. As part of the investigation, they are also looking at the role of regulatory agencies.

Some of those who survived the explosion, including managers from BP and Transocean, are expected to testify at hearings in Louisiana to be held by the Coast Guard and the federal Minerals Management Service, beginning Wednesday.

The testimony may help clear up some of the uncertainties about the day of the accident, including who was making the decisions. But the new information from BP — combined with past testimony by executives, analysis of documents by The New York Times and interviews with independent drilling experts — is beginning to paint a picture of a complex operation that went awry just as it was drawing to a close.

Drilling logs from the Deepwater Horizon suggest that shortly after midnight on the morning of the explosion, attention had turned to temporarily plugging and capping the well so the rig could disconnect and move to another job. Halliburton, the contractor hired by BP to provide cementing services, had spent the past several weeks cementing each new segment of the well into place. Halliburton was also responsible for plugging it.

BP and Congressional investigators have raised questions about the cementing, suggesting that the seal might have been faulty and failed to keep gas from rising up in the well. According to BP, the cement work took longer than normal, and there were concerns that the quality of the cement might have been compromised by contamination with mud.

However, in testimony before Congressional hearings, Halliburton executives have said that the company adhered strictly to the specifications provided by BP for the cementing of the well.

BP’s investigation, the memorandum said, also indicated that there might have been problems with the blowout preventer — the stack of valves and rams on the seafloor designed to seal off the well in the event of an emergency — at least five hours before the explosion. A sharp fall in fluid levels in the riser pipe that connects the well to the rig suggested that one of the seals in the preventer was leaking.

The memo from the House committee, which is led by Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California, also shed more light on a series of important tests conducted that day to determine whether the cement was holding. Two hours before the explosion, an early pressure test was performed incorrectly and produced unacceptable results. The test was repeated and there was an “indicator of a very large abnormality,” BP’s investigator told the committee, adding that workers might have made a “fundamental mistake” in ignoring it. Shortly before 8 p.m., two hours before the explosion, workers were “satisfied” that the test was successful, according to BP’s investigation.

The decision was then made to begin withdrawing the drilling mud, a cocktail of clay, water and minerals used to keep downward pressure on the powerful fountain of oil and gas trying to push its way up out of the tapped reservoir.

Philip W. Johnson, an engineering professor at the University of Alabama and a specialist in petroleum engineering, said in an e-mail message that with normal pressure test readings indicating a good seal on the casing and the temporary cement plug, it is not unusual to displace the mud with seawater before the cement job is finished to get a cleaner surface for the cement to adhere to. “But without a good pressure test, it would be reckless to displace,” he said.

Congressional investigators and news accounts have suggested that the decision to begin removing drilling mud was a subject of intense discussion — and perhaps even disagreement — among engineers working on the rig that day.

Executives from both Transocean and BP have said in testimony before Congress that they were unfamiliar with the details of that debate. But the hearings this week in Louisiana — which will include testimony from the top managers on the rig from BP and Transocean — may provide a clearer picture of the day’s deliberations.

In the final hour before the explosion, after the crew had begun withdrawing the mud, there were more signs that the well was going out of control, the memo said. They included a sharp increase in fluid coming from the well, even when the pumps were shut down — an indication, drilling experts say, of a “kick,” a surge in pressure from oil and gas deep down in the well. If not controlled, such a kick can lead to a full-scale blowout, and that is exactly what happened at roughly 9:49 p.m.

Panel Suggests Signs of Trouble Before Rig Explosion - NYTimes.com

-->something that's of interest in this is the sourcing for this information. a bulk of it comes from bp, so the narrative emphasizes concerns about the cement (halliburton) and the rig (transocean)...

on today's top kill attempt:
BP attempts to plug Gulf of Mexico oil leak with mud in 'top kill' technique | Environment | guardian.co.uk

which is contingent on these tests:
Update on Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Response| Press release | BP

as the stakes go even higher:
BP facing extra $60bn in legal costs as US loses patience | Environment | The Guardian

roachboy · 05-26-2010, 05:54 AM

there was no fucking plan:

Quote:

BP poised for 'top kill' to try to plug spill; final decision to come Wednesday

By Joel Achenbach and Steven Mufson
Wednesday, May 26, 2010; 8:47 AM

The most critical moment in the oil spill crisis in the Gulf of Mexico is at hand, as BP engineers armed with 50,000 barrels of dense mud and a fleet of robotic submarines are poised to attempt a "top kill" maneuver to plug the gushing well a mile below the surface.

It's far from a sure bet. BP chief executive Tony Hayward said Wednesday morning that the company hadn't yet decided whether to go forward with the risky plan, which rather than sealing the well could possibly make the leak worse.

"Over the last 12 hours, continuing through the night, we have continued to take pressure readings and establish flow pulse," Hayward said on NBC's "Today" show. "Later this morning I will review that with the team and I will take a final decision as to whether or not we should proceed."

Kent Wells, the oil company's senior vice president of exploration and production, told reporters in a conference call Tuesday that the top kill maneuver "has been done successfully in the past, but it hasn't been done at this depth."

BP has warned the public that the top kill might not be a pretty process. The company is providing a live feed from the sea bottom showing the oil gushing from the end of a broken pipe. The top kill will likely mean mud spewing from the pipe as well.

"Those of you who are watching it live on the feed should be aware there will be changes to the flow patterns. That should not be interpreted as either success or failure. It is simply a consequence of the impact of beginning to pump mud," Hayward said on NBC.

The top kill maneuver would be the first stab at shutting down the well since the April 20 blowout and fire that killed 11 workers on the drilling rig Deepwater Horizon.

Efforts to capture the spewing oil in the five weeks since the spill have had limited success. The expanding slick has ridden a steady sea breeze onto 70 miles of Louisiana's shoreline and into shellfish-rich estuaries. The sight of oil-soaked brown pelicans is now common. Sticky rust-brown oil slathers the grass in the marshlands. Federal officials closed more fishing grounds Tuesday, bringing the total to more than 54,000 square miles, nearly a quarter of the federal waters in the gulf.

Oil company executives will be grilled in federal hearings resuming Wednesday in a hotel in suburban New Orleans. Later this week, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is set to deliver a safety review of offshore drilling to President Obama. And then Obama will fly to the gulf on Friday for his second visit to the region since the crisis began. "Like everybody, he's frustrated," Carol Browner, assistant to the president for energy and climate change, told CNN.

The developments on shore may be overshadowed by what happens in the hours and days ahead in the deep water, where the only light comes from the lamps of the robotic submarines. BP's top-kill plan has been devised over more than a month by what BP calls a dream team of engineers from the oil industry and from such government agencies as the Energy Department, the Minerals Management Service and the U.S. Geological Survey. BP has also logged 17,000 suggestions from outsiders, Wells said.

Huge ships and drilling rigs now crowd the surface 5,000 feet above the blown-out well. Two rigs are drilling relief wells but are not expected to complete their work until August. Parked in the middle of everything is the command vessel for the top-kill operation, the 312-foot Helix Q4000. Close by will be the 381-foot HOS Centerline, one of the largest supply ships in the world, capable of pumping 50 barrels of mud a minute. Two other backup ships carrying mud will be nearby.

All the work at depth is performed by the remotely operated vehicles (ROVs), numbering 12 by latest count, and operated from the surface ships while BP engineers monitor the process from Houston. The ROVs have tinkered with the five-story blowout preventer that sits atop the wellhead. They fixed a leaking hydraulic line, for example, using an ordinary wrench pinched by a robotic arm. They also removed the "yellow pod," the brain of the blowout preventer, and engineers repaired it at the surface before replacing it at depth.

On Tuesday, BP engineers began diagnostic tests on the blowout preventer. This is a critical phase in which the company will learn how much pressure must be overcome when the drilling mud is injected into the well. It could also lead them to abort the maneuver.

"We've got a crack team of experts that are going to pore over the diagnostic data," Wells said. "There is a remote possibility that we would get some information that it wouldn't work."

If all goes as planned, a 30,000-horsepower engine aboard the HOS Centerline will pump mud at 40 to 50 barrels a minute to the Q4000 command vessel, then down a newly installed pipe to the gulf bottom, and then through flexible hoses into multiple portals in the blowout preventer.

What happens next would be all-important. The mud would have to go somewhere. The hope is that so much of it would be forced into the preventer that, even as some of it surged up the riser pipe and into the water along with oil and gas, much of it would go to the bottom of the well. The well would lose all pressure and would become static. Later, BP would inject cement down the wellbore to permanently seal the well.

"We know we'll lose some [mud] out the top, but can we pump fast enough to ultimately kill the well?" Wells said. He said the goal is to "outrun the well."

The danger is that the top kill could worsen the situation. The powerful injection of mud might destabilize the blowout preventer, or punch a bigger hole in the sharp kink in the riser just a few feet above the blowout preventer. If the mud doesn't beat back the spill, that could mean a mess of mud mixed with a larger flow of oil and gas.

Greg McCormack, director of the Petroleum Extension Service at the University of Texas at Austin, said he's cautiously optimistic that the top kill will work, saying: "There's always a trade-off between making it better and making it worse. This probably has the least amount of risk of making it worse."

After a protest from Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and discussions with Coast Guard Adm. Thad W. Allen, BP said Tuesday that it will continue to provide live video feed from the sea floor during the top-kill attempt.

The exact timing and pace of the maneuver have not been set, but Wells said the mud injection will begin no sooner than Wednesday. He cautioned that it could take two days to seal the well.

He also gave details for the first time of another backup plan. The top of the blowout preventer would be severed using the robotic submarines. That would temporarily increase the flow of oil into the gulf by 5 to 15 percent, Wells estimated. Then a specially configured containment dome would be lowered onto the blowout preventer. Ideally it would capture much more of the oil than has been contained so far with a small pipe in the end of the leaking riser, he said. That insertion tool has captured an average of 2,000 barrels a day, Wells said, but the well is leaking many times that amount.

The new containment dome could be lowered within a few days if the top kill fails, he said.

BP poised for 'top kill' to try to plug spill; final decision to come Wednesday

so maybe there's something i don't understand about drilling for oil and such, but it sure as hell looks to me like bp's been focused more on trying to capture the oil than shut down the leak.

maybe the thinking was more about being able to act expediently...

here's another bit on the routinized corruption characteristic of "regulation" cowboy capitalist style and the petroleum industry. it's based out of the same report as above:

washingtonpost.com

here's a link to the inspector general's report:
http://www.doioig.gov/upload/IOC_RED...05_25_2010.pdf

see if you are ideologically predisposed to see regulation as useless, you'd be inclined to staff regulatory agencies with people who make of regulation confirmation of your ideological predisposition, which of course you would see not as self-confirming, not as following from your appointments and predelections, but rather from the nature of regulation itself. this truncated view of the world is fundamental to cowboy capitalism, an enabling condition.

Baraka_Guru · 05-26-2010, 06:07 AM

So they've moved on from the junkshot to a mudpump?

I hope it works. I also hope they film it: it would be an epic submarine story of Man vs. Nature, a mudpump vs. an oilspout.

The_Jazz · 05-26-2010, 06:13 AM

RB, I get why they're trying to capture the oil rather than cap the well. Honestly, it's a lot easier to do, given the pressures involved. The oil is being forced out of the drill hole by the weight of earth and sea above it. It's under pressure and wants to escape. Stoping a liquid flow is much harder than just containing it. It's simply the path of least resistance, and honestly, it's the least bad option, at least until hurricane season.

---------- Post added at 09:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:12 AM ----------

BG, the junkshot is the mudpump. Same thing, different name as I understand it.

Baraka_Guru · 05-26-2010, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

BG, the junkshot is the mudpump. Same thing, different name as I understand it.

I thought the junkshot was old tires and dental floss or something. Now they're talking about 50,000 barrels of mud.

roachboy · 05-26-2010, 06:36 AM

i get that. i think the combination of the IG report and the inconsistent infotainment brought to us by bp's media crisis management team created extra static in my brain.

so from what i understand, it's not obvious yet that there will be a top kill attempt. depth, pressure, temperature, gasses and the quite real possibility that incorrect actions could make this worse.

what's interesting is the extent to which the various narrative production systems seem to want this to be the Climax of the Story. it's a curious phenomenon, the need for narrative symmetry running up against a reality that's not necessarily co-operative.

Hektore · 05-26-2010, 09:10 AM

To add to this already depressing story:

Oil reaches Louisiana shores - The Big Picture - Boston.com

Not really sure what else there is to be said about the environmental problems.

ring · 05-26-2010, 09:28 AM

The UAE are offering their assistance, so is Russia, and eleven other countries, I believe.

UAE - Oil Spill & Pollution Clean up Contractors Directory

There is also this:

http://www.worldfishing.net/news101/...kle-gulf-spill

but I haven't heard much about it yet.

roachboy · 05-26-2010, 09:39 AM

at the moment, it appears as though we're moving through some kind of strange countdown to the top-kill attempt---which is strange because everyone is saying its about a 50/50 thing--maybe a little better. so it'll either work or it wont. if it doesn't it'll either leave things unchanged or make em worse. last update is that the feds approved the procedure, but BP seems not to yet be ready to move.

perversely, this will be a pretty available media event:

BP Agrees to Show ‘Top Kill’ Live - The Lede Blog - NYTimes.com

links to a bunch of feeds are available on this page.

hope this works.

and this....this i really hope turns out to be wrong:

Wetlands cleanup may be impossible - Gulf oil spill- msnbc.com

05-24-2010, 12:22 PM	#162 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	there's alot of different types of information in this thread. there's links to bp's website (gasp!) to the "official" response site (managed information if there ever was any)... i presuppose that folk can think for themselves and read critically. so there's not a whole lot of point to the drive-by bullshit. save it for another thread. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 05-24-2010 at 12:25 PM..

05-24-2010, 01:06 PM	#164 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	ace, dear, its not a matter of "bad things not happening." it's a matter of it being kinda predictable that something could, say, go wrong with an oil rig that's drilling at the bottom of the ocean. you'd think there'd be an actual plan for dealing with contingencies. but bp seems to have decided that the way to play things in this regard is to cut corners, avoid development and/or studies and/or regulation to the greatest possible extent and when the shit hits the fan pay the fines. they've demonstrated this "business model" for 20 years. the data's above, in this thread. you'd think that a sane regulatory system would have taken into account the responsibilities of stewardship of a complex ecosystem like the gulf of mexico and even if you manly man conservatives can't get your manly heads around notions of environmental conservation or protection then you should at least be able to recognize that there are multiple stakeholders in the gulf of mexico, from fishing to tourism to plants animals fish and other things, and this not only close to the deepwater horizon site, but quite far away and potentially very far away as the oil from the spill reaches the main gulf currents and starts getting pulled out to sea and toward florida. for starters. none of these stakeholder interests have been protected by the existing regulatory system. so you have a corporation with a history of negligence and a policy of fuck it when something happens we'll pay the fines all in the interest of profit maximization, which is of course in the manly man world of capitalism a necessarily good thing until something horrific happens like this at which point all the manly defenders of uncontrolled capitalism start looking for Daddy to bail them out or some Superhero to come in to save Everybody at the last moment because that's how invisible hands roll---but in this unfortunate situation, you not only have a corporation with a history of negligence and a host of specific instances of negilgence in the period leading up to the explosion and collapse and spill, but you have this corporation operating in a "regulatory" system that requires very little of them, that is passive, that does not protect other stakeholder interests, that does not protect the commons, that does not steward resources, but instead follows the lead of oil corporations. and the oil corporations have paid big money for this set-up. and for the political consent which had enabled it. and for the consent of people like you, ace. those were the priorities. not designing systems to contain leaks a mile below the surface of the ocean. so there are no systems. there are no systems and there are no ideas for systems. so there are no solutions at this point. but there sure as fuck is a leak, and a massive one at that. so it's entirely disengenuous to act as though this is just a bad thing that's happened. this is a preventable thing that was not prevented in the context of a drilling policy that's risky and problematic at best which was not hedged round with regulation commensurate with that risk. so there's nothing in place or on the horizon that can stop this disaster from continuing. it's be nice were the junk shot to work, but like everything else that's never been tried a mile below the surface of the water. and we're just finding out about all these---um---gaps in testing and thinking now, 3 weeks into one of the worst oil spills ever. meanwhile bp was dumping dispersants onto the oil at a mile below the surface that were not only unacceptably toxic but which didn't fucking disperse the oil. what they did was cause it to break up and then coagulate again, but with the dispersant as part of the new tar-ball masses, which float well below the surface of the ocean and below the reach of imaging technologies. it just goes on and on ace. what happened is not just some random bad thing. what happened was an accident compounded by negligence corruption short-sightedness and greed. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 05-24-2010 at 01:09 PM..

05-24-2010, 04:04 PM	#166 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Ace, if they had a plan, it certainly isn't apparent given the lack of response. They still don't have enough booms deployed and no idea of how to stop the leak. One would think that a plan in place would have been used sometime in the last 5 weeks. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

05-24-2010, 04:20 PM	#167 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Have they tried to junkshot yet? The whole thing sounds like a crapshoot, so I don't see why not.... __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

05-25-2010, 06:04 AM	#171 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	according to happy-face brand triage central The Ongoing Administration-Wide Response to the Deepwater Horizon BP Oil Spill brought to you by all the organizations which are hoping to escape this without ruin, bp is continuing to drill 2 relief wells. these seem the most likely avenue to stop the leaking, but they're also some time out yet before they'll do anything. meanwhile, the administration had ordered bp to cut the amount of dispersant they're using, which is not only causing oil to coagulate hundreds of feet below the surface (which makes measurements a problem, which helps brand triage maybe) but is also toxic on its own: Gulf oil spill: White House orders BP to cut use of dispersant by half \| Environment \| The Guardian more great planning from those champions of the environment at british petroleum. meanwhile, pulling this from the giant repetition-o-sphere that is the net, this could have come from anywhere because it's everywhere the same, but apparently the equipments' in place for a top-kill attempt. the junk shot is plan b. BP To Start Unproven "Top Kill" Maneuver On Oil Spill - MyStateLine.com o and ace: your story is stupid. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-25-2010, 06:06 AM	#173 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	If that's the case, Ace, then why did they have to construct both top hats? It's not like either was specifically designed for this leak. You'd have also thought that they'd have tested the technology at that depth especially given that it ultimately failed. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

05-25-2010, 06:09 AM	#174 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	ace...are we going down the road of crack-head literalism here? why would that be of any interest? do you work for british petroleum? did you author the plan you're so sure exists? if not, i am not sure i see the point of this entire line. ok if there was a plan, it was entirely inadequate. i think the plan was basically whatever the absolute minimum was and a decision fuck it, let's pay the fine. if you read the article i posted above from the washington post about mms and gulf drilling, you'll see a wholesale breakdown in accountability on all sides already in place well before this disaster got started. profits uber alles, ace. mms is full of people who think like you do. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-25-2010, 06:12 AM	#175 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	A 90-day plan to stop oil spillage doesn't seem like a very good plan. Should nobody be upset with BP's 90-day plan? Because it's a plan, right? As in it was made in advance, right? __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

05-25-2010, 06:44 AM	#177 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	If your scenario is correct, Ace, whoever at BP concocted this plan of getting the relief well started 2 weeks after the accident (knowing it would take 90 days to complete) -along with whoever in the government approved it - should be brought up on criminal negligence charges. That's the stupidest fucking plan I've ever of since it basically dooms the fishing and tourism industies during and after the spill. I find it impossible to believe that you honestly think that BP is going to knowingly have a plan in place that's going to open themselves up to billions of dollars in losses, millions in legal costs and years of court time. To drive their stock price down by 40%? If that's was really and truly the plan, as you seem to believe, then I hope that their Directors and Officers insurance premiums are paid because those insurance carriers are going to pay out whatever limits there are, regardless of what those limits are. That's the only logical conclusion of your story, Ace. And it makes no sense at all. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

05-25-2010, 07:09 AM	#179 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	They've stated that they had to get the equipment in place. One would think that a major part of a prudent plan would have been to have that equipment standing by. Ace, I would agree with you about getting BP out of the way if there was ANY other entity with the equipment, manpower and experience that was able to take over. The gulf has been an almost exclusive playground for BP (once you factor in the Gulf Oil purchase in the 90's) for decades. Who else in the world could possibly take over that's not already involved? I've heard exactly ZERO offers to take it over. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

05-25-2010, 12:29 PM	#181 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Tankers aren't capable of "sucking oil" up off the ocean surface. They don't have anything close to the proper equipment. What you mean is an oil skimmer, and there are a finite number of those, and they're useless unless the water is calm. Again, who's going to replace BP here? Who, in the free market, is capable of fixing this if BP isn't? You've yet to answer that, ace. The Coast Guard has already said they're not capable of dealing with this, and they're the most likely government agency to have the resources. Who else in the government is capable of handling this? FEMA's not (not to mention that Louisiana would probably justifiably go ape-shit if FEMA showed up again). Who else? Many of us are still saying "how could BP have fucked this up so badly?", which is where the discussion about the plan comes from. But obviously this is all the government's fault, so let's talk more about that red herring. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

05-25-2010, 12:37 PM	#182 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	ace you really haven't a fucking clue do you? there's tons of information in this thread and still you haven't the first idea of what you're talking about. you seem to have a need to exculpate bp from the mess they made (enabled by those eager cheerleaders of private enterprise and royalties, the minerals management service). it's like you decided at some point that it's ok to ignore all of reality and just repeat the same stupid point over and over as if you're waiting for the moment when reality will decide: "o for gods sake let's just change so that ace guy will stop hitting his face against that door." you don't seem capable of admitting that there is no technology hiding anywhere that will just swoop in and fix this and the reason for that is---again---that bp didn't develop it because they didn't fucking have to because mms bought the half-baked line that bp fed them that a serious incident that involved more than superficial problems was "unlikely" want proof? look at the initial exploration document filed with mms in 2009: http://www.gomr.mms.gov/PI/PDFImages/PLANS/29/29977.pdf look at the environmental protocols that run throughout it. you just want something Manly looking to happen no matter how empty no matter how meaningless because you like the illusion of "leadership" even when there's nothing to be lead, no real coherent options to be advanced, no secret weapon to be unveiled. now in a sane world, you'd think that drilling a mile below the surface would be understood as a risk, wouldn't you? but not in this case. so now, ace, that's the situation. please stop repeating things counter to reality over and over. reality isn't going to change. but maybe there is something we can agree on: we all should i think hope that the top kill works tomorrow. no matter what you think of the actors, no matter what political viewpoint you work from, we all should hope this works. the junk shot seems a farce. the relief wells are at least 60 days away from being able to do anything. so if this doesn't work tomorrow, we may in the short-to-medium term be fucked. and no matter what that might mean, you can be sure that it will mean something else, something much worse, for the ecosystem of the gulf of mexico and for everyone who works on it lives near it depends on it, swims in it eats in or from it. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-25-2010, 12:59 PM	#184 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	so really, ace, the problem is that the obama administration isn't consulting with you about how to deal with this. but if you're such an expert then---again---why are you bothering to post stuff on a messageboard? why aren't you in louisiana bossing people around and being all "leadershippy"? i think your priorities are outta wack that you'd prefer to see the administration foundering than let them know that the Key to All Things is hiding out on a messageboard waiting to get a Call. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-25-2010, 02:30 PM	#186 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	no ace i said that you didnt have a clue about the regulatory system that this comes out of so dont have a clue when you wave your finger around and decry some imaginary lack of "leadership" on the part of the obama administration---of which i am no great fan in alot of ways, let me tell you---but this comes out of long-term negligence by minerals management and long terms sweetheart deals for oil corporations (which donate 3/4 of their campaign monies to republicans btw.) this comes out of a systematic construction in the image of oligarchy and there's plenty of blame to go around for it. if you look at this particular situation there's plenty. if you look at the obscenity that is the regulatory system, there's ALOT of blame to go around. and alot of it is heaped on the door of the right....PARTICULARLY the kind of thinking that's at the heart of the regulatory system itself, that bidness knows best and stay out of their way and help them make bigger profits and exempt them from stewardship or even from rudimentary safety at the regulatory level because bidness knows best....so to have someone like you, who happens to be the posterchild for this relationship to corporate structures that is on your kness facing forward with movements of the head region that cause one to raise one's eyebrows, to bitch about some imaginary "lack of leadership" when it is the way of thinking about regulation and bidess that you share that is above all responsible for the regulatory set-up that allowed this fiasco to happen in the first place....it's laughable ace. so you misunderstood what i wrote, i doubt you read it. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-25-2010, 03:00 PM	#187 (permalink)
ring ░ Location: ❤	Bravo. I'm grateful for your time, dedication, & writing skills. I'm sick of listening to those that spout disingenuous drivel, just to to hear themselves speak. Yeah, let's just fire BP. What an incredibly naive, uninformed statement. The Associated Press: BP's own probe finds safety issues on Atlantis rig

05-25-2010, 03:25 PM	#189 (permalink)
ring ░ Location: ❤	It's kinda like the DEA using druggies as paid informants. It's a rob Peter to pay Paul, fiasco. Gee.

05-25-2010, 04:00 PM	#191 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	ace---stop it. either do the research and get a working understanding of the general framework that's in place here or stop blathering as if you know. it's obvious you don't. the absurdity of that last analogy removes any doubt. i wouldn't mind informed debate with you---but it never happens because you don't do the research, you construct weak arguments and when you're called on it you pretend not to understand. this is the stuff fifth grades do. i'm tired of it. do the work of shut up. i didnt know a lot about this scenario before the deepwater horizon exploded. i found out about it along with alot of other people as this fiasco has played out. i'm beyond appalled that this happened in the gulf. and i'm stunned and--i dont know what to call it--by what i've found out has been the case between mms, epa and oil corporations. i obviously hope that something can happen to end the disaster in the gulf---but i really hope this exposure of the relations between oil industry and state spells the beginning of the end of this period, this arrangement, the way of doing business. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-26-2010, 06:07 AM	#194 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	So they've moved on from the junkshot to a mudpump? I hope it works. I also hope they film it: it would be an epic submarine story of Man vs. Nature, a mudpump vs. an oilspout. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

05-26-2010, 06:13 AM	#195 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	RB, I get why they're trying to capture the oil rather than cap the well. Honestly, it's a lot easier to do, given the pressures involved. The oil is being forced out of the drill hole by the weight of earth and sea above it. It's under pressure and wants to escape. Stoping a liquid flow is much harder than just containing it. It's simply the path of least resistance, and honestly, it's the least bad option, at least until hurricane season. ---------- Post added at 09:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:12 AM ---------- BG, the junkshot is the mudpump. Same thing, different name as I understand it. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

05-26-2010, 06:36 AM	#197 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i get that. i think the combination of the IG report and the inconsistent infotainment brought to us by bp's media crisis management team created extra static in my brain. so from what i understand, it's not obvious yet that there will be a top kill attempt. depth, pressure, temperature, gasses and the quite real possibility that incorrect actions could make this worse. what's interesting is the extent to which the various narrative production systems seem to want this to be the Climax of the Story. it's a curious phenomenon, the need for narrative symmetry running up against a reality that's not necessarily co-operative. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-26-2010, 09:10 AM	#198 (permalink)
Hektore Junkie Location: Greater Harrisburg Area	To add to this already depressing story: Oil reaches Louisiana shores - The Big Picture - Boston.com Not really sure what else there is to be said about the environmental problems. __________________ The advantage law is the best law in rugby, because it lets you ignore all the others for the good of the game.

05-26-2010, 09:28 AM	#199 (permalink)
ring ░ Location: ❤	The UAE are offering their assistance, so is Russia, and eleven other countries, I believe. UAE - Oil Spill & Pollution Clean up Contractors Directory There is also this: http://www.worldfishing.net/news101/...kle-gulf-spill but I haven't heard much about it yet.

05-26-2010, 09:39 AM	#200 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	at the moment, it appears as though we're moving through some kind of strange countdown to the top-kill attempt---which is strange because everyone is saying its about a 50/50 thing--maybe a little better. so it'll either work or it wont. if it doesn't it'll either leave things unchanged or make em worse. last update is that the feds approved the procedure, but BP seems not to yet be ready to move. perversely, this will be a pretty available media event: BP Agrees to Show ‘Top Kill’ Live - The Lede Blog - NYTimes.com links to a bunch of feeds are available on this page. hope this works. and this....this i really hope turns out to be wrong: Wetlands cleanup may be impossible - Gulf oil spill- msnbc.com __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite