• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster...

Check out figure four (4) on this page -> http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/rrusso/florida_eq.html

Obviously that oil field was under tremendous pressure when that oil rig tapped into it. My guess is either they CAN'T contain that much pressure to cap off the well. Or the entire area is no so unstable that leaks are coming up everywhere and they are afraid of what might happen if they put the cork back in and the pressure spikes.

Evidently there was a 6.0 earthquake in the Gulf back in September of 2006. Anyone think setting off a nuke in that compressed and stressed strata is going to be a real good idea? :eek1: Why didn't the engineers know about the stress that area is under after Katrina dumped all the sediment into the Gulf? It probably was like drilling a hole into a soda can after you shook it up for several minutes.
 
Man that is depressing as hell. This isn't going to be an East Coast tragedy this is going to be an economic disaster for the entire nation, maybe the world.
 
Its a damned if we do and damned if we don't situation.. I certainly feel for the area(s)...

Many regards.. Tim of T and J
 
So how come a stainless steel tank could float ashore at Panama City but oil isn't making landfall there? :shrugs:

Only thing I can figure is during one of the rig explosions the tank went flying and landed in a different current that brought it to Panama City. But still you would think some of that oil would have landed in that current as well. Though this would make more sense if it ended up at the tip of Florida than in Panama City.
http://oceancurrents.rsmas.miami.edu/atlantic/loop-current.html
 
And of course, what's a disaster without a little bit of conspiracy theory thrown in? There was some major sell off of BP stock just three weeks before this incident took place..... Hmmm...

http://www.blacklistednews.com/?news_id=9027

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...yward-sold-shares-weeks-before-oil-spill.html

This may very well be a criminal matter with very far reaching implications...

Why isn't the US government more directly involved? Does anyone else think there is some substantial foot dragging going on despite the severity and magnitude of this disaster?
 
I was watching a show on this today. So so so depressing. It almost seems futile because whatever they do is a too little too late.

I was interested in seeing the pipe that the oil is coming from. That got me thinking. Why couldn't they go after the thing with some kind of giant tampon? Something they could shove in the pipe and expand it, instead of this cap thing that doesn't seem to be working?

I dunno? I'm not that smart and couldn't have all, or any for that matter, of the answers. :shrugs:

Wayne
 
Tampons work great for bullet wounds. But they basically tried this with one of the "fixes" already and it didnt work.
 
I was watching a show on this today. So so so depressing. It almost seems futile because whatever they do is a too little too late.

I was interested in seeing the pipe that the oil is coming from. That got me thinking. Why couldn't they go after the thing with some kind of giant tampon? Something they could shove in the pipe and expand it, instead of this cap thing that doesn't seem to be working?

I dunno? I'm not that smart and couldn't have all, or any for that matter, of the answers. :shrugs:

Wayne

In one of those videos I viewed, someone estimated that the pressure might be as much as 50,000 psi coming out of that pipe. Look at the flow and realize that this is with a mile of water pressing down on top of it. My guess is that there is no way to SHOVE something down that pipe.

Or after looking at other evidence, they are afraid to try, thinking that the oil (under that much pressure) will just push the entire pipe right out of the hole, or fracture the crust itself. I heard rumors that oil is coming out of other areas of the ground now.

As for trying to siphon off the oil as it comes out of the pipe by putting some sort of inverse funnel on it, well that seems like it would be a feasible idea if they would just get on and implement something like that. They should try to capture as much of the oil as possible before a hurricane comes into the Gulf and chases them all out of the area. Perhaps they are afraid to even start implementing something like this for fear that a hurricane will suddenly blow up and then they have yet another mess on their hands. :shrugs:

"Supertankers" are generally defined as those greater than 250,000 tonnes deadweight (meaning the maximum weight they can carry when fully loaded). Today's supertankers, on average, can carry about 2 million barrels or 84 million gallons of crude oil and petroleum product (42 gallons per barrel). The largest supertanker in the world is the Norwegian-owned Knock Nevis which is 647,955 tonnes deadweight and can hold 4.1 million barrels of petroleum.
Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Saudi_Arabia/pdf.pdf

But one thing is for certain, they really need to do SOMETHING and damned soon before the Gulf of Mexico just becomes one huge sea of oil!
 
Now this is REALLY interesting and food for thought...

Air space over oil disaster restricted, media access limited

BP’s latest efforts at containing the oil spill were given a huge assist this week by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), by way of temporary flight restrictions over much of the Deepwater Horizon well’s impacted area.

A new Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) issued late Wednesday night restricts air flights over BP’s Gulf of Mexico catastrophe and ultimately limits the media’s ability to provide current photography and video of much of the affected area. A map on the FAA website shows the controlled air space stretches from Louisiana to Florida and off-shore below the well site.

In part, the NOTAM states: “All aircraft operations are prohibited except those flights authorized by ATC, routine flights supporting offshore oil operations; federal, state, local and military flight operations supporting oil spill recovery and reconstitution efforts; and air medical and law enforcement operations.”

It goes on to state that numerous low level operations associated with the blown-out well have forced the restricted air space below 3,000 feet. These low level operations include aircraft making “sudden changes in direction, speed, and altitude.”

This latest move by a federal agency gives a clear indication of who is actually in charge of the US government. Blocking media access to much of the area where the oil debacle is most visible helps validate earlier reports by the media about restricted travel over and into the contaminated zone.

The NOTAM, issued on June 9 by the FAA, is a direct contradiction to President Obama’s insistence that BP provide more transparency, as noted in a letter from Obama’s point man, Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen, to BP CEO Tony Hayward.

The FAA notice also impacts documentary efforts of the worst man-made environmental disaster in the country’s history and will help BP in its containment efforts at public opinion, seeing how its containment efforts with the blown-out well have been futile thus far.

The New York Times reports journalists are repeatedly being denied access to public areas impacted by the environmental polluter’s unimpeded assault on the food chain. Those denying access to the media include not only BP, but local law enforcement, government officials and the US Coast Guard.

Michael Oreskes, a senior managing editor with the Associated Press, compares the Gulf situation with the embedding of reporters and military operations in Afghanistan.

“There is a continued effort to keep control over the access,” Mr. Oreskes said. “And even in places where the government is cooperating with us to provide access, it’s still a problem because it’s still access obtained through the government.”

In the NOTAM, the FAA identifies the nature of the oil catastrophe as being “dynamic” and for that reason all approved flights are subject to last-minute changes or cancellations.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/293304
 
Note the estimate in the text of the volume of flow possibly being as high as 100,000 barrels of oil per day

New estimates: BP oil debacle at 25,000 to 30,000 barrels per day

Government scientists on Thursday have doubled their previous estimates on the flow of oil pouring from BP’s runaway well in the Gulf of Mexico, making the newest numbers a stunning 25,000 to 30,000 barrels of oil. Per day.

New calculations on the BP oil spill dwarf the previous estimate of 12,000 to 19,000 barrels per day. The new numbers of 25,000 to 30,000 barrels per day, possibly as high as 40,000 barrels per day, more than double previous numbers and will undoubtedly lead to a showdown between BP and the US government over the amount of money BP will be asked to pay for cleaning up the environmental disaster as well as the amount levied against the environmental polluter in the the way of fines.

The new estimate will also increase, or confirm, suspicions many Americans feel over BP’s early estimates of 5,000 barrels per day, and reports suggest the new numbers will increase political pressure on BP, pressure that has begun to intensify in recent days.

The Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG), a team of experts from universities and government science agencies, had based their previous estimates on information provided by BP, information that proved to be inadequate for an accurate appraisal, according to a report in McClatchy earlier this week.

FRTG, under the direction of National Incident Commander Admiral Thad Allen, and the leadership of Dr. Marcia McNutt, director of the US Geological Survey, along with a scientific team led by Energy Secretary Steven Chu, have analyzed new data and combined it with several scientific methodologies to arrive at the new estimate.

“Developing accurate and scientifically grounded oil flow rate information is vital, both in regards to the continued response and recovery, as well as the important role this information may play in the final investigation of the failure of the blowout preventer and the resulting spill,” said Admiral Allen.

According to Allen, more than one million gallons of dispersant have been used on the oil disaster. “We’re starting to limit the dispersants on the surface to where we need it for safety reasons—for putting down volatile organic compounds or when we have a spill of such magnitude where dispersants have a direct affect in trying to limit our dispersant application to the subsea injections and over 4 million gallons have been recovered either through the riser insertion tube or our containment cap so far,” Allen said in his Friday morning press briefing.

While Allen references the increased flow rate of oil after the riser was cut as “whatever increase there might have been after the cut in the riser pipe,” a scientist on the FRTG suggests the unimpeded flow of oil after the June 3 cutting of the pipe could be 100,000 barrels per day.

Ira Leifer, associate researcher at the Marine Science Institute of the University of California, said that the rate of flow from the blown out well has been increasing over time, most notably since BP’s failed “top kill” effort last month. His research is based, in part, on satellite data and he notes the flow rate was actually increasing before the riser pipe was cut.

"The situation is growing worse," Leifer said.

Leifer also suggests the increase in flow since the severing of the riser pipe last week is far greater than the 20 percent estimate that BP and the Obama administration had predicted before the pipe cutting. Another number is being prepared by the FRTG that will cover the period after the pipe cutting, according to the New York Times.

Dr. McNutt, on Thursday, announced that three of the scientific teams had reached their new assessment based on detailed analysis of flow rates from the Deepwater Horizon well before June 3, the day the riser was cut.

“Each of the methodologies that the scientific teams is using has its advantages and shortcomings, which is why it is so important that we take several scientific approaches to solving this problem, that the teams continue working to refine their analyses and assessments, and that those many data points inform the updated best estimate that we are developing, ” said Dr. McNutt, in the official announcement by the Deepwater Horizon Incident Joint Information Center.

Referencing the upcoming meeting next week between President Obama and BP officials, Allen said “it was time to sit down and talk.”

In an attempt to allay fears over BP’s ability to pay dividends to stockholders, BP spokesman Andrew Gowers said: “We intend to meet all our obligations to all our stakeholders. We are a very financially strong company.”

Regardless, Credit Suisse has estimated the cleanup costs at $15 billion to $23 billion, with an additional $14 billion in claims.

As the crude oil continues its trek through the Gulf’s waters, Florida is bracing itself for the inevitable impact upon its tourism industry. The state, along with Escambia County officials, have announced the closing of Pensacola Pass to any vessel traffic during flood tide. Pensacola Pass will reopen during the ebb tide cycle and this plan will remain in effect until further notice.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/293281

Referencing the upcoming meeting next week between President Obama and BP officials, Allen said “it was time to sit down and talk.”

Bullcrap! The time for talk is long passed. Now is the time to damn well DO something!
 
The tampon idea may sound good if the guy in Rich’s video is correct and his argument sounded logical, he thought one of the very first things that happened when it blew out was the well casing was blown out of the ground. That would mean that the oil is coming out of a muddy hole and not a nice pipe waiting to be plugged. He also stated that the oil is under such tremendous pressure that it is probably perforating the ground and coming up in many locations. That makes all kinds of plugging efforts and capping efforts futile.

As for the idea that the FAA is restricting air traffic to placate BP, I have another thought. The reporter in the video that Rich posted yesterday, James Fox, I think was his name, said the air was full of helicopters with Chevron printed on them. I would think the air traffic between land and the ship-based operations would be horrendous. I would think that would be a good reason to restrict non-essential air traffic in the area.

I may be living in a Pollyanna world with my head in the sand but I simply cannot except the conspiracy idea. Who would benefit from this? Who stands to gain? Why?
 
Well, if its to help facilitate air traffic then how come a few days ago you could look at the oil spill using google maps and now it is gone and google is pushing people to look at stuff like the World Cup stadiums?
 
As for the idea that the FAA is restricting air traffic to placate BP, I have another thought. The reporter in the video that Rich posted yesterday, James Fox, I think was his name, said the air was full of helicopters with Chevron printed on them. I would think the air traffic between land and the ship-based operations would be horrendous. I would think that would be a good reason to restrict non-essential air traffic in the area.

I may be living in a Pollyanna world with my head in the sand but I simply cannot except the conspiracy idea. Who would benefit from this? Who stands to gain? Why?

I think there is something you are missing about why so many people are so angry about the restricting access to public lands, public seas, and public air space. Yes denying the press access to properly report is a huge no no in this country and I don't want to down play that but there is another reason to be angry.

Speaking strictly for myself. I was born here in FL the gulf of Mexico has been a part of my home town and part of my stomping grounds since I was still in the womb. Now I don't give a crap what some big shot who flew in from Europe or DC says, those lands are part of my home and I most certainly will not just turn them over. It isn't my fault that there is a problem! The people who shouldn't be allowed in the gulf are BP, not the citizens who were innocent victims. If BP and the govt thought that the oil was to dangerous for us coastal residents to be around then they should have made sure to keep it confined to their oil platform where it belonged. Who do they think they are to come down here screw up MY gulf and then deny me access? As though screwing up royally should get them some sort of preferential access to gulf, well I say BULL! The people who screw up the gulf should get their behinds kicked right out of it.

BP's roll in this should be as the writer of unlimited checks and nothing else. They have already proven themselves to be incompetent so why are we still letting them touch the buttons? Just tell BP to keep the checks coming to to let us coastal folks threw we know how to get the job done because these are after all our homes. Our fisherman know every nook and cranny of the shores where they fish we don't need BP's help we just need their cash.
 
Nellie, I understand that you are up set but that really doesn't make a lot of sense. I'm sure you realize that and didn't intend for your statement to be taken literally.
 
Nellie, I understand that you are up set but that really doesn't make a lot of sense. I'm sure you realize that and didn't intend for your statement to be taken literally.

I love you Wade and you know it but you are flat wrong if you think I didn't mean for my statement to be taken literally. I am confused about what part should not be taken literally? I'm also not totally sure what doesn't make sense.

Do you consider it unreasonable or lacking in sense to be angry that folks who aren't even from around here think they can come down here and tell all of us who have been here decades or in my case my entire life where we can and cannot go? How would you feel if I just showed up in your town and started declaring areas to be off limits, because I said so? Or worse what if I declared them off limits because I screwed up and I don't want to deal with all of that bad press and distasteful complaining by the states/people who's economies I just ruined

Do you consider it unreasonable or lacking in sense for me to think that the folks who will be most competent at cleaning up the gulf are those people who actually live here and know it?

Do you think it IS reasonable and makes sense that the folks who made this mess get to be in the gulf but the folks who are just the innocent bystanders are suddenly having to deal with restrictions just to go to a place they have been going to for a lifetime?

The part where I said kick the bums out was certainly heart felt I and totally meant it literally. They have proven themselves to be incompetent, there are other companies we can pay using BP's cash to get this fixed. Get BP out of here please and bring in a competent company to handle this.

So to be clear which parts don't make sense? And which parts shouldn't be taken literally?
 
Well let’s see if I can get out of this with my skin on.

I wouldn’t stand for BP or any company telling me I can’t go to a public beach or any public place unless there were a good reason like it was unsafe due to a massive oil spill or maybe there was a lot of work going on that would be hampered by lots of on lookers. Then I think restricting people in those areas would be entirely reasonable.

I don’t think the local people would be the most competent at cleaning up an oil spill. I don’t think living in Florida has taught anyone anything about how to clean up an oil spill. Having you livelihood destroyed by the oil does not qualify you to clean up the mess. If you worked in the tourist industry or were a fishermen I would think your expertise would be along those lines. I think people who work in the oil industry and have been trained to deal with this mess might be the people I would call before I started looking for fishermen. Doesn’t that make more sense.

I agree that BP should be writing some large checks. I think they are doing that. I think they are and will be spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to find a solution for this. For that very reason I think they are also searching the world for the best people and techniques to solve the problem. They are looking at this strictly from a financial standpoint and resolving this is probably the number one thing on their mind.

Sadly I think this will be the end of BP. Not sadly because it will bankrupt them but sadly because I think they will run out of money long before the problem is fixed.
 
I wouldn’t stand for BP or any company telling me I can’t go to a public beach or any public place unless there were a good reason like it was unsafe due to a massive oil spill or maybe there was a lot of work going on that would be hampered by lots of on lookers. Then I think restricting people in those areas would be entirely reasonable.

Well actually unless they are on private property and have the permission of the owner, or on public property and have been officially made law enforcement officers, no, they don't have ANY legal authority whatsoever to force people off or block them from accessing any area whatsoever. They don't own the land, sea, nor air by default simply because it may be THEIR oil that is screwing those areas up.
 
And of course, what's a disaster without a little bit of conspiracy theory thrown in? There was some major sell off of BP stock just three weeks before this incident took place..... Hmmm...

http://www.blacklistednews.com/?news_id=9027

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...yward-sold-shares-weeks-before-oil-spill.html

This may very well be a criminal matter with very far reaching implications...

Why isn't the US government more directly involved? Does anyone else think there is some substantial foot dragging going on despite the severity and magnitude of this disaster?

Yep I see it being a bit odd that its going so slowly and noone is pushing them too.. Wonder what the reasoning is behind that? And selling the stocks off early.??? Hmm?? thats odd, isnt it..??
 
Back
Top