Another way to see how it goes…
You are all aware that BP is doing their best to fix the catastrophe that happened on their rig. But are they really? Here is another way to look at the whole mess.
Big boom, arhhh geez that's not good, we are going to lose millions of dollars. So, what do we tell "them?" People of America you have nothing to worry about we have taken all measures to contain the small leak (yeah, only 200,000 gallons a day.) As for the attempts to fix the mess I am not so sure the geniuses at BP didn't already know they would fail. Any scuba diver thinking of the idea to lower a bell 2000 feet and cover a leak on the sea bottom is scratching his head thinking "is that a joke?" Didn't work, let's try a smaller bell. What is the rational in that? So, next brilliant idea…let's inject mud and debris in the shaft. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that the oil is coming out under a fairly high pressure. Pumping mud down 2000 feet would require to pressure it even more. At 2000 feet the natural pressure of the water is roughly 68 bars also know as 68 times the atmosphere pressure. Can you imagine the equipment it would take to pressurize mud that high?
That is where the real BP geniuses reside. Simple calculations: the rig had a potential income of 700 billion dollars (unconfirmed source), loss in fake attempts and compensation for damaged parties one or two billions (no big deal.) IF any attempt at stopping the lead was successful they would lose it all as the government surely would not allow them to dig again right there. So instead their backup solution is to install another rig and dig nearby to solve the problem…THEIR problem, that is "how to keep pumping the 700 million dollars with full agreement of the government". Is that what is really going on? I don't know, but if I was in their shoes I would think about it. What do you think?
Edit: This comes as a big surprise. It seems BP was taking shortcuts...no, really? link text
14 Answers
Just one more reason to leave this site and find somewhere else to learn.
Now there is a comment for you!
So you don't like the General Discussions....why participate then? what does that have to do with the learning on this site? Amazing!
And I would like to remind you that you did participate in some General Discussion topics. Leave alone those you have opened yourself
Why did you open this one in the first place if you didn't like the topic?
One more reason
.....well, I can only say I do not appreciate this kind of comment, Jack, it is rude and unkind and if you really dislike this site so much, well, good luck on finding another free site that is so friendly and helpful!
As long as we're indulging conspiracy theories:
BP may be dragging this out, waiting to see if the public is going to insist that the government (read that the American taxpayer) share the blame (for poor oversight) and the cost of restoration.
Shortly after this all began, I saw an article on some politician suggesting an added tax placed on the price of gasoline to help pay for the clean-up.
Since the first moment that I heard of the disaster I have had no doubt that the American public was going to end up paying for it, whether it be through government lobbying to shift the cost from BP or through the gas industry raising the price of gasoline. Since BP is a foreign company maybe they can spread the cost around the world. That would be our only savings.
geof said
I suggest that, before you tell us all how useless pumping mud down the hole is, you do need to find out a) what drillers' mud is b) what are the standard practices employed when drilling any oil well c) what are the accepted methods of closing down a well that has had this sort of accident.
The only problem with this line of reasoning is that any "accepted method" and would be (at best) only a "theoretical method" as this type solution has never been tested on an oil leak of this kind, or as the associated press has pointed out
...force-feeding it heavy drilling mud, [is] a maneuver known as a "top kill" that has never before been tried 5,000 feet underwater.
Or as reported by BP itself:
For the top kill procedure we are designing equipment to pump the highest kill rate we can, irrespective of the flow rate of oil from the well, to force a downward flow of mud into the well. This, combined with the heavy drilling fluid is designed to eventually stop the flow. This has never been attempted at these depths. This is very complex – and involves several complex procedures coming together.
Here is what has been reported regarding BP's own estimations regarding the success of this project:
The oil giant's chief executive earlier gave the procedure a 60 to 70 percent chance of working
Unfortunately, given the previous track record of BP in providing overly optimistic estimates (a cynic might insert the word "deliberately" somewhere in there), it is understandable if one were to remain a bit skeptical regarding the likelihood of successfully achieving this goal. Others have, likewise, been less than glowing when discussing chances of success:
Bob Bea, an engineering professor at the University of California at Berkeley, said the procedure carries a high risk of failure because of the velocity at which the oil may be spewing.
Gene Beck, a petroleum engineering professor at Texas A&M in College Station, said the endeavor would likely fail quickly if the mud could not overcome the pressure of the oil.
Sfrenchie said
Can you imagine the equipment it would take to pressurize mud that high?
From what I understand, it is not an ability to exert such a pressure which might be the primary concern but rather what effect this pressure might have on the existing equipment:
The top kill [method] involves pumping enough mud into the gusher to overcome the flow of oil, and engineers plan to follow it up with cement to try to permanently seal the well. A live video stream showed pictures of the oil gushing and the blowout preventer, the five-story device the mud was being pumped into. A weak spot in the device could blow under the pressure, causing a brand new leak.
A few years ago I took a couple of environmental biology courses in college, and I remember listening to my professor talk (almost prophetically) about what might happen were such a scenario to play out. I can only say that I hope that she was being underly-optimistic in her assessment because it was not very rosy, the picture that she painted regarding the impact such an event might have on the ecology of the entire Gulf Coast and Eastern seaboard of the United States (and to a lesser degree the overall ecology of the planet).
Overall, I am not hopeful (of course I should note that I can be a bit cynical myself at times), and news such as the following certainly does not give me the warm and fuzzies:
...scientists said [the oil] seems to be growing significantly darker, from what they can see in an underwater video. It suggests that heavier, more-polluting oil is spewing out.
I guess we will all have to wait and see how it plays out.
If anyone is interested, you can access a live underwater video stream of the oil leak at bp.com
The rule you broke and obviously refuse to admit was not to not respect an opinion ... FYI I was not offended at all by it but was simply commenting on the fact that your response was a bit rude. Did you eat something bitter?
You are absolutely right on the fact that I am not a professional deep sea diver but I did obtain certifications as a rescue diver, divemaster, tech diver 1, wreck diver, plus a few others and I performed some black water dives in currents keeping you as horizontal as a flag while you are hanging on a screwdriver planted in the riverbed. I also dive with sharks which are one of my passion. I have spent countless hours studying piles of books and have more knowledge of the sea than the common pedestrian.
Again I have to admit your rightfulness on the fact that I used the wrong word when I said "if you don't like it, don't read it", Heidita used the correct word "don't participate to it."
I am sorry to hear about the loss of your friend. If you carefully read my post again you will notice that at no time I attempted to incriminate the BP employees that lost their lives. To the contrary, I feel they died due to industrials greed that forced disregard of safety rules on them. Unless your friend was one of the managers that apparently blatantly ignored the warnings of danger to favor the company's hunger for profit, you should have no reason to be offended. By the way, BP has made many statement and public apparitions, how many concerned the loss of lives? Do they really care?
" These people are trying to do something that has never been done before." To the contrary Jack we have been in the same situation before, not the same conditions but it's not the first time oil companies have imposed on us catastrophes and had no way to fix it properly. History has proven they are not even held responsible for their crimes (Amoco, Exxon and others.) The bigger the catastrophe, the less powerful they are able to handle their own mess. So forgive me for publicly express the fact that I am fed up with big corporation ruining our planet. I feel if we don't react and shout there may be someday a 100 billion barrels nuclear tanker that will crash oh say in the Gulf of Mexico, spill its content that will burn for years (construction allowed by government in view of corporation assurance that it's all good and safe.) How many more Chernobyl, Exxon Valdes, Amoco Cadix do we need to realize those big corporation absolutely don't give a d..n (word flagged as offending but I don't know of anothe way to say it) about anything else than profit? Feel free to stay blind or look the other way if you so desire.
As I told someone recently there is a point in a discussion/argument when it is time to agree that we disagree…and move on. We have reached that point, so peace may be upon you.
I would enjoy discussing 'General Discussion' topics more if people could write them without being offensive. If you were skilled in 'deep water' engineering it might make the waste of time more worthwhile.
I fully understand this is a 'General Discussion' forum, but I come here to learn Spanish.
Just one more reason to leave this site and find somewhere else to learn.
My poor old brain is reeling from all this rhetoric, it seems that the we are all forgetting that there is a catastrophe on our doorstep and the best we all can do is to hope and pray that the relevant authorities are doing all in their power to "plug the well " . It is not in any of the major parties interests to prolong this oil spill , and especially not in the interests of the people directly affected . 
Here are some relevant pictures regarding the extent of the damages if anyone is interested:
All of the data collected by the EPA regarding the use of chemical dispersant is being posted on www.epa.gov/bpspill as soon as it has been gathered and analyzed.
Here is an excerpt of an EPA statement regarding the use of the chemical dispersant [corexit] to break up the oil.
Due to the unprecedented nature of this event, BP has used dispersants in ways never seen before. That is in terms of both the amount applied –– which is approaching a world record – and in the method of application.
...dispersants continue to be the best of two very difficult choices. Their use inevitably means that we are making environmental trade-offs.
we have made it clear to BP that we are not satisfied that BP [has] done an extensive enough analysis of other dispersant options. We expect BP to keep evaluating other alternative dispersants.
BP’s response to our directive was insufficient, and we are concerned that BP seemed, in their response, more interested in defending their initial decisions than analyzing possible better options.
Regarding BP's track record for responsible behavior, especially regarding the safety of its own workers:
The United Kingdom has already banned the Corexit chemical dispersants as highly toxic (containing 38% 2-butoxyethanol by weight,according to the Corexit MSDS- Material Safety Data Sheet). Corexit chemical dispersant products were used in the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989. When BP began using the Corexit, the MSDS wasn't even shown to workers. Workers also lack basic toxic waste handling equipment. They wear raincoats and cotton gloves. Not much protection.
Heidita wrote:
Just one more reason to leave this site and find somewhere else to learn.
Now there is a comment for you!
So you don't like the General Discussions....why participate then? what does that >have to do with the learning on this site? Amazing!
And I would like to remind you that you did participate in some General >Discussion topics. Leave alone those you have opened yourself
Why did you open this one in the first place if you didn't like the topic?
One more reason
.....well, I can only say I do not appreciate this kind of comment, Jack, it is rude and >unkind and if you really dislike this site so much, well, good luck on finding another >free site that is so friendly and helpful!
I didn't say I didn't like the General Discussions. Where are you getting that from? I was offended with this particular post.
What are you amazed at? I'm not understanding.
Why do you need to remind me that I did participate in some General Discussion topics? Of course I did. This just doesn't make sense to me.
The reason I opened this one is, I haven't yet developed the ability to read what's in the thread until I open it. The title of the post says Another way to see how it goes... What were you able to discern from that?
Heidita, you sound like you are personally offended, even though there is nothing in my post directed at you. Since you have upbraided me publicly, will you please tell me what was rude and unkind? My comment Just one more reason to leave this site is probably a bit overboard, but it's not a disparaging remark about your site, it's about some of the content submitted by your users, not the site itself. I apologize to you for that. I'm kind of amazed at your emotional outburst toward me, which I feel is completely unfounded.
Kindest Regards
sfrenchie wrote:
Hi Jack, you are entitled to your opinion but it has been a rule on this forum to respect each other AND their opinions. It seems you joinned this site only 4 days ago (in your profile), do you intend to impose your own rules that apparently include trying to insult others? Further more, if you don't like the General Discussion forum simply don't read it. wink
I wrote:
I would enjoy discussing 'General Discussion' topics more if people could write them without their own political smart-assedness interjected. If you were as skilled in 'deep water' engineering as your are in your own mud slinging it might make the waste of time more worthwhile.
I fully understand this is a 'General Discussion' forum, but I come here to learn Spanish.
Just one more reason to leave this site and find somewhere else to learn.
Since this has nothing to do with learning Spanish..... A couple of things, sfrenchie. You have expressed your opinion, that's well and good. I express mine, but that's not well and good. Since it's a rule to respect each others opinions...... I'm sorry, what rule am I trying to impose on you? At what were you insulted? You cook and you write software, but you are not a deep water diver, I'll lay money on it. The only thing you know about your topic, which is what you're seen on the news, and boy, that's some reliable stuff. Please tell me when I've drifted off too far from the truth. Lastly, I really love condescending remarks like if you don't like the General Discussion forum... I couldn't have know the content of your topic, Another way to see how it goes... without actually opening it. I do happen to enjoy this forum and have been participating in it for quite some time.
You insult the people of BP by sarcastically calling them "geniuses" yet that is supposed to not offend? Do you know anyone that works with BP? There are eleven dead men that were employees/contractors of BP, and one of those dead men was a friend. These people are trying to do something that has never been done before. Maybe give them a break and hope that they succeed.
Since I have been taken to task on this matter, I would be honored if you would please tell me what I said that insulted you. That way I would be sure not to do it again.
I'm not going to apologize for my comments. I was offended. Why can't you respect that?
Hi Jack, you are entitled to your opinion but it has been a rule on this forum to respect each other AND their opinions. It seems you joinned this site only 4 days ago (in your profile), do you intend to impose your own rules that apparently include trying to insult others? Further more, if you don't like the General Discussion forum simply don't read it.
Heidita, I admire your neutrality and calm. Don't you ever get really really really mad lol?
Thank you Izanoni for your objective review. I believe people don't really think of this accident as a catastrophe, maybe they do not realize the extent of the danger simply because it is not accompanied by flashy pictures and the destruction is not readily visible. In many years we will be eating fish from this area, unaware if it actually contains toxins or not. Just as a reminder, tunas only breed in 2 places in the world; One is in the Mediterranean sea, the other one is the Gulf of Mexico…and we are in tuna breeding season. Good luck to you all the next time you eat sushi, get a good health insurance. In the next decades some of us might get sick, not knowing why and where it came from. By the way, why didn't BP mention the possibility of using explosive to bury the whole thing under tons of rocks (it has been done before)? Is it because they do not want to end the exploitation of this site?
I'm not a mud engineer lthough I know a couple. I suggest that, before you tell us all how useless pumping mud down the hole is, you do need to find out a) what drillers' mud is b) what are the standard practices employed when drilling any oilwell c) what are the accepted methods of closing down a well that has had this sort of accident.
This post, in my opinion has nothing whatever to do with the material of this site. Although all sorts of topics pop up in the course of facilitating learning the Spanish language or the English language, they do, normally, operate on the basis that language learning is the topic, not politics.
HI Jeff, whereas the category was wrong, this is obviously not a "vocabulary " question
, on General Discussions any topic which is of intest can be discussed.
But please be civilized
