The public is revolting over this catastrophic oil spill - too bad it took a spill to cause a revolt.
Much has been said about this spill - the response from BP, the response from the President, the residents of the Gulf Coast, environmentalists and just about everyone else. That's why I haven't written much about it myself. But there are a few things I would like to point out.
First, it appears to me that BP's efforts have focused on containing the spill rather than stopping it. It must be hard for them to imagine just stopping this flow of potential money, but in my opinion that should have always been the first priority - stopping it. This, however, has been proven to be easier said than done and I wish I had a good suggestion on how to accomplish a complete shutoff but I don't - yet.
One thing I am fairly certain of though is that the big plan everyone is waiting for - the relief well to be completed in August - will NOT stop or even slow down this gusher. Here is why I don't believe it will work to slow the flow:
Imagine if you had something like a water balloon that wouldn't pop if you put a small hole in it. If you put pressure on this balloon water would squirt out of that tiny hole. Now imagine that you put a second tiny hole in this same balloon - does the water now flow out of the new hole and stop flowing out of the first one? Of course not. What you have now is 2 holes that have the same amount of flow coming out. When the pressure is relived enough, both holes will stop flowing at the same time. Even if BP were to put the new well right next to the existing gusher - both would still flow at the same rate. It may make a tiny bit of difference if they could pump the oil out of the relief well faster than it is coming out of the first hole - but it would be a negligible difference and the first gusher would continue to gush. It is simply a way that BP can get permission to drill another well into this obviously rich source of oil and money.
Now, I must address all the folks who are calling this President Obama's "Katrina". Let's put aside the truth that in both cases, it was known that the catastrophe was not only possible but eminent. Let's focus on the aftermath. During Katrina, President Bush had at his disposal all the tools and manpower needed to accomplish a massive rescue and rebuilding mission. His fault in that disaster was his lack of quick action and not using those resources to their full potential. With this oil spill, our government does not have tools standing by to stop or collect massive amounts of gushing or floating oil. This is a situation where even the oil companies - who are in the business - have no clue as to how to stop or recover the spilled oil. I ask these folks who are blaming the government - what would you have them do? And please be specific. The only thing I have hear so far is they want us to drop a bomb on the spill and somehow that will stop it. That is CRAZY! Imagine dropping a brick on that water balloon we spoke of earlier - would that stop the flow from the tiny hole? Yes because all the liquid would now be set free. Republicans think they can fix anything with a bomb.
Finally, let me also point out (as others have done) that there are hundreds and maybe even thousands of other oil wells in the oceans of the world that also do not have proper safety shutoff equipment installed thanks to the Cheney / Bush (and others) policies. Before we drill a single new well, lets get those existing ones fixed so this does not happen again!
UPDATE 6/25/10 I just read on USA Today that BP is actually drilling 2 relief wells. This, in spite of the drilling ban President Obama has put in effect (which is being challenged in courts). And now a tropical depression has formed just south of this region and possibly headed for the spill area. Instead of one massive uncontrolled leak, we will likely end up with THREE! In my humble opinion, if relief wells are truly needed to control this leak - why not let another oil company with a better safety record do it??!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
34 comments:
I know next to nothing about OPEC and what exactly determines the price of oil. I do know certain factors come into play such as current wars, sanctions, weather and supply and demand. What I find odd is that in the midst of this BP spill and starting on a memorial day holiday weekend, the price of gas dropped like .15/gallon. In the past, it seemed like a holiday weekend or just the threat of a tropical storm sent gas prices soaring. With this ecological disaster, why not now? What's different?
I agree Thohea - I welcome the relief in the wallet, but it does seem odd that the price dropped during a time prices typically rise. Strange indeed.
Denbec:
...if relief wells are truly needed to control this leak - why not let another oil company with a better safety record do it??!!
Andre:
1. Time. It would take many weeks for BP to demobilize and another company to take over the operation, and for what gain? Are you so sure that BP's safety record is any better or worse than most of it's competitors? Prior to this situation, The Obama Administration at least thought they were doing a bang up job, presenting the company with a regional Safety Award for Excellence (SAFE)last year for “outstanding drilling operations” and a “perfect performance period.” (and this was specifically for the Deepwater Horizon operation!).
Putting a new drilling team in place would just cost us weeks of time in getting this leak stopped. I say to BP: drill, baby drill!
2. I also say to BP: "you broke it, you fix it".
Denbec:
During Katrina, President Bush had at his disposal all the tools and manpower needed to accomplish a massive rescue and rebuilding mission. His fault in that disaster was his lack of quick action and not using those resources to their full potential. With this oil spill, our government does not have tools standing by to stop or collect massive amounts of gushing or floating oil....I ask these folks who are blaming the government - what would you have them do? And please be specific.
Andre:
Is this specific enough for you?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1bUE5EU8lE&feature=player_embedded
Andre, From what I understand, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, it is actually quite typical for these oil rigs to leak oil to some degree - which explains the number of skimmers around the country. If we were to move all of those to the Gulf, oil would likely start washing ashore elsewhere too.
And this video only addresses the issue of collecting the oil - I'm really wondering what the Obama bashers would have him do to STOP the oil. That is the real question I was asking.
I'm not buying that for a second.
If Bush were President now and behaving this way you would be ripping him a new one (and rightfully so) for such a grossly anemic response to this disaster.
Sure, many of these skimmers might be needed elsewhere...but ALL OF THEM?
Bullshit. Unless there are other rigs somewhere leaking thousands of barrels per hour, that's the lamest excuse I've ever heard. Is this a crisis or is it not?
And what about all the international offers of help that were made in the first two weeks? I see on Drudge tonight that finally,FINALLY (on day 70!) Obama has accepted some of them.
Disgraceful.
I'm not going to argue this point too much because I mostly agree with you. But I do want to remind you that BP indicated at the beginning that there was NO spill. Then when it became obvious that there was a leak they said it was small and they would contain it (not stop it). They showed a low definition video when they had a high definition video available all the time. They continued to lie about the severity of the situation (and probably still are). Clearly now we know somewhat the scale and we need all the resources available.
In retrospect, with Katrina people were on TV screaming at President Bush that the scale was HUGE and nothing was done.
One more point - while reading the posts on USA Today during the first 2 weeks of the disaster, the republican commenters were scolding anyone who even mentioned a possible oil spill when 11 lives were lost. I was concerned about the spill from day one - and yes, the President should have been too.
Andre - I'm still interested in your specific action the President should take to STOP the spill. The real question.
I don't expect the President to figure out how to stop the leak...that's a job for engineers, not politicians, so I don't fault him at all for not figuring that out.
What I do expect him to do is to coordinate the response to this crisis, help provide the needed resources, and perhaps most importantly, use his executive authority to clear bureaucratic roadblocks so that we can find a solution to the leak and get the clean up job done as quickly and as efficiently as possible. Poor Bobby Jindal, the Governor of Louisiana is pulling his hair out in frustration, at the criminal lack of responsiveness from the Administration to his repeated requests for help in cutting through all the red tape that is dramatically slowing that state's efforts in protecting its coastal areas. The accounts of his travails with the inane bureaucrats at the Army Corps of Engineers and the Coast Guard and EPA in trying to get the permits needed to build emergency sand berms to protect Louisiana's wetlands and inland waterways are absolutely Kafkaesque. It is precisely here that President Obama could be of maximum assistance, but apparently he has been too busy out on the golf course to return the Governors' repeated phone calls.
To President Obama I say: Lead, follow, or get out of the way!
If President Obama was serious about "kicking some ass", he should start with his own.
On the other hand:
You're in Florida, right? You may want to read the article linked below.
I found it linked at Coast To Coast AM, so take it with a grain (or mountain) of salt...it might just be a bunch of crazy talk, but it's hella scary none-the-less (it sure makes the "nuclear option" seem way too dangerous to risk).
http://www.helium.com/items/1864136-how-the-ultimate-bp-gulf-disaster-could-kill-millions
Regarding the above linked article: it occurs to me that this might be a good time for you to consider going on an extended visit with your relatives in the mid-west!
Just kidding ( I think)....
Hmmmmm. Emergency sand berms sounds like another good way to permanently destroy a delicate eco system - both above and below the water. It is said that haste makes waste and a drastic move like that could cause much more damage than the oil. I for one am glad the President is doing all he can without over reacting. A cool smart head in a disaster is a most valuable resource. But a dead head (like Bush) can only make it worse. Red tape (regulations) are put in place for very good reasons.
That article on the methane is not surprising to me at all. I am aware that dangerous chemicals and gasses are trapped in the Earth's surfaces. But we would be fine for more eons if we didn't stupidly poke holes in it. Now we do have something to worry about.
Speaking of safe places to live - you are in San Francisco - right? I was just saying to a friend last weekend that I honestly don't understand why anyone lives in S. California with all the potential natural disasters looming (fires, hurricanes, mud slides, earthquakes, floods) I'm even afraid to visit there! LOL
BTW - that web page was most annoying! video ads I couldn't shut off, links with pop-ups embedded everywhere in the text, ads, ads, ads. Gross.
You've probably already have seen this one; but just in case you haven't:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLTIowBF0kE&feature=player_embedded
I love those Old Spice commercials! The first one is featured earlier in my blog - I still chuckle at the line "I'm on a horse". Very fun ads.
Funny (very clever):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ArIj236UHs&feature=player_embedded
from Andre ( too lazy to sign in).
Back in May, when BP CEO Hayward testified before Congress that the long term environmental effects of the Deep Water leak on the Gulf would be minimal, he was savagely lambasted from all sides, eventually being forced to resign.
Now, it appears that his main crime was telling the truth, and thus contradicting the knee-jerk media narrative of apocalyptic environmental disaster brought on by corporate greed. Hayward (who earned a Phd in geology from Edinburgh University at age 22) pointed out that this leak, unlike say the heavy crude of the Exxon Valdez spill, primarily consisted of light "sweet" crude that would be quickly and easily absorbed by the ocean and consumed by microbes.
It now appears that his predictions were substantially correct, as even the main stream media is beginning to acknowledge:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2007202,00.html
and;
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews_excl/ynews_excl_sc3270
It now appears that the main economic wounds coming out of this leak are going to be mostly self-inflicted by our hysterical and ill-informed response to the leak, rather than any direct result of the leak itself. Case in point is the President's panic reaction moratorium on further deep water Gulf drilling. The rigs are leaving to go drill in other parts of the world, and thus enriching those local economies rather than the Gulf states.
Funny, we hear all the time in the main stream media about how dumb Sarah Palin is and how smart Obama is, and yet here is just another example of where the facts are beginning to prove that she was right all along and that he was wrong. Hmmm......
The interesting question now is: Will we learn from this?
So Andre - you believe that the oil just disappeared and is gone forever - never to harm us or the animals or the ecosystems again (I hope you are right!). Oh, and you also believe that the planet has unlimited resources (like fresh water) for unlimited population growth (as you posted in another article of mine today). What were you smoking while you were gone those few weeks??!
We are not seeing the oil because the dispersants forced it under the surface - you know - where the critters live. If microbes could eat up oil that fast it would be like swimming in pure acid! It just isn't feasible. Sadly, time will tell. Meanwhile I suppose you suggest we drill baby drill! No harm done! Honestly.
Republicans have no respect for this planet.
Read the articles I linked; these are not my opinions, these are the opinions of the scientists on the scene who are actually studying the aftermath of the leak.
From the Time article:
"Marine scientist Ivor van Heerden, another former LSU prof, who's working for a spill-response contractor, says, "There's just no data to suggest this is an environmental disaster. I have no interest in making BP look good — I think they lied about the size of the spill — but we're not seeing catastrophic impacts."
and;
"..it does not seem to be inflicting severe environmental damage. "The impacts have been much, much less than everyone feared," says geochemist Jacqueline Michel, a federal contractor who is coordinating shoreline assessments in Louisiana."
Oil is a natural part of the ocean ecosystem. As a matter of fact, 65% percent of the oil detectable in American waters originates in natural seaps coming from fissures on the ocean floor. It's been this way for millions and millions of years so it's not at all surprising that natural processes have evolved and developed over all that time to deal with it.
To twist that into the claim that "Republicans have no respect for this planet" is a form of idealogical churlishness that's just too immature ( not to mention just plain dumb) to warrant a serious response. Based on the facts under discussion it would make just as much sense to say that Republicans care about the Truth, or that Democrats only care about exploiting disasters for political gain.
"We are not seeing the oil because the dispersants forced it under the surface.." The chemical dispersants were only used for a very short time on a very small percentage of the total amount of leaked oil before they were discontinues because of environmental concerns, so that can provide zero explanation for what happened to the vast majority of the oil.
This is all very good news. You should rejoice and be happy about it!
So the oil is all gone - we should all rejoice! If it's true - then I do! I know some birds that beg to differ tho.
Correction:
I was wrong; It seems that in reality the chemical dispersants were used to a far greater extent than was originally reported, even after the EPA's May order to discontinue their use, at least according to this story in today's Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/31/AR2010073102381_pf.html
It seems that the alleged halt in the use of dispersants was just another one of the Omama Administrations' style over substance disinformation campaigns:
"Aaron Viles, at the Louisiana-based Gulf Restoration Network, said the Obama administration gave the impression of controlling the controversial dispersants while allowing their use to continue. The result, he said, was that more oil sank out of sight and out of reach of the cleanup operation."
It's a shame actually, that Obama has so positioned himself that even when he does the right thing and makes a tough decision in a tight spot, he has to lie about it in order to placate his core constituency on the far Left.
In fairness though, I guess that's true to a greater or lessor extent of most politicians.
I read this article and one on CNN.com and both say the Obama administration limited the use of the chemical but the local Coast Guard granted the extra permission. How is that a lie from Obama?
Sorry, I forgot that "the buck stops here" only applies to Republican Presidents.
Being a Democrat means never having to say you're sorry or be held responsible for anything: it's always someone else's fault.
I keep forgetting that.
You were unable to justify your claim so you just posted more rhetoric instead.
It was not my claim. It was a claim made by Aaron Viles of the Gulf Restoration Network, a lifelong Leftie environmental activist(I looked him up). But having said that, it was widely reported in the MSM that the Obama administration had forbid the use of the dispersant's, which we now find out was actually far from true. The Administration had ample opportunity to correct the story, but apparently was content to let the false impression be disseminated. I suppose you could debate whether or not that is technically a "lie", but then we are back to debating the definition of what "is" is ( ala Clinton). Change we can believe in?
Tell the truth; if Bush were President right now you would be calling for his impeachment for a similar behavior. And yet you seem to give Obama a free pass.
Calling something "rhetoric" does not prove that it is untrue, but it does give you an excuse to avoid making any substantive response. I could provide links to dozens of examples of Obama passing the buck and blaming others for his failings, but then you would complain that I go on and on too much and link too much, and quite frankly I would probably find the whole exercise even more boring and bleak than you would.
I'm going to go out for a bike ride instead. You win this round by default.
PS: The irony is that I actually think that Obama probably made the right decision by allowing the use of the dispersants (even if it was only the lessor of two evils). I only fault him for not having the "cojones" to publicly stand up and defend it (a failing, alas, in our leaders that is not by any means unique to him).
Now this is change that I can believe in:
from today's Washington Post:
"The Obama administration may end its ban on deepwater drilling “significantly in advance” of its Nov. 30 expiration date, the administration’s top official in charge of drilling told reporters Tuesday."
Psssst - Andre.......
Didja hear about the broken oil pipeline in Michigan that's been leaking oil into several rivers since July 25th? Seems some safety precautions were overlooked and cleanup equipment isn't working properly and they can't seem to stop it yet.
But according to you - it's perfectly fine to let these deregulated, crooked, greedy environmentally challenged companies continue to do business as usual. I do NOT agree.
"perfectly fine"?
Go back and re-read my comments about holding BP responsible for the mess they created.
What part of "you broke it, you fix it" didn't you understand?
Let me introduce you and your Republican friends to a new word:
Prevention.
It means to keep something from happening by implementing another word:
Regulation.
That word is similar to one the Republicans are already familiar with but without the "De" in front of it. The Bush / Cheney administration removed a lot of regulations from big oil to improve profit margins. Now we all suffer.
If we can keep disasters from happening to begin with by keeping a closer watch on how companies operate, we can avoid costly and environmentally damaging cleanups.
More good news:
"The EPA has weighed in with its definitive studies of Corexit (the chemical dispersant used to break up the spill), which found, contrary to numerous green critics, that the material is about as safe as it could be in the context of its use.
Careful studies have revealed that the media-beloved “giant underwater oil plumes” have disappeared or maybe never existed in the first place. You can also forget about methane tsunamis, an “extinction-level event,” killer oil-laced hurricanes, and vast governmental conspiracies.
Meanwhile, parts of the Gulf have reopened for fishing and shrimping, and the EPA is expediting testing of the rest of it. The administration has even indicated that it’s considering an early end to its drilling moratorium."
Read more at:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/242698/oil-spill-update-crisis-over-lou-dolinar
That is such wonderful news! A very feel good story indeed. Well except for that last paragraph:
"There’s still oil to be skimmed, marshland to be cleaned, science to be done on the long-term effects of the oil and dispersants. Six hundred miles of coastline — Louisiana’s in particular — have been hard hit and need help. There may yet be negative impacts on mammal, fish, and shellfish reproduction. But we have, at this point, a pretty good sense that things are going to get better rather than worse."
Interesting article:
http://article.nationalreview.com/439062/our-real-gulf-disaster/lou-dolinar?page=1
Andre - this story was on the front page of the USA Today Online but I had to do a search to find it on Fox News Online - buried away in the Sci-Tech section. Anyway - seems at least some of the oil that magically disappeared has been found. And I doubt this is all of it.
The Fox News Story
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/08/19/scientists-confirm-giant-underwater-oil-plume/
The USA Today story
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/2010-08-20-plume20_ST_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip
Maybe some good news again? The interesting part (to me anyway) is that nearly identical stores appeared on USA Today Online and on Fox News Online. Fox again put it in their Science and Technology page (as did USA Today) but this time there was a link right there on the front page. No searching to be done by me this time! USA Today had links to both stories on their cover page. Which do you think is more fair and balanced?
Fox News story:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/08/24/new-microbe-discovered-eating-gulf-oil-spill/?test=latestnews
USA Today Story
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2010-08-24-oil-microbe_N.htm
Post a Comment