BP Oil Spill Approaching Gulf Coast

New Posts

  • #421
Bp says they will pay all legitimate claims presented for any damage done by the explosion. So, how does the wildlife and aqualife submit their claim?:waitasec:
 
  • #422
You know, this is going to be negative to most of you, but the nuclear detonation is not a bad idea. The nuclear answer would be so far down in the ocean, very few animals would be affected to a great degree - certainly not like what's already happening on land and in the oil spill in the water. The Russians have used this method more than once to stop spills without disturbing much at all. There is no threat to people living along the coast. That's what a PhD MIT prof has told me. I don't know if this is true, but if it is, I'm thinking BP won't even consider it because they want this oil and just wish to cap the well temporarily.

gaia
 
  • #423
essies said:
Bp says they will pay all legitimate claims presented for any damage done by the explosion. So, how does the wildlife and aqualife submit their claim?:waitasec:
Click to expand...
Through organizations dedicated to preserving and restoring their habitats, like the one I posted below and this one.
The Barataria-Terrebonne Estuary Foundation is supporting BTNEP’s tireless efforts in response to the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. Your tax-deductable donation will fund a number important response and recovery activities including wildlife rescue and transport, habitat restoration, volunteer response, the documentation of coastal impacts, and long-term research on damage and recovery.

http://www.supportbtnep.org/
 
  • #424
"The counting of dead wildlife in the Gulf is more than an academic exercise; the deaths will help determine how much BP pays in damages."

From an above linked article. This is probably all you need to know about why there aren't more dead animals showing up.

From what I have read, BP chose to use a dispersant made by one of their own subsidiaries rather than any on the list provided to them by the EPA. Meaning they essentially were paying themselves for buying the dispersant- the subsidiary gets the profit, BP gets a write-off on their taxes for buying their own product.

Add to that, that their own product supposedly is way more toxic to people, life and the environment, but it is a different type of dispersant in that instead of breaking up oil on the surface, it breaks it up and then it sinks. Not only does it sink, but dead sealife and animals in it sink as well. There's plenty of dead animals, but they are conveniently at the botttom of the ocean, and BP will pay less in fines because of that. Everyone keeps asking, didn't anyone learn from the Valdez spill? Yes, the oil companies did. They learned to manufacture their own dispersants, ones that will sink oil and dead animals so they won't have to pay fines.

Sickening.
 
  • #425
gaia said:
You know, this is going to be negative to most of you, but the nuclear detonation is not a bad idea. The nuclear answer would be so far down in the ocean, very few animals would be affected to a great degree - certainly not like what's already happening on land and in the oil spill in the water. The Russians have used this method more than once to stop spills without disturbing much at all. There is no threat to people living along the coast. That's what a PhD MIT prof has told me. I don't know if this is true, but if it is, I'm thinking BP won't even consider it because they want this oil and just wish to cap the well temporarily.

gaia
Click to expand...

This solution has been considered and rejected for a number of reasons. Detonating a nuclear device for any reason would result in foreign political repercussions; rte EPA could not approve it; and most importantly, it's just too damn risky. I'm sure it looks like a good solution from some perspectives, but not where I'm sitting.

I'm no physicist, but I've kept up with this topic for several weeks now. From what I understand, the conditions in Russia were different. There was not a huge mix of oil and natural gas. The article and video I've linked here might sound a bit over the top, but it's just one of many that say nuking the well is a really bad idea. I'll try to find some of the others, but for now:

Detonating Nuclear Bomb at Oil Spill Site...Might Produce a Bad Result May 31, 2010

Before they consider that option, they might want to watch this video of Dr. Gregory Ryskin, Professor of Chemical Engineering at Northwestern University. In the video, Dr. Ryskin explains how a prehistoric methane gas explosion could explain the Permian-Triassic Extinction Event, a mysterious period in Earth history where 95% of all species went extinct.

Given that the amount of methane gas that is leaking from the BP spill site is at least equal to the amount of oil, it would lead one to believe that there is a huge underground pocket of methane gas buried there. Now, if Dr. Ryskin’s theory is correct, not only would detonating a nuclear bomb near that underground methane pocket end the oil spill, it might end all life on Earth as well.

http://cryptogon.com/?p=15730

And from yesterday:
Oil spilled in Gulf full of methane gas, adding new concerns
Published: Friday, June 18, 2010, 11:31 AM Updated: Friday, June 18, 2010, 11:33 AM

It is an overlooked danger in the oil spill crisis: The crude gushing from the well contains vast amounts of natural gas that could pose a serious threat to the Gulf of Mexico's fragile ecosystem.

The oil emanating from the seafloor contains about 40 percent methane, compared with about 5 percent found in typical oil deposits, said John Kessler, a Texas A&M University oceanographer who is studying the impact of methane from the spill.

http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/06/oil_spilled_in_gulf_full_of_me.html
 
  • #426
glorybug said:
"The counting of dead wildlife in the Gulf is more than an academic exercise; the deaths will help determine how much BP pays in damages."

From an above linked article. This is probably all you need to know about why there aren't more dead animals showing up.

From what I have read, BP chose to use a dispersant made by one of their own subsidiaries rather than any on the list provided to them by the EPA. Meaning they essentially were paying themselves for buying the dispersant- the subsidiary gets the profit, BP gets a write-off on their taxes for buying their own product.

Add to that, that their own product supposedly is way more toxic to people, life and the environment, but it is a different type of dispersant in that instead of breaking up oil on the surface, it breaks it up and then it sinks. Not only does it sink, but dead sealife and animals in it sink as well. There's plenty of dead animals, but they are conveniently at the botttom of the ocean, and BP will pay less in fines because of that. Everyone keeps asking, didn't anyone learn from the Valdez spill? Yes, the oil companies did. They learned to manufacture their own dispersants, ones that will sink oil and dead animals so they won't have to pay fines.

Sickening.
Click to expand...
You're absolutely right. I'll have to do some fact checking on this, but I did read one source that said the product is banned in England.
 
  • #427
BP's dispersant Corexit is harmful & dangerous: READ THE LABEL

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/ybenjamin/detail?blogid=150&entry_id=64705#ixzz0rIsC9KnI




BP says NALCO Corexit 9500 is not harmful. It does not take a rocket scientist to READ the warning label.

Corexit 9500 is a solvent originally developed by Exxon and now manufactured by the Nalco of Naperville, Illinois. Corexit is is four times more toxic than oil (oil is toxic at 11 ppm (parts per million), Corexit 9500 at only 2.61ppm).

In a report written by Anita George-Ares and James R. Clark for Exxon Biomedical Sciences, Inc. titled "Acute Aquatic Toxicity of Three Corexit Products: An Overview" Corexit 9500 was found to be one of the most toxic dispersal agents ever developed. According to the Clark and George-Ares report, Corexit mixed with the higher gulf coast water temperatures becomes even more toxic.

So to perpetuate the lie that NALCO Corexit is safe, NALCO's PR machine sends out a press release that says the following: (P.S. the bolded sentences are my editorial commentary.)

"One ingredient is used as a wetting agent in dry gelatin, beverage mixtures, and fruit juice drinks." I would like BP COO Doug Suttles take a cocktail of rum and Corexit.

"A second ingredient is used in a brand-name dry skin cream and also in a body shampoo." Maybe Tony Hayward can shampoo his hair in Corexit?

"A third ingredient is found in a popular brand of baby bath liquid."

"A fourth ingredient is found extensively in cosmetics and is also used as a surface-active agent and emulsifier for agents used in food contact." How about a shrimp barbeque marinated in Corexit for the entire NALCO board?

"A fifth ingredient is used by a major supplier of brand name household cleaning products for 'soap scum' removal." Scum removal? That sounds good for something!!!

"A sixth ingredient is used in hand creams and lotions, odorless paints and stain blockers."
If NALCO Corexit is non-toxic then why does the warning label have severe warnings?

If NALCO Corexit is non-toxic then why does the warning label have severe warnings?

I wonder if we can get some BP volunteers to serve as lab rats and spray an aerosol cloud of Corexit and have them breathe it in. We can also try asking them to take a bath in Corexit.

And if you wonder what happens to Corexit and oil in the sea, check out this video by Ocean Adventures' Jean-Michel Cousteau. Oil is bad enough. Corexit and oil is far more deadly to marine life.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/ybenjamin/detail?blogid=150&entry_id=64705#ixzz0rIrz7Hmg
 
  • #428
Dr.Fessel said:
BP's dispersant Corexit is harmful & dangerous: READ THE LABEL

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/ybenjamin/detail?blogid=150&entry_id=64705#ixzz0rIsC9KnI




BP says NALCO Corexit 9500 is not harmful. It does not take a rocket scientist to READ the warning label.

Corexit 9500 is a solvent originally developed by Exxon and now manufactured by the Nalco of Naperville, Illinois. Corexit is is four times more toxic than oil (oil is toxic at 11 ppm (parts per million), Corexit 9500 at only 2.61ppm).

In a report written by Anita George-Ares and James R. Clark for Exxon Biomedical Sciences, Inc. titled "Acute Aquatic Toxicity of Three Corexit Products: An Overview" Corexit 9500 was found to be one of the most toxic dispersal agents ever developed. According to the Clark and George-Ares report, Corexit mixed with the higher gulf coast water temperatures becomes even more toxic.

So to perpetuate the lie that NALCO Corexit is safe, NALCO's PR machine sends out a press release that says the following: (P.S. the bolded sentences are my editorial commentary.)

"One ingredient is used as a wetting agent in dry gelatin, beverage mixtures, and fruit juice drinks." I would like BP COO Doug Suttles take a cocktail of rum and Corexit.

"A second ingredient is used in a brand-name dry skin cream and also in a body shampoo." Maybe Tony Hayward can shampoo his hair in Corexit?

"A third ingredient is found in a popular brand of baby bath liquid."

"A fourth ingredient is found extensively in cosmetics and is also used as a surface-active agent and emulsifier for agents used in food contact." How about a shrimp barbeque marinated in Corexit for the entire NALCO board?

"A fifth ingredient is used by a major supplier of brand name household cleaning products for 'soap scum' removal." Scum removal? That sounds good for something!!!

"A sixth ingredient is used in hand creams and lotions, odorless paints and stain blockers."
If NALCO Corexit is non-toxic then why does the warning label have severe warnings?

If NALCO Corexit is non-toxic then why does the warning label have severe warnings?

I wonder if we can get some BP volunteers to serve as lab rats and spray an aerosol cloud of Corexit and have them breathe it in. We can also try asking them to take a bath in Corexit.

And if you wonder what happens to Corexit and oil in the sea, check out this video by Ocean Adventures' Jean-Michel Cousteau. Oil is bad enough. Corexit and oil is far more deadly to marine life.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/ybenjamin/detail?blogid=150&entry_id=64705#ixzz0rIrz7Hmg
Click to expand...


surface-active agent and emulsifier for agents

[eh-MUHL-suh-fi-er] Generally, any ingredient used to bind together normally noncombinative substances, such as oil and water. Egg yolks contain a natural emulsifier (lecithin) and are used to thicken and bind sauces (such as hollandaise), as well as to bind ingredients in baking. xanthan gum is a commercial emulsifier used in numerous foods like salad dressings and dairy products. Some commercial emulsifiers also inhibit baked goods from going stale.

That is a really deadly one for the ocean. Oil normally floats on top of water. An Emulsifier causes Oil to mix with water. Instead of floating to the surface the oil will stay in the water column.

That is why you see oil covering all the new equipment they have put on the sea floor.

Instead of calling in a flotilla of skimmers they decided it would be cheaper to just make the oil stay down in the ocean.
 
  • #429
Tony Hayward, Bob Dudley, Carl-Henric Svanberg: Who's in charge of the Gulf oil spill crisis for BP?


Maybe Tony Hayward isn't getting his life back after all.

A day after BP's chairman said Hayward was finished as the head of the company's Gulf oil spill crisis, other officials say otherwise.

"Until the leak is capped, Tony Hayward is still very much in charge in the response of this crisis," BP spokesman Robert Wine said.

The truth over who's in charge has become as slippery as the streams of black crude spewing into the sea.

BP Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg said he was relieving Hayward, the CEO, in favor of Bob Dudley, whose title is Managing Director.

The spokesman said Dudley would eventually take over for Hayward, but not immediately. "Clearly the well is still leaking," he said.

It sure is.

Since the Deepwater Horizon rig blew up April 20, killing 11 workers and triggering the worst oil spill disaster in U.S. history, between 65 million and nearly 122 million gallons of oil have leaked into the ocean.

A $20 billion fund for oil spill victims announced this week did little to cool anger over BP's cleanup performance.

Tensions reached new highs this past week with BP execs, including Hayward and Svanberg, appearing before Congress and meeting with President Obama.

The top execs managed to further rile politicians and victims of the spill.

Referring to Gulf Coast residents, Svanberg this week said BP cares "about the sm

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...arge_of_the_gulf_oil_spill.html#ixzz0rJIXOxdd


........................................................................


Here is an Idea.

Maybe Obama can go back down to the Gulf and buy a snow cone and and ask the "little people" vendor who is in charge.
 
  • #430
  • #431
As Bloomberg reports today, problems at the well actually started in February:

BP Plc was struggling to seal cracks in its Macondo well as far back as February, more than two months before an explosion killed 11 and spewed oil into the Gulf of Mexico.

It took 10 days to plug the first cracks, according to reports BP filed with the Minerals Management Service that were later delivered to congressional investigators. Cracks in the surrounding rock continued to complicate the drilling operation during the ensuing weeks. Left unsealed, they can allow explosive natural gas to rush up the shaft.

“Once they realized they had oil down there, all the decisions they made were designed to get that oil at the lowest cost,” said Peter Galvin of the Center for Biological Diversity, which has been working with congressional investigators probing the disaster. “It’s been a doomed voyage from the beginning.”


http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/06/did-bp-oil-well-blow-out-in-february.html
 
  • #432
  • #433
The following are 30 shocking quotes about the Gulf of Mexico oil spill that reveal the soul-crushing horror this disaster is causing....

#1) Councilman Jay LaFont of Grand Isle, Louisiana:

"As long as you have something to look forward to, a little glimmer of hope, you can move on. But this just drained everything out of us."

#2) Billy Nungesser, president of Plaquemines Parish:

"They said the black oil wouldn’t come ashore. Well, it is ashore. It’s here to stay and it’s going to keep coming."

#3) Prosanta Chakrabarty, a Louisiana State University fish biologist:

"Every fish and invertebrate contacting the oil is probably dying. I have no doubt about that."

#4) Marine toxicologist Dr. Susan Shaw, director of the Marine Environmental Research Institute on BP's use of chemical dispersants:

"They've been used at such a high volume that it's unprecedented. The worst of these – Corexit 9527 – is the one they've been using most. That ruptures red blood cells and causes fish to bleed. With 800,000 gallons of this, we can only imagine the death that will be caused."

#5) Dr. Larry McKinney, director of the Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies in Texas:

"Bluefin tuna spawn just south of the oil spill and they spawn only in the Gulf. If they were to go through the area at a critical time, that's one instance where a plume could destroy a whole species."

#6) Carol Browner, Barack Obama's adviser on energy and climate:

"This is probably the biggest environmental disaster we have ever faced in this country. It is certainly the biggest oil spill and we are responding with the biggest environmental response."

#7) Richard Charter of the Defenders of Wildlife:

"It is so big and expanding so fast that it's pretty much beyond human response that can be effective. ... You're looking at a long-term poisoning of the area. Ultimately, this will have a multidecade impact."

#8) Reverand Mike Tran:
"We don't know when this will ever be over. It's a way of life that's under assault, and people don't when their next paycheck is going to be."

#9) Louis Miller of the Mississippi Sierra Club:

"This is going to destroy the Mississippi and the Gulf Coast as we know it."

#10) Dean Blanchard, owner of a seafood business:

"I hold Obama responsible for not making BP stand up and look at the people in the face and fix it."

#11) Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal:

"The day that we’ve been fearing is upon us."

#12) Billy Nungesser, president of Plaquemines Parish, about BP CEO Tony Hayward:

"We ought to take him offshore and dunk him 10 feet underwater and pull him up and ask him 'What's that all over your face?"

#13) Former Clinton adviser James Carville:

"The country feels like it's entitled to abuse this state and forget about us, and we are sick of it."

#14) An anonymous Louisiana resident:

"A hurricane is like closing your bank account for a few days, but this here has the capacity to destroy our bank accounts."

#15) U.S. Representative Edward Markey:

"I have no confidence whatsoever in BP . I think that they do not know what they are doing."

#16) Gulf coast resident Marie Michel:
"Immediately, it's no more fishing, no more crabbing, no more swimming, no more walking on the beach."

#17) Brenda Prosser of Mobile, Alabama:

"I just started crying. I couldn't quit crying. I'm shaking now. To know that our beach may be black or brown, or that we can't get in the water, it's so sad."

#18) Qin Chen, an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge on the possibility that a hurricane could push massive amounts of oil ashore along the Gulf:

"A hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico this year would be devastating."

#19) Retired Army General Russel Honore on the effect this spill is having on residents of the Gulf coast:

"I'm sure, every time they hear a negative word, their skin crawls, 'cause they need these jobs. ... This is what's going to put their kids in school, and what pays the rent."

#20) A group calling itself "Seize BP":
"The greatest environmental disaster with no end in sight! Eleven workers dead. Millions of gallons of oil gushing for months (and possibly years) to come. Jobs vanishing. Creatures dying. A pristine environment destroyed for generations. A mega-corporation that has lied and continues to lie, and a government that refuses to protect the people."

#21) Louisiania Governor Bobby Jindal:

"There has been failure, particularly with the effort to protect our coast and our marsh. And that was the biggest topic of discussion in a very frank meeting we had with the president."

#22) BP’s chief operating officer, Doug Suttles:

"This scares everybody — the fact that we can’t make this well stop flowing, the fact that we haven’t succeeded so far."

#23) Doug Rader, chief ocean scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund:

"You simply cannot make more (reefs), unless you have a few thousand years to wait."

#24) Public Service Commissioner Benjamin Stevens:

"You get hit by a hurricane and you can rebuild. But when that stuff washes up on the white sands of Pensacola Beach, you can't just go and get more white sand.''

#25) Wilma Subra, a chemist who has served as a consultant to the Environmental Protection Agency:

"Every time the wind blows from the south-east to the shore, people are being made sick."

#26) Hotel Owner Dodie Vegas:

"It's just going to kill us. It's going to destroy us."

#27) Louisiana resident Sean Lanier:

"Until they stop this leak, it's just like getting stabbed and the knife's still in you, and they're moving it around."

#28) White House energy adviser Carol Browner:
"There could be oil coming up until August."

#29) Marine toxicologist Dr. Susan Shaw, director of the Marine Environmental Research Institute:

"We'll see dead bodies soon. Sharks, dolphins, sea turtles, whales: the impact on predators will be seen in a short time because the food web will be impacted from the bottom up."

#30) Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nungesser:

"We will die a slow death over the next two years as this oil creeps ashore."

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/...soul-crushing-horror-this-disaster-is-causing
 
  • #434
Well well well - I guess he "got his life back"!!!!!!!


As oil spews in Gulf, BP chief at UK yacht race

By RAPHAEL SATTER
Associated Press Writer
LONDON -- BP chief executive Tony Hayward, often criticized for being tone-deaf to U.S. concerns about the worst oil spill in American history, took time off Saturday to attend a glitzy yacht race off England's Isle of Wight.

Spokeswoman Sheila Williams said Hayward took a break from overseeing BP efforts to stem the undersea gusher in Gulf of Mexico to watch his boat "Bob" participate in the J.P. Morgan Asset Management Round the Island Race.

**more at link**

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/06/18/1688932/bp-spokesman-hayward-is-still.html#ixzz0rJqcUlSA


I have "no comment" (that stays within TOS)
 
  • #435
Dr.Fessel said:
As Bloomberg reports today, problems at the well actually started in February:

BP Plc was struggling to seal cracks in its Macondo well as far back as February, more than two months before an explosion killed 11 and spewed oil into the Gulf of Mexico.

It took 10 days to plug the first cracks, according to reports BP filed with the Minerals Management Service that were later delivered to congressional investigators. Cracks in the surrounding rock continued to complicate the drilling operation during the ensuing weeks. Left unsealed, they can allow explosive natural gas to rush up the shaft.

“Once they realized they had oil down there, all the decisions they made were designed to get that oil at the lowest cost,” said Peter Galvin of the Center for Biological Diversity, which has been working with congressional investigators probing the disaster. “It’s been a doomed voyage from the beginning.”


http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/06/did-bp-oil-well-blow-out-in-february.html
Click to expand...

I found this yesterday-so tragic!! This man knew something was very, very wrong!!
[video=youtube;Yufx0V727zU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yufx0V727zU[/video]
 
  • #436
Oprah doesn't understand what people want him (Obama) to do!! I think I hear "Stand by your man" playing somewhere!! Seriously, I thought she could come up with something better than that!! Ask the people of LA what he could be doing - I'm sure they have some suggestions!!:banghead:
[video=youtube;ZGa5C1WRyPM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGa5C1WRyPM[/video]
 
  • #437
Why Did Halliburton Buy An Oil Cleanup Company 8 Days Before The Oil Spill?
http://inspiredeconomist.com/2010/0...-cleanup-company-8-days-before-the-oil-spill/
<snipped>
There are innumerable of bits of information floating around in the battle over the narrative of this national disaster. This one is particularly disturbing. From AOL’s Daily Finance just over a week before the spill:

“…the days of independence have come to an end for Boots & Coots as the company has agreed to sell out to Halliburton (HAL) for $240.4 million.”
 
  • #438
essies said:
I found this yesterday-so tragic!! This man knew something was very, very wrong!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yufx0V727zU
Click to expand...

I only saw her interview on one of the news channels once, I was dumbfounded by everything she said. This is a perfect example of what was really going on and how the media must have been told to "misplace" the interview and never show it again.
 
  • #439
Dr.Fessel said:
As Bloomberg reports today, problems at the well actually started in February:

BP Plc was struggling to seal cracks in its Macondo well as far back as February, more than two months before an explosion killed 11 and spewed oil into the Gulf of Mexico.

It took 10 days to plug the first cracks, according to reports BP filed with the Minerals Management Service that were later delivered to congressional investigators. Cracks in the surrounding rock continued to complicate the drilling operation during the ensuing weeks. Left unsealed, they can allow explosive natural gas to rush up the shaft.

“Once they realized they had oil down there, all the decisions they made were designed to get that oil at the lowest cost,” said Peter Galvin of the Center for Biological Diversity, which has been working with congressional investigators probing the disaster. “It’s been a doomed voyage from the beginning.”


http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/06/did-bp-oil-well-blow-out-in-february.html
Click to expand...

I would like to think that all of this will eventually come up before Congress and then the Judiciary Committee......there must be criminal charges filed
against them for this kind of negligence or accidents/willful acts like this will continue.
 
  • #440
gaia said:
You know, this is going to be negative to most of you, but the nuclear detonation is not a bad idea. The nuclear answer would be so far down in the ocean, very few animals would be affected to a great degree - certainly not like what's already happening on land and in the oil spill in the water. The Russians have used this method more than once to stop spills without disturbing much at all. There is no threat to people living along the coast. That's what a PhD MIT prof has told me. I don't know if this is true, but if it is, I'm thinking BP won't even consider it because they want this oil and just wish to cap the well temporarily.

gaia
Click to expand...

This has been considered by the top scientist in the world and if it fails then we deny ourselves other options.

Frustrated with the lack of progress three weeks into the crisis, the U.S. sent in a team of nuclear physicists assembled by President Obama's energy secretary Steven Chu, including Richard Garwin who designed the first hydrogen bomb and Sandia National Laboratories director Tom Hunter. The team visited BP's main crisis centre in Houston, where they worked with BP scientists to reach an answer.[108] On May 24 BP ruled out conventional explosives, saying that if the company tried blasts to crimp the well and failed, &#8220;We would have denied ourselves all other options.&#8221;[109]

Federal officials also confirmed neither Energy Secretary Steven Chu nor anyone else ever considered using a nuclear device under the gulf because of both environmental and political risks: doing so would violate the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty signed (but not yet ratified) by the United States.[110] In addition, Thad Allen was quoted in a May 30 article in the Washington Post as stating, "My view is since we don't know the condition of that well bore or the casings, I would be cautious about putting any kind of kinetic energy on that well head, because what you may do is create open communication between the reservoir and the sea floor."[111] Allen made a similar remark during a C-span interview on May 26, adding that the result could be oil seeping through cracks and through the seafloor, "and then be uncontrolled until the reservoir pressure equalized with the hydrostatic pressure; I think that's a risk that's too great to take a chance on, myself."[112

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Dark Knight
Tiny 'crazy ants' are a giant nuisance for U.S. Gulf Coast
Replies
1
Views
996
Linda7NJ
Linda7NJ
Reader
Tropical Storm Karen in Gulf of Mexico
Replies
2
Views
1K
Reader
Reader
Steely Dan
Tuna capsizes boat, drags fisherman into pacific before Coast Guard rescue
Replies
0
Views
1K
Steely Dan
Steely Dan
wfgodot
Violent Gulf Coast dolphin deaths a mystery - and an outrage - for scientists
Replies
12
Views
1K
Quiche
Quiche
belimom
Coast Guard Investigating Reports of Oil Spill in Gulf
Replies
8
Views
1K
bessie
bessie

Staff online

Members online

... and 125 more.
Total: 3,745 (members: 126, guests: 3,619)

Online statistics

Members online
126
Guests online
3,619
Total visitors
3,745
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
632,667
Messages
18,630,042
Members
243,242
Latest member
-Lolo-
Back
Top