Will they fix that oil spill thingie or do they just wait....

[SlowwHand]

Who is Peachy? I don't think I've seen you bring up that name before.

[notyoueither]

Specifically how? I would have liked to see oil booming done properly but apparently there just isn't enough oil booms in the country to contain this and they've literally bought all the spare oil booms in both Europe and Middle East so how else do you stop the oil? I suppose Congress could have passed a new law waving the environmental impact report for constructing barrier islands around the marshes but realistically it would take years to construct that many artificial islands so I don't see that as realistic even if it happened and, besides, it's not exactly with in Obama's power to force Congress to pass a law.

Laws should be put in place requiring oil companies to have all the needed oil booms needed for a worst case scenario BEFORE drilling starts but again that's not possible in the current situation. Heck, they should even be required to have a premade top hat doom sitting in a warehouse before drilling starts but again that's a future law change (if at all) and has nothing to do with the response to the current BP spill. I'm curious what more you think could be done at the present time.

They could have started by directing booms to the most sensitive ecological points and ensured their proper use.

Then there is the matter of the paralysis of the federal bureaucracy. Your country can get a declaration of war through Congress within twelve or so hours of attack, but you cannot manage to get the regulators out of the way when you have weeks to contemplate the dispersed oil heading for the coastlines of several states?

And then there is BP's response of using dispersants, as you yourself have noted. Dont you think a letter asking nicely for them to stop using it was insufficient?

[Dinner]

I do find it odd that sufficient equipment/preparations to deal which such a reality weren't required before this well was even begun. That seems very strange on the face of it.

For that you can blame Dick Cheney's "Energy Council" of 2002. They literally rewrote all of the regulations in the country reguarding oil drilling and coal mining, none of it was on the public record, literally even the minutes are classified so no one knows what they said, but as a result all the environmental laws and safety laws were rewritten by oil companies for oil companies. It's that simple. Our laws got gutted because the former CEO of a drilling company decided he wanted to reduce costs for oil drilling. It's a ****ing crime but that's what happened.

I'm 100% sure Oerdin has never studied oil management techniques.

He's just regurgitating something I'm sure he's read on one of his blogs. It's what he usually does anyway.

And I'm 100% certain you are a ********. Seriously, you don't have to be a genious to understand that if the oil spill covers X area then a coagulatent makes it cover X-Y area so less area is effected but if you spray a disbursent then it spreads out and covers X + Z area. You end up with more area effected. That's the bottom line you computer desk jockey, dumb ****. Worse, disbusents make the oil sink into the water column (but rarely to the ocean floor) so you end up with vastly more space in the ocean actually saturated with oil and you kill vastly more fish. This isn't rocket science, you gay tw@t. You don't need an advanced degree to understand this stuff.

[Asher]

And I'm 100% certain you are a ********. Seriously, you don't have to be a genious to understand that if the oil spill covers X area then a coagulatent makes it cover X-Y area so less area is effected but if you spray a disbursent then it spreads out and covers X + Z area. You end up with more area effected. That's the bottom line you computer desk jockey, dumb ****.

I'm just saying your geology degree doesn't make you an expert in this area. I never said it was true or false, "dumb ****".

Worse, disbusents make the oil sink into the water column (but rarely to the ocean floor) so you end up with vastly more space in the ocean actually saturated with oil and you kill vastly more fish. This isn't rocket science, you gay tw@t. You don't need an advanced degree to understand this stuff.

You shouldn't call people names when you fail reading comprehension. I was just mentioning your geology degree doesn't make you an expert in the physics of oil on top of water.

[Dinner]

They could have started by directing booms to the most sensitive ecological points and ensured their proper use.

Agreed, since they left that up to BP though it was BP's fault and when it became obvious BP was not doing a good job it was too late. I do think the administration is doing some buck passing here by trying to keep its hands off knowing then they can later blame BP. I think that was the wrong choice in reality (even if it was the good choice politically) and the administration it to blame for that.

Then there is the matter of the paralysis of the federal bureaucracy. Your country can get a declaration of war through Congress within twelve or so hours of attack, but you cannot manage to get the regulators out of the way when you have weeks to contemplate the dispersed oil heading for the coastlines of several states?

Part of that is the administration was likely caught flat footed and didn't know what to do since it was not their area of expertise, yes, in hind site I think they should have monitored BP more closely and supervised what they did or did not do but that does seem to be 20/20 hindsight.
[quote[
And then there is BP's response of using dispersants, as you yourself have noted. Dont you think a letter asking nicely for them to stop using it was insufficient?[/QUOTE]

I do not think BP should have been allowed to use disbursents under any conditions. It's illegal in all of Europe and has been for a decade due to the fact that these disbursents being more toxic then the oil itself. Belatedly the administration has directed BP to stop spray disbursents but the ****wades at BP have kept spraying them any way. I think someone should go to jail for that and BP should be barred from drilling in the US for at least a decade (if not longer) and automatically lose all leases in the US due to this fact. It's ****ing criminal. The universally acknowledged better way is to spray coagulants so that the oil is easier to collect, so that the oil effects a smaller area, and because the coagulants are less toxic then the disbursents. As I said before the only possible reason, the ONLY possible reason, I can think of why BP would prefer disbursents over coagulents is because they didn't want there to be photographs of the oil and because they thought if it was out of sight then it was out of mind even if it caused vastly more damage.

The net result is more sea life dies and a larger area is negatively effected even if Asher is such a dumb **** that he thinks it takes a PHd to understand this very basic fact.

[Dinner]

I'm just saying your geology degree doesn't make you an expert in this area. I never said it was true or false, "dumb ****".

Liar. You claimed that not having an advanced degree specifically in oil disbursents or coagulents meant someone could not comment on obvious facts such as disbursents disburse oil and make it cover a larger area while coagulents make it collect and cover a smaller area. Stop lying. You tried to make an appeal to authority without realizing that you don't need an advanced degree to understand such basic things. You were simply being a ********.

[Asher]

Liar. You claimed that not having an advanced degree specifically in oil disbursents or coagulents meant someone could not comment on obvious facts such as disbursents disburse oil and make it cover a larger area while coagulents make it collect and cover a smaller area. Stop lying. You tried to make an appeal to authority without realizing that you don't need an advanced degree to understand such basic things. You were simply being a ********.

Holy ****, what the ****?

You're so far in Ben territory here I'm not sure you even realize it.

[Asher]

And for the record, I'm not sure WTF anyone thinks a geologist has an area of expertise in oil coagulation on the surface of water. Wezil is just as qualified as Oerdin here.

Where in this post did I mention "advanced degree"?

I'm just pointing out a geologist does not necessarily know more than someone else who has an active interest in science. This isn't a geological problem.

I didn't say you were right or wrong, I was just taking issue with the claim (not even one YOU made) that your geology degree means you necessarily know what you're talking about with regards to oil on water.

[MrFun]

Thanks a lot, BP.

[The Mad Monk]

Like hell it isn't a geological problem. Who do you think does the heavy lifting at environmental remediation firms?

[Asher]

Probably minimum wage workers and volunteers in rubber waders.

[Legend]

HERE is a live feed from the ROVs at the riser, trying to do the well kill.

RE dispersants vs coagulants: Not really sure how coagulants could be much use - they are used to bind very small droplets, usually ones that have been formed by shearing the hell out of an oil / water mix (large pressure drops etc). Not seeing why there would be particularly small droplets here - its flowing as a contiguous slick.

As for the "hat" - in 5000 ft of water, you're at 150 barg. Hydrate formation temperature of the associated gas at that pressure has got to be 25°C, and the gulf will be much colder than that - ie the "hat" will block pretty damned quickly.

[Dinner]

Just to show you that this has all been done before and nothing has changed in the oil business. Check out this well blow out in the Gulf of Mexico in 1979 complete with the rig going up in flames & sinking, trying (and failing) all the same stuff BP is doing now, and the only thing that worked was drilling a relief well. Nothing has really changed in the last 30 years.

[Dinner]

I'm just pointing out a geologist does not necessarily know more than someone else who has an active interest in science. This isn't a geological problem.

I can agree with that.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Where in this post did I mention "advanced degree"?

I'm just pointing out a geologist does not necessarily know more than someone else who has an active interest in science. This isn't a geological problem.

I didn't say you were right or wrong, I was just taking issue with the claim (not even one YOU made) that your geology degree means you necessarily know what you're talking about with regards to oil on water.

I tend to think of people that refer to chemicals used to emulsify oils and allows them to scatter as "dispersants" as having an edge on those who refer to those same chemicals as "disburse(me)nts". The latter seem only capable of throwing money at the problem.