By Octopus
I have not had time to digest this latest report, so here it is … raw:
Scientists are finding enormous oil plumes in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico, including one as large as 10 miles long, 3 miles wide and 300 feet thick [my bold] in spots. The discovery is fresh evidence that the leak from the broken undersea well could be substantially worse than estimates that the government and BP have given (…) The plumes are depleting the oxygen dissolved in the gulf, worrying scientists, who fear that the oxygen level could eventually fall so low as to kill off much of the sea life near the plumes.
Are you pissed off yet? There is more …
BP has resisted entreaties from scientists that they be allowed to use sophisticated instruments at the ocean floor that would give a far more accurate picture of how much oil is really gushing from the well (…) “The answer is no to that,” a BP spokesman, Tom Mueller, said on Saturday.
And here is another clusterfuck of the highest order:
"It appears that the application of the subsea dispersant is actually working,” Doug Suttles, BP’s chief operating officer for exploration and production, said Saturday. “The oil in the immediate vicinity of the well and the ships and rigs working in the area is diminished from previous observations.”Did I read this correctly? “Enormous oil plumes in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico, including one as large as 10 miles long, 3 miles wide and 300 feet thick in spots.” Yet, the highly toxic subsea dispersant is actually working! As their Pinocchio noses grow to astronomical size, those BP executives should use mile-long straws to blow crude up their nostrils. Which is larger? The size of the oil plume or the size of their assholes?
Why does BP get to say no to those who wish to take a look at the gushing oil? They don't own the ocean floor, do they???
ReplyDeleteWelcome, Jack. BP leases the oil fields from the government, but I don't know if the terms preclude or restrict our rights to a public inspection. Certainly, the property belongs to the American people, and certainly one would consider this a dire emergency that justifies some form of intervention and/or remediation. Who knows? The terms of lease agreement would make an interesting investigative report (Lindsay, are you reading this?).
ReplyDeleteAccording to the latest status map from the Coast Guard, the approximately 7,500 square mile slick is now within 70 miles of Pensacola.
ReplyDeleteNow entering day 26, it is apparent that BP is more concerned about losing the oil stream as revenue than stemming the catastrophic damage to the Gulf. Is anyone on the multi-agency/academic/oil expert response team even trying to think of a plan to stop the leak? Or are they all onboard with BP? The Coast Guard Commandant is certainly glib in his public comments. Obama seems to be afraid to say anything.
There is more ... Whistleblower Claims That BP Was Aware Of Cheating On Blowout Preventer Tests:
ReplyDeleteAs the federal and congressional probes continue into the causes of the Gulf oil rig explosion, new information is coming to light about the failure of a key device, the blowout preventer, to shut off the gushing well, which could have prevented the growing catastrophe (…) At today's hearing before a House subcommittee, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., revealed that the blowout preventer had a leak in a crucial hydraulic system and had failed a negative pressure test just hours before the April 20 explosion. And at a hearing in Louisiana on Tuesday, the government engineer who gave oil giant BP the final approval to drill admitted that he never asked for proof that the preventer worked (…) Mike Mason, who worked on oil rigs in Alaska for 18 years, says that he observed cheating on blowout preventer tests at least 100 times, including on many wells owned by BP.
Mason and another oil worker provided sworn statements in a 2003 lawsuit that rig supervisors "routinely falsified reports to show equipment designed to prevent blowouts was passing state-mandated performance tests," reported the Wall Street Journal in 2005.
Mason was interviewed by the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission in 2005 during a probe into allegations that Nabors Drilling, a subcontractor to BP, falsified such tests, among other claims that BP failed to report blowouts at the massive Prudhoe Bay oil field. The probe was spurred by oil industry critic Charles Hamel, who forwarded his allegation to then-Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska (…) "These oil interests are very powerful -- they will stop at nothing to stop you."
Tell us a lot ... especially that last quote.
I think BP (and the government) hope to get away with a low estimate of the gusher (leak) rate because:
ReplyDelete1. The more volatile portion of the oil evaporates and thus "disappears".
2. The least volatile portion never makes it to the surface - hence the large underwater plumb.
3. A portion of the surface oil will sink back below the surface as the more volatile portion evaporates.
We will never "see" a large portion of the oil and we will recover only a small portion of what we see.
These are the times I wish we were more like China, where negligent and/or crooked CEOs are executed.
ReplyDeleteI am so surprised- SO SURPRISED- that BP is not owning up to the extent of the damage. And they are such a public-minded company, from such a compassionate, well-intentioned industry, too.
ReplyDeleteI'm beginning to think that that Daniel Day Lewis character was just about right.