Read somewhere that a while ago they needed nine months to cap a leaking well.

Edit: Here's the link, very similair problem and solutions tried.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1828...pg=1386,5492250

If you are referring to the 'game of life' I would have to agree. I wonder why the mainstream media seem so relaxed about this. There should be BP executives being executed live on TV. Somebody needs to plug this whole and FAAAST. In the mean time I might just run around with my hands in the air muttering those words, 'The end is near'.

From over here it seems like they are all over it - since Day One!

Big Oil's "Cozy Relationship" with Inspectors

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/25/...html?tag=exclsv

Oil Spill: 5 Weeks On, Hope Pinned on "Top Kill"

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/26/...ent;cbsCarousel

VIDEO - BP's Cozy Connections

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=651...=mg;eveningnews

VIDEO - Gulf of Mexico Poisoned

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=651...=mg;eveningnews

ABC NEWS -several articles

http://topics.abcnews.go.com/page/Gulf-Oil-Spill

NBC NEWS refers to MSNBC

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36947751

And what they don't want you to see.

http://gizmodo.com/5547548/the-gulf-disast...want-you-to-see

You see, they are not doing a good job of 'booming' the oil that has leaked thus far, apparently.

Dutch team of engineers have offered to bring in "Skimmers" They basically are big vacuum cleaners which suck up the oil and water and then seperate it. Water with some oil is then pumped back in the sea. But guess what, US law forbids pumping back water with a litlle oil back into the sea.

Dutch team of engineers have offered to bring in "Skimmers" They basically are big vacuum cleaners which suck up the oil and water and then seperate it. Water with some oil is then pumped back in the sea. But guess what, US law forbids pumping back water with a litlle oil back into the sea.

I also had originally thought that a skimmer of sorts would be a good temp idea.

But that is when I thought they could repair the leak quickly.

Then I realized they cannot easily if at all repair this leak.

They are basically working with a underwater volcano &

The only difference being it is spewing crude oil instead of molten lava.

Made me realize something about all of this....Size wise & also containment wise.

There is no way other than some stoppage.

Nothing else will likely work.

Even if they had a direct vacuum on it they could never keep up with the supply.

Even if they had tankers lined up for miles they would all be filled & then need to transport during which time the spewing continues.

Same for their ideas about dumping a slurry mix & try to clog the hole.

They would be as successful at trying to stop a volcano the same way. In my mind I just dont see it happening.

Any such product needs to setup & that time is not allowed under pressure like what is being produced.

This is going to have a major impact on those coastal regions nearby....

They will lose their livelihoods & all the businesses whether supply to the industry or sales of the products, restaurants etc in that industry will also feel it or die.

Those folks will all be migrating north looking for work that does not exist especially now in this financial mess that was already well underway.

Next the oil will see its way into other areas ending who knows where & ultimately causing who knows what damages.

Not even thinking about the great dispersion chemicals that got a quick approval to be dumped/sprayed into the ocean. Who knows what effect that will also have long term.

I get the distinct impression they have truly screwed the pooch this time.

I hope they have some luck sooner than later.

You see, they are not doing a good job of 'booming' the oil that has leaked thus far, apparently.

Fu_king good video

Dutch team of engineers have offered to bring in "Skimmers" They basically are big vacuum cleaners which suck up the oil and water and then seperate it. Water with some oil is then pumped back in the sea. But guess what, US law forbids pumping back water with a litlle oil back into the sea.

US Environmentalists are tough SOBs. Many of them don't have a nose on their face anymore.

At least the oil is all-natural. What other disasters have come about by man introducing two natural things together that don't belong together? I'm not talking about some nutter bringing fire to a dry forest.

F U BP

Good news about the Oil Gusher, looks like they were able to block the leak, perhaps.

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/top-k...from=widget_rss

Good news about the Oil Gusher, looks like they were able to block the leak, perhaps.

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/top-k...from=widget_rss

That would be great news.

Has not been reported as such here in the US yet.

In fact todays report is just to state it is now worse than the Exxon....But we knew that.

Maybe they are saving it for Zobamas speech today

Dutch team of engineers have offered to bring in "Skimmers" They basically are big vacuum cleaners which suck up the oil and water and then seperate it. Water with some oil is then pumped back in the sea. But guess what, US law forbids pumping back water with a litlle oil back into the sea.

dutch engineers can vacuum and skim more than a thousand square miles of open sea?

Good news about the Oil Gusher, looks like they were able to block the leak, perhaps.

Does not seem to be working.

Zobama never mentioned it in his speech & he surely would have as this is now his Katrina.

Also just in a few minutes ago

BP Resumes Efforts to Plug Oil Leak

Not unlike what I said about volume & the need to refill even before they have pumped enough anything into it...

Then to top it off if it does not work they will shoot golf balls & rubber into it?????

Geeez

The pumping operations resumed late Thursday after BP had suspended the process to restock the fluids.

Earlier Thursday, BP Chief Operating Officer Doug Suttles said the current procedure calls for pumping mud-like heavy fluids into the well to combat the oil flow, then using cement to seal it off. Suttles said if the leak continues, the company may have to try to use even heavier mud, or attempt a so-called "junk shot" in which golf balls and pieces of rubber will be injected into the well head at high speeds.

Apparently it has been haulted but nobody is sure if the fix is 'stable' and I think Obama is waiting for the first 24 hours to pass before he says anything. Strange little man.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010...-spill-top-kill

http://www.news.com.au/world/barack-obama-...i-1225872318733

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/bps-t...from=widget_rss

You can have a laugh about good intentions Naam. They or I never said they could skim all the oil as the area is indeed very big. I am just thinking every gallon of oil that can be taken out is one.

Then to top it off if it does not work they will shoot golf balls & rubber into it?????

Geeez

This could be Tiger's big chance to clean up his image along with the Gulf!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0052702988.html

Here's my question: Why were we drilling in 5,000 feet of water in the first place?

Many reasons, but this one goes unmentioned: Environmental chic has driven us out there. As production from the shallower Gulf of Mexico wells declines, we go deep (1,000 feet and more) and ultra deep (5,000 feet and more), in part because environmentalists have succeeded in rendering the Pacific and nearly all the Atlantic coast off-limits to oil production.

...

There will always be catastrophic oil spills. You make them as rare as humanly possible, but where would you rather have one: in the Gulf of Mexico, upon which thousands depend for their livelihood, or in the Arctic, where there are practically no people? All spills seriously damage wildlife. That's a given. But why have we pushed the drilling from the barren to the populated, from the remote wilderness to a center of fishing, shipping, tourism and recreation?

...

Not that the environmentalists are the only ones to blame. Not by far. But it is odd that they've escaped any mention at all.

The other culprits are pretty obvious. It starts with BP, which seems not only to have had an amazing string of perfect-storm engineering lapses but no contingencies to deal with a catastrophic system failure.

However, the railing against BP for its performance since the accident is harder to understand. I attribute no virtue to BP, just self-interest. What possible interest can it have to do anything but cap the well as quickly as possible? Every day that oil is spilled means millions more in losses, cleanup and restitution.

...

Obama didn't help much with his finger-pointing Rose Garden speech in which he denounced finger-pointing, then proceeded to blame everyone but himself. Even the grace note of admitting some federal responsibility turned sour when he reflexively added that these problems have been going on "for a decade or more" -- translation: Bush did it -- while, in contrast, his own interior secretary had worked diligently to solve the problem "from the day he took office."

Really? Why hadn't we heard a thing about this? What about the September 2009 letter from Obama's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration accusing Interior's Minerals Management Service of understating the "risk and impacts" of a major oil spill? When you get a blowout 15 months into your administration, and your own Interior Department had given BP a "categorical" environmental exemption in April 2009, the buck stops.

There will always be catastrophic oil spills. You make them as rare as humanly possible, but where would you rather have one: in the Gulf of Mexico, upon which thousands depend for their livelihood or in the Arctic, where there are practically no people? All spills seriously damage wildlife. That's a given. But why have we pushed the drilling from the barren to the populated, from the remote wilderness to a center of fishing, shipping, tourism and recreation?

Not that the environmentalists are the only ones to blame. Not by far. But it is odd that they've escaped any mention at all.

Perhaps that escapes mention because it is so ignorant that it does not warrant mention.

Really I cannot believe anyone would write something that stupid.

edit: I do mean the reporter of the article & not you koheesti

There will always be catastrophic oil spills. You make them as rare as humanly possible, but where would you rather have one: in the Gulf of Mexico, upon which thousands depend for their livelihood or in the Arctic, where there are practically no people? All spills seriously damage wildlife. That's a given. But why have we pushed the drilling from the barren to the populated, from the remote wilderness to a center of fishing, shipping, tourism and recreation?

Not that the environmentalists are the only ones to blame. Not by far. But it is odd that they've escaped any mention at all.

Perhaps that escapes mention because it is so ignorant that it does not warrant mention.

Really I cannot believe anyone would write something that stupid.

edit: I do mean the reporter of the article & not you koheesti

Here is another editorial viewpoint that concurs with Mr. Koheesti, as do I.

________________________________________________

Almost every problem we face today arises from the vanity of Big Government. Why has BP got oil wells 5,000 feet underwater in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico? Because government regulated them off-land, off-coast, and ever deeper into the briny.

True, BP went along. Its initials stand for "British Petroleum". You may not be aware of that if you've seen any of their commercials in recent years: "BP — Beyond Petroleum." They were an oil company ashamed of their product, and advertising only how anxious they were to get with the environmental program. And a fat lot of good that did them.

BP, not to mention its customers, would have been better to push back against government policies that drive energy suppliers into ever more unpredictable terrain in order to protect the Alaskan breeding grounds of the world's largest mosquito herd. Instead, we'll do the opposite. There'll be even more government protection of "the environment," and even more government regulation of the oil industry, and BP will be drilling for oil in that Icelandic volcano.

________________________________________________

Full article here.. http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/A...Government.aspx

NIMBYs, the lot of them.

The thirst for oil drives them, but "not in MY back yard". Who cares about pristine wilderness? Not the Nimbys.

If anything, this disaster should emphasise the dire need imperative to seek alternative fuels. They are there....the technology is there....but the oil barons impede their introduction.

Intersting to note that chuck's link is "investors.com"...it's all about the dollars.

There will always be catastrophic oil spills. You make them as rare as humanly possible, but where would you rather have one: in the Gulf of Mexico, upon which thousands depend for their livelihood or in the Arctic, where there are practically no people? All spills seriously damage wildlife. That's a given. But why have we pushed the drilling from the barren to the populated, from the remote wilderness to a center of fishing, shipping, tourism and recreation?

Not that the environmentalists are the only ones to blame. Not by far. But it is odd that they've escaped any mention at all.

Perhaps that escapes mention because it is so ignorant that it does not warrant mention.

Really I cannot believe anyone would write something that stupid.

edit: I do mean the reporter of the article & not you koheesti

Here is another editorial viewpoint that concurs with Mr. Koheesti, as do I.

________________________________________________

Almost every problem we face today arises from the vanity of Big Government. Why has BP got oil wells 5,000 feet underwater in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico? Because government regulated them off-land, off-coast, and ever deeper into the briny.

BP, not to mention its customers, would have been better to push back against government policies that drive energy suppliers into ever more unpredictable terrain

Actually you are agreeing with Mr. Charles Krauthammer Since Koheesti did not offer an opinion but did quote one as you did.

The reason I said it was stupid is because incompetence or lack of forethought does not care if it is in an unpopulated area or not. When a world changing catastrophic disaster is the result. Those things have a way of making their way around the world & have little difference just because they are instigated in an unpopulated area...

Which does also make you wonder what 50 miles offshore is considered if not unpopulated.

The end result would be the same.

As for your quoted article........ That is pretty silly to say they.. the oil companies have not pushed back....Lest you not know it they pretty much run the show when it comes to lobbyist.

It is time for a change. There are options that the oil companies have helped squash for decades. I believe you even mentioned one in the past....

If anything, this disaster should emphasise the dire need imperative to seek alternative fuels. They are there....the technology is there....but the oil barons impede their introduction.

Natural Gas can be made into Diesel Fuel already & is being used in Africa & elsewhere ...done by Shell if I remember right...

NG is already the preferred heating fuel & also used in Agriculture & Industrial applications. If I were still in the markets I would be looking at NG as a possible investment.

NIMBYs, the lot of them.

The thirst for oil drives them, but "not in MY back yard". Who cares about pristine wilderness? Not the Nimbys.

If anything, this disaster should emphasise the dire need imperative to seek alternative fuels. They are there....the technology is there....but the oil barons impede their introduction.

Intersting to note that chuck's link is "investors.com"...it's all about the dollars.

I refuse to educate you about a source. Go to the internet to find out about Investor's Business Daily and Investor's.com.

Then come back with something even a teensy bit intelligent.

NIMBYs, the lot of them.

The thirst for oil drives them, but "not in MY back yard". Who cares about pristine wilderness? Not the Nimbys.

If anything, this disaster should emphasise the dire need imperative to seek alternative fuels. They are there....the technology is there....but the oil barons impede their introduction.

Intersting to note that chuck's link is "investors.com"...it's all about the dollars.

I refuse to educate you about a source. Go to the internet to find out about Investor's Business Daily and Investor's.com.

Then come back with something even a teensy bit intelligent.

If you read my post for what it was, instead of looking for the most tenuous of excuses to insult me, you wouldn't be initiating another game of words.

I'm not going to play. I rise above it easily because I make allowances for your attitude. I put it down to the fairly common crotchetyness of senile old men.

NIMBYs, the lot of them.

The thirst for oil drives them, but "not in MY back yard". Who cares about pristine wilderness? Not the Nimbys.

If anything, this disaster should emphasise the dire need imperative to seek alternative fuels. They are there....the technology is there....but the oil barons impede their introduction.

Intersting to note that chuck's link is "investors.com"...it's all about the dollars.

I refuse to educate you about a source. Go to the internet to find out about Investor's Business Daily and Investor's.com.

Then come back with something even a teensy bit intelligent.

If you read my post for what it was, instead of looking for the most tenuous of excuses to insult me, you wouldn't be initiating another game of words.

I'm not going to play. I rise above it easily because I make allowances for your attitude. I put it down to the fairly common crotchetyness of senile old men.

It has always amazed me that people with no answers always attack the so called "senility" of older, more experienced members.

For the record, I agree with Krauthammer.

Even if we never needed another drop of oil for fuel, we would still be drilling for oil.

http://www.ranken-energy.com/Products%20from%20Petroleum.htm

A partial list of products made from Petroleum (144 of 6000 items)

One 42-gallon barrel of oil creates 19.4 gallons of gasoline. The rest (over half) is used to make things like:

Speakers

Plastic Wood

Electric Blankets

Glycerin

Tennis Rackets

Rubber Cement

Fishing Boots

Dice

Nylon Rope

Candles

Trash Bags

House Paint

Water Pipes

Hand Lotion

Roller Skates

Surf Boards

Shampoo

Wheels

Paint Rollers

Shower Curtains

Guitar Strings

Luggage

Aspirin

Safety Glasses

Antifreeze

Football Helmets

Awnings

Eyeglasses

Clothes

Toothbrushes

Ice Chests

Footballs

Combs

CD's & DVD's

Paint Brushes

Detergents

Vaporizers

Balloons

Sun Glasses

Tents

Heart Valves

Crayons

Parachutes

Telephones

Enamel

Pillows

Dishes

Cameras

Anesthetics

Artificial Turf

Artificial limbs

Bandages

Dentures

Model Cars

Folding Doors

Hair Curlers

Cold cream

Movie film

Soft Contact lenses

Drinking Cups

Fan Belts

Car Enamel

Shaving Cream

Ammonia

Refrigerators

Golf Balls

Toothpaste

Gasoline

Ever looked into Hemp?

Many of those big corporations don't give a <deleted> about the environment.

By the way I was watching the "Live" stream last night of the BOP, and there was some kind of boom. Lot's of debris was suddenly in the view, not sure what it was.

Ever looked into Hemp?

Many of those big corporations don't give a <deleted> about the environment.

By the way I was watching the "Live" stream last night of the BOP, and there was some kind of boom. Lot's of debris was suddenly in the view, not sure what it was.

Maybe the guy that nuked the World Trade Center has been at it again.