BP Gulf Oil Spill Worse Than Reported

The Gulf of Mexico oil leak is worse than previously reported.

Oil giant BP conceded Thursday that the Gulf of Mexico oil leak is larger than it originally estimated, adding more worry as portions of the massive spill began trickling ashore for the first time.

In addition to questions about the accuracy of BP's disclosures, there's big issues about the dispersants being used. More here.

I haven't been following this closely, but for those of you who are, here's a place to discuss it.

< Extremists | Dennis Blair Resigns : The Future Belongs to the Spies >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The problem could have been solved in (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by observed on Fri May 21, 2010 at 03:48:37 AM EST
    days, most likely, by destroying the well with explosives. The only reason this has gone on for a month is that the Obama administration has not taken charage, letting BP run the show.
    BP"s first interest is protecting it's investment, rather than public safety.

    And... (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by lentinel on Fri May 21, 2010 at 04:55:11 AM EST
    methinks that Obama's first interest is protecting BP.

    Still leaking (none / 0) (#47)
    by norris morris on Sat May 22, 2010 at 07:59:23 PM EST
    I agree. Obama's timid and tepid response is indicative of leaving it up to BP.

    Where's Obama?


    It's totally unfeasible to nuke/bomb, the well. (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri May 21, 2010 at 05:30:38 AM EST
    I came across a story discounting this idea at both the Christian Science Monitor and Live Science a few days ago. I didn't link to it at the time because I was scared $hitless it would run amok. Note that Jeremy Hsu, Live Science Senior Writer, doesn't support the nuke procedure. Remember this half-baked idea got picked up stateside after it appeared in a Russian newspaper most of us have never heard of -- and remember Chernobyl.

    Why don't we just drop a nuclear bomb on the Gulf oil spill? Here's why not:

    [The Russians have used this only 5 times; for the first in 1966 and for the last time in 1981 when the attempt failed.] There are crucial differences between the lessons of the past and the current disaster unfolding.

    The Soviet experience with nuking underground gas wells could prove easier in retrospect than trying to seal the Gulf of Mexico's oil well disaster that's taking place 5,000 feet below the surface.

    The Russians were using nukes to extinguish gas well fires in natural gas fields, not sealing oil wells gushing liquid, so there are big differences, and this method has never been tested in such conditions.


    *This BP well is drilled DEEP. Much deeper than has been reported. RFK Jr. has discovered that BP exceeded the limit of its 18,000 feet permit and has drilled 25,000 feet into the earth.

    *There are over 30 million pounds of explosives in the Gulf of Mexico, which is our primary dumping ground for unexploded military munitions - of bombs, projectiles and chemical ordnance ((link). Setting that off could blow up a bunch of other wells -- and all living things in the Gulf and beyond.

    *The Gulf Stream/Current originates in the Gulf of Mexico, travels up the eastern seabord, crosses the Atlantic Ocean, splits in two, crosses to northern Europe and West Africa. It influences (moderates) the entire climate of the east coast of North America, the west coast of Europe and Northern Europe. An oil spill is bad enough. You really don't want to nuke the heart of the world's thermoregulation and circulatory systems.

    *Earthquakes and tsunamis: there's some evidence that drilling itself is sufficient to set them off. You really don't want to bomb a blown out drill site that's under a mile of water -- even if you could.


    I'd rather hear from an expert. (none / 0) (#6)
    by observed on Fri May 21, 2010 at 07:23:51 AM EST
    Some of your claims seem kooky.
    For instance, a thinking that an explosion could set off explosives all over the caribbean??
    And I started reading the transcript about Haiti and earthquakes---again, I'd prefer to hear directly from an expert, not from a lawyer.
    That's an interesting theory though.
    Also, whether or not using a nuke will work, the amount of radioactive contamination will not be enough to affect the all the oceans in the world. The amount is too small.

    What is hard to argue is that the idea of closing/destroying the well hasn't been  in the forefront of discussions by White House representatives, and it should be.


    Observed, I didn't say an explosion in the (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri May 21, 2010 at 02:52:59 PM EST
    Gulf of Mexico
    could set off explosives all over the caribbean

    You said that. Where did you get that idea?

    BTW, I didn't make personal unfounded "kooky claims" in my comments on this thread. I made a good faith effort to cite sources, most of which are independently verifiable.

    That being said, I have no quarrel with you. Be well (oh, that's an inadvertent pun).


    I'm not an expert (none / 0) (#11)
    by Kimberley on Fri May 21, 2010 at 10:24:17 AM EST
    I'm just thinking out loud like most of us. But I do know that it isn't entirely out of the question to have sympathetic detonation of some of the ordinance down there. I imagine most of it is inert but I don't think anybody can swear to it.

    From what I understand, the greater problem is that an explosion would merely crater the soft floor while completely destroying the well head instead, which would only result in exponentially increasing the rate of flow of gas and oil into the gulf.

    If the well head gives way on its own... I'm guessing they'll bomb the site, regardless of peripheral risks.  

    I'll share this with you:

    The one real oil and gas drilling pro I know put it to me this way, "They should have begun drilling relief wells immediately. It's the only reliable shot they've got."

    I also casually noted that people were talking about bombing the site to stop the spill. He just snorted and mumbled, "Jesus."

    That could mean a lot of things, and I wasn't in the mood to press him on it, but he did not say anything about it being an ingenious, or even necessary, solution. He certainly could have. And he might today, but I highly doubt it. That conversation took place about a week and a half maybe two weeks ago.


    Which expert is telling us that (none / 0) (#12)
    by Jack E Lope on Fri May 21, 2010 at 11:05:53 AM EST
    an explosion is a reliable method for sealing a leak?  I've heard of explosives putting out oil or gas well fires, but sometimes that takes multiple attempts.   And the oil flow usually continues.

    The scientific-expert-based answer could come in handy.  My sister-in-law is looking for a simple, cheap solution for the abandoned underground oil tank on her property.

    Can she use one of those nukes that are too small to have a significant effect on the entire world?


    Where's Obama? (none / 0) (#48)
    by norris morris on Sat May 22, 2010 at 08:12:43 PM EST
    He has left this up to BP and taken a back seat. Instead of shedding light,he can't even tell us he cares,or divulge info as it happens, or whatever- instead of being opaque,oblique, and distant leaving us to watch in horror as this tragedy of immense consequences unfolds.

    Where is there the kind of concern and assurance we got from FDR during dark days?

    Obama's "Commission" does not leave us feeling confident about this world turning tragedy.BP is being protected as we swing.


    I'm reading some of the same things (none / 0) (#17)
    by ZtoA on Fri May 21, 2010 at 01:17:55 PM EST
    that Fox is. Explosives are not being discussed seriously at this point and it is more than political. And I think the considerations of explosive chain reactions and earthquakes should not be dismissed and should be considered in a list of risks.

    I do not think we should rule out (none / 0) (#20)
    by KeysDan on Fri May 21, 2010 at 01:48:04 PM EST
    explosions, even those using tactical nuclear devices.  The well must be destroyed, relief wells are not likely to be achieved earlier than mid-summer (one date bandied about was August 13), and at the rate of flow nothing is off the table--it is that bad.  Certainly, conventional explosives would be bad enough, but the blast may not generate enough heat to melt the rock. The Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, nobel laureate in physics, has been called in as a "problem solver".  He empaneled a five-membered committee of experts that included other physicists from the JASON group, a think tank of researchers in complex problems for the government including the DOD. One member of Chu's team is credited with accomplishments that involve design of the first hydrogen bomb, and another who has worked for the DOE in the nuclear area.  Even the now infamous Jonathan Katz, who was booted from the team for his "controversial writings", is a astrophysicist with an interest in gamma rays.  Gamma ray imaging technology (Cobalt 60 was the gamma ray source) has been deployed to check out the status of the BOP. A nuke would be likely to end all future off shore drilling, so it would probably not be used. My guess is we will wait for the relief wells and keep mopping up with donated hair clippings from beauty parlor sweepings and similar low tech tactics, but the nature of the expertise taking a look sure is interesting.

    Its hard for me to picture (none / 0) (#22)
    by ZtoA on Fri May 21, 2010 at 02:00:55 PM EST
    how they would get a nuke down the well deep enough to not create cratering. The oil and gas gushing from the well is enormous in volume and the pressure is extreme. I bet it would be a mechanical nightmare to insert a bomb into that with any accuracy and then detonate it. I could see, however if a parallel shaft - or series of shafts were constructed which did not have the pressure problems could be sites for explosives. I don't know the difference between a regular nuke and a tactical nuclear device. In either case the environmental damage would probably be significant - don't you think? Is that why you think it would end all future off shore drilling? Combined maybe with political sludge? Have you heard about the Top Kill efforts? What do you think of that?

    The Top Kill (none / 0) (#27)
    by KeysDan on Fri May 21, 2010 at 02:59:18 PM EST
    seems to offer some promise, but it will not be ready to try until next week.  Once again, it is something that has not been tried before, and I hope it will not go the way of the Top Hat.  The Top Kill is, apparently, based on pumping drilling mud (not mud, mud, but a thick oily fluid, which in itself is toxic), stopping it up and then sealing with cement.  I agree that destroying the well with explosives of any kind is a huge technical challenge and is fraught with danger. A a nuclear device (smaller, more focused and controlled nuke explosion) would be exponentially perilous.  My thinking on not using a nuclear, and maybe even a conventional explosion, is the political fallout of the "nuclear option" being just too scary even if it went well, and if there were problems, it would be a nightmare for politicians (e.g. they would loss their jobs).  The environmental disaster would play into it, but that could be managed by claiming, right or wrong, that the radiation was minimal.

    Consider the scale of the catastrophe (none / 0) (#21)
    by observed on Fri May 21, 2010 at 01:55:49 PM EST
    if this well continues to spew 4 million gallons oil/day---not to mention the methane, which will take oxygen levels to a lethal low for sealife.

    Making A Bad Thing Worse (none / 0) (#39)
    by john horse on Sat May 22, 2010 at 08:14:56 AM EST
    Well, I thought I heard everything.  Dropping a nuke in the Gulf?  So what you favor is not just contaminating our seafood with oil and chemicals but also with radiation.  Brilliant.  Lets drive that final nail into the coffin of our Gulf seafood industry.  

    As FoxholeAtheist points out,

    The Russians were using nukes to extinguish gas well fires in natural gas fields, not sealing oil wells gushing liquid, so there are big differences, and this method has never been tested in such conditions.
     This is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

    It was some Russian newspaper (none / 0) (#42)
    by ZtoA on Sat May 22, 2010 at 02:24:18 PM EST
    that suggested nukes might be considered. But no one ever suggested "dropping a nuke into the Gulf"  (!).

    The problem which this was supposed to address (which you seem to be saying does not exist) is to somehow stop the well from gushing. It appears that BP will triage from least $ cost fix upward. Meanwhile an effervescent mix of oil and gas is being spewed as underwater clouds, drifting around and eventually coming to the surface. Do we trust BP to work this problem with our safely and health and jobs and natural environment as their first priority? No, that is what the federal government is for.

    It appears BP is preparing to do a "Top Kill" procedure that is basically just like jamming up the well head. The BP website says they are going to to a "junk shot" first then go for the Kill Mud, but according to nola.com (there's actually a very helpful graphic at the link)

    Later this week, BP will perform a "top kill" on the oil well. The process requires injecting 40 barrels a minute of "kill mud" into the broken well and then sealing it with cement. The material will be pumped at high pressure down the choke and kill lines of the blowout preventer, which failed to seal the well after the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded on April 20. Choke and kill lines are used to control the amount and pressure of drilling mud in the wellbore, so that surges of oil and natural gas can be kept under control.

    BP had initially planned to precede the top kill with a "junk shot," pumping debris such as golf balls and shredded tires into the blowout preventer to clog the leak, before adding the mud. But BP decided not to do the junk shot under concerns that it might cause more damage. BP spokesman Mark Proegler said the junk shot carried certain risks, specifically that the debris could shoot through the well causing more oil to leak.

    BP says:

    This procedure will be pursued until it is successful or deemed to be ineffective.

    One reason this happened in the first place (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Edger on Sat May 22, 2010 at 09:39:38 AM EST
    and has gone on this long, is that DOI Secretary Ken Salazar, and Minerals Management Service, concluded that environmentalists posed virtually no threat of harming BP.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by squeaky on Sat May 22, 2010 at 10:36:30 AM EST
    Intentional or not, had the US gov jumped in the second day, and had the gusher continued as it has, unabated, Obama and the democrats would be taking the blame, on several fronts.

    The blame game is silly, imo.


    You are right (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by ZtoA on Sat May 22, 2010 at 02:31:56 PM EST
    and they were and still are playing the blame game by not getting involved. Neither are they taking responsibility.

    Some of the photos of the slick taken from satellites look like a slow moving hurricane. The blame games are already starting and everyone seems to be playing.

    Hindsight is wonderful, and ....great some democrats think they can avoid blame by avoiding an active response - no, an intervention. There will be lots of time to politicize this, AFTER the well is stopped and a real, focused, intensive and effective clean up well on its way.


    Personally. I like what the Rude Pundit had to say (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Edger on Sat May 22, 2010 at 05:23:43 PM EST
    The Rude Pundit can't get his mind around the fact that the well is still pouring out oil a month later.  He can't grasp how BP executives haven't been arrested for, at the minimum, criminal negligence, if not manslaughter, and the well blown up and sealed. He can't understand why BP is even involved in any decision-making here, why any notion of protecting profits and shareholders has had any effect on the solution, why the Obama administration, the Army Corps of Engineers, f**ing NOAA hasn't told BP to go f** itself, that the well's not theirs anymore. And then order the Coast Guard to shoot on sight anyone from BP who gets near it.

    BP has wasted so much time on efforts to save the oil and its investment in the well that it is just now getting around to attempting to seal the well.

    Why the desperate sound? Because everything we have been told by anyone in supposed authority on this crisis has been proven wrong, and the spill has turned out to be far worse than BP or the Obama administration has been admitting.  BP CEO Tony Heyward, who should be set adrift on a flaming raft in the middle of the spill, had assured Louisiana officials that the dark crude wouldn't hit the marshes, that it would be chemically dispersed.

    From: Why Is BP Still in Charge in the Gulf?

    We all know, or should know, why BP gets away with the things they get away with.

    I don't care if BP is the largest supplier of fuel to the military.

    BP has been one of the biggest suppliers of fuel to the Pentagon in recent years, with much of its oil going to U.S. military operations in the Mideast. (It sold $2.2 billion in oil to the Pentagon last year, making it No. 1 among all the oil companies in sales to the military, according to the latest figures from the Defense Energy Support Center.)

    BP's management needs to be prosecuted. Convicted. Imprisoned. And replaced. With definitive warnings about what will happen if they do it again.


    Nice Rant (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by squeaky on Sat May 22, 2010 at 05:38:15 PM EST
    BP's management needs to be prosecuted. Convicted. Imprisoned. And replaced. With definitive warnings about what will happen if they do it again.

    yes, yes, yes, and yes...

    It always amazes me the Corporations stop getting treated like people when there is a disaster, but when it comes to endlessly funding any politician or party, they become a person that has the same free speech rights as you or I.


    Well, if Obama did any more (none / 0) (#46)
    by Edger on Sat May 22, 2010 at 06:11:41 PM EST
    than make a sternly worded speech to make the bots swoon, Blankfein would have to collateralize his a** and sell him short just to make a buck. Honest.

    I mean, how hard can he yell at the people who made him the #1 recipient of their political donations in the 2008 cycle, eh?

    Maybe they could plug it with forced injections of hot air, or just shove the whole administration down the hole, and seal it with cement.

    Watch this: Beneath the Oil: Deepwater Horizon, with a box of kleenex beside you.


    BP is running America? (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by norris morris on Sat May 22, 2010 at 08:31:25 PM EST
    So it seems. Leaving these jackals to clean up? This well should be demolished and closed. BP should be compelled to give us the $$$ for cleanup which will take years.

    Our White House's timidity [lots of words] isn't reassuring.

    These bums should be in jail and should never be allowed to CONTROL the effort to staunch the leak. They are a ruthless bunch who have betrayed us and spit on our coungtry and its people. They were helped to evade caution by the greed driven american bums who allowed them to do this without restriction.  The sleaze and lies are all over this.

    And Obama talks, but has not really presured BP openly and allowed any real passion and ideas he might have to reach us.  We are being snookered.


    It almost appears that way... (none / 0) (#51)
    by Edger on Sat May 22, 2010 at 08:59:31 PM EST
    Pressuring BP? (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by norris morris on Sat May 22, 2010 at 08:21:04 PM EST
    There's been no pressure on BP and in fact we know they're covering up. Obama has not been helpful and his distance on this doesan't pass the smell test?

    This is a major tragic catasrophe that will have negative effects on us and others for years.

    The lack of pressure on BP is frightening, along with BP"s cover up which the WH hasn't challenged.

    We also expect to see our leaders get very upset and communicate this to us when faced with disasters of this sort. Visit the site, show us some passion, and get information as to what's going on.

    This is not too much to ask.


    Ah, If Only...... (none / 0) (#13)
    by squeaky on Fri May 21, 2010 at 11:33:06 AM EST
    Turn left (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by lentinel on Fri May 21, 2010 at 04:54:03 AM EST
    I was thrilled by Obama's forthright statement the other day that he would see to it that the executives at BP would be held to account for this disaster. He also said that those in the MMS who facilitated this by lax standards and outright criminal negligence would be prosecuted. He also announced that he would begin placing liens on assets and holdings of the BP corporation that would insure that every cent spent in cleaning this up would come from BP.

    He also announced an immediate jobs program focused on those who have lost their livelihood due to this disaster.

    The biggest surprise was when Obama said that he would see that criminal charges would be brought against former Vice President Cheney for deliberately allowing BP to proceed with drilling without installing a necessary warning safety device.

    And lastly, he announced that his previously proposed plans for offshore drilling would be cancelled and that the resources of the Federal Government would be energetically diverted to alternative energy sources that are environmentally sound. He compared this process to that which President Kennedy began in announcing the plans for the United States to travel to the moon.

    Really inspiring.


    The USA Today story needs to update the spill rate (none / 0) (#5)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri May 21, 2010 at 05:43:11 AM EST
    to reflect the new, widely reported, outflow of 100,000 barrels a day. At 42 gallons per barrel, -- that's 4.2 million gallons a day. Several scientists who testified in front of Congress Wednesday concurred with this estimate. As reported by NPR, May 20/10, Scientist: BP's Oil Spill Estimates Improbable:  

    Steve Wereley, engineering professor at Purdue University...has now analyzed two leaks. At a hearing on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, he said...his total approaches 100,000 barrels a day. And, there's another leak he has yet to analyze.

    Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) called Wereley to talk to his House Energy subcommittee after noting the huge discrepancy between Wereley's numbers and BP's oft-quoted estimate, which is based on a survey of oil on the ocean surface. BP's position all along has been that it is making an all-out effort to contain the spill, so putting a number on the outflow isn't a priority. Markey said, "This faulty logic that BP is using, of course, is unfortunately raising real concerns that they are hiding the full extent of the potential damage of this leak".

    The total BP Gulf Spill now exceeds 129 million gallons. (See PBS BP Gulf Spill Meter.) Wikipedia has an imperfect list of 15 largest oil spills; large being over 30 millions gallons total. Exxon Valdez isn't even on the list since it was a spill of 10.8 million gallons.

    The BP Spill is now larger than everything on the list; with the exception of the 1980 Ixtoc Gulf of Mexico Spill, of 140 million gallons; and perhaps the Gulf War Spill of 1991, which has estimates that vary from 21 million gallons to 462 million gallons


    See it graphically (none / 0) (#23)
    by rennies on Fri May 21, 2010 at 02:01:52 PM EST
    http://tinyurl.com/2b4fd5m Undersea video of the gusher.

    Surprise, surprise, surprise (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by BobTinKY on Fri May 21, 2010 at 08:49:27 AM EST
    hate to be redcued to quoting Goomer Pyle, but BP has been less than truthful?

    This is a huge environmental (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Emma on Fri May 21, 2010 at 10:02:20 AM EST
    disaster, which was evident from the get-go, and our government has done nothing but twiddle its thumbs.  No -- let me correct that, it's done nothing but assist BP in covering up the length, breadth, and scope of the disaster.  

    Probably they haven't come up with a "oil industry rescue plan" of sufficient size yet, which accounts for the delays and obfuscations.  Once they figure out how to shift taxpayer money to BP, then we'll know for sure how big the spill really is.  We must be getting close to a bailout package, if we're starting to get information that it's "bigger than we thought!"  

    Wait for the "Now that we've applied this brand new technology, which we didn't have a month ago, we realize how huuuuuge and disastrous it really is!  It is imperative that we pass this TOIRP (troubled oil industry recovery plan) immediately!!  Now! Now! Now!"

    The reason they keep being vague (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Nowonmai on Sat May 22, 2010 at 10:17:15 PM EST
    About the amount of oil being spewed by that burst pipe, according to legal peoples, is that it allows them the 'reasonable doubt' when they get sued for damages. Personally, I think their obfuscation is going to wind up biting them on the ass, but that is what they are trying to do.

    Once we see how bad an oil spill can be, (none / 0) (#7)
    by Jack E Lope on Fri May 21, 2010 at 08:43:47 AM EST
    will it be time to consider a move toward increasing nuclear spills, um, I mean power?

    Watching them cover this on GMA (none / 0) (#9)
    by nycstray on Fri May 21, 2010 at 09:15:20 AM EST
    it's enough to make your head explode several times over.

    I've been spending some time reading (none / 0) (#14)
    by ZtoA on Fri May 21, 2010 at 12:46:17 PM EST
    two links. First the great f*cking fishgrease DKos diary Fox provided. He has a new post today - very informative. And I've followed his links to a site called The Oil Drum which appears to be engineers and operators in the biz.

    According to Fishgrease BP is going to try what is called a Top Kill, which is confusing but he explains it pretty well here:

    If they had a better idea of how Top Kill was going to work, they would have tried it long long LONG before now.

    He also said the above quote so we'll see about Top Kill. He hasn't mentioned explosives and I looked around and am only hearing the relatively old news that the Russians imploded some wells with nukes. But apparently, from what I could find, the technology is iffy at best and failed the last time it was tried. From my perspective they would have to have the explosion in a new well that is maybe 10,000 deep in order not to crater. But the pressure coming out of the well is enormous. getting anything down there will be a trick. I picture a champaign  bottle violently and endlessly exploding.

    ZtoA, I asked Jeralyn to put up this thread (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri May 21, 2010 at 02:37:10 PM EST
    this morning. But it seems to be languishing -- with very few readers and commenters. Should we bug out and take our sunshine and light to an open thread instead?

    I can't think, or talk, about much else besides this right now. I'll read your story links this evening. Cheers.


    I suppose so (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by ZtoA on Fri May 21, 2010 at 02:56:18 PM EST
    on the other hand it might be nice to have a sort of breaking news history when the legal issues begin to gush. I defer to you and Jeralyn.

    I know what you mean - this has become a sort of obsession for me. I also think it is very useful to have lay people try to follow along and try to be informed. It will become political. I was absolutely disgusted at what Rand Paul said about holding BP accountable being "unamerican".


    I'm also of two minds about where to comment. (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri May 21, 2010 at 03:26:24 PM EST
    I mean, there's the option of being the skunk at the picnic on open threads where nobody is talking about it. Or the option of staying on this thread, which could either be a good "go to" site -- or a marginalized little hideaway.

    *A couple of days from now, this thread won't be on the front page at TL. So I'm inclined to ditch out of here today. Although, if I wanted to compare notes with you, this thread might be a good place to do that -- in a discrete setting. OK, that's what I'm going with.

    Are you watching anything on teevee about this? I think that's where the public pulse will be both reflected and manipulated.


    Let's see how it works to do both (none / 0) (#31)
    by ZtoA on Fri May 21, 2010 at 04:46:00 PM EST
    as this disaster is unfolding along an extended time line. I'll follow your lead. This is going to have both legal and political ramifications so it might be of interest to some on open threads. Also, I don't live on the gulf but some commenters do and will know about local clean up.

    I'm not a big TV watcher and never in the day and since my work days are long these days I watch when I'm exhausted. But I'll check tonite. Unfortunately TV just politicizes everything and this (IMO) is not in a political stage. Lots of time for that later. But TV might be good to apply lots of pressure for something to get done! I do listen to NPR while working and have heard stories every day for the last week.


    Got it. BTW, KeysDan lives in Key West so he's (none / 0) (#33)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri May 21, 2010 at 07:44:19 PM EST
    engaged and involved and interesting to read. Well worth checking out his comments. Keep posted.

    I was wondering if that is what the (none / 0) (#35)
    by ZtoA on Fri May 21, 2010 at 08:01:55 PM EST
    Keys in KeysDan meant. That is one of the most beautiful areas on this globe.

    Fishgrease also (none / 0) (#15)
    by ZtoA on Fri May 21, 2010 at 12:48:52 PM EST
    takes down Kevin Costner (or however you spell his name) and it is pretty funny. Really funny actually. Funny and sad.

    Just a taste from Fishgrease:

    If you love Kevin Kostner and think he's trying to save The Gulf of Mexico because he's similar to Jesus Christ, you're going to hate my guts. I'm okay with that. Hate. Away.

    Kevin's little infomercial for his device that he staged for BP, The Government, and Concerned Citizens and The Media down next to the Gulf this week is not the first time I've seen that device.....

    BP refuses EPA (none / 0) (#16)
    by waldenpond on Fri May 21, 2010 at 12:50:12 PM EST
    EPA requested that BP pick a less toxic more effective dispersant within 24 hours and begin using it within 72.

    BP said FU!!!!  Their toxins (which are making workers sick) are biodegradable (eventually-isn't everything?)! So there!

    Question... if the EPA has now admitted to the toxicity of the chemicals and they do not force BP to switch, will the workers have cause to sue the govt for health damages?  Seems to me, this gives BP cover in court.

    Flawed well plan (none / 0) (#18)
    by ZtoA on Fri May 21, 2010 at 01:24:20 PM EST
    This is a fascinating read and is accessible to a lay person. Since there are still open questions I would conditionally conclude that BP made some major mistakes - possibly criminal mistakes. And short cuts. The comment section of the article is really interesting too.

    Apparently there are many wells that are much deeper which function well and safely. This well was just coming online and was going to be a major producer (think lots of pressure) and between the design flaws and short cuts it all went horribly wrong. My heart goes out to the families who lost loved ones.

    Oh for heaven's sake! (none / 0) (#19)
    by ZtoA on Fri May 21, 2010 at 01:27:32 PM EST
    Rand Paul in the news again. Unbelievable:

    WASHINGTON -- Taking another unconventional stand, Kentucky's Republican Senate nominee Rand Paul criticized President Barack Obama's handling of the Gulf oil spill Friday as anti-business and sounding "really un-American."

    Paul's defense of the oil company came during an interview as he tried to explain his controversial take on civil rights law, an issue that has overtaken his campaign since his victory in Tuesday's GOP primary.

    "What I don't like from the president's administration is this sort of, 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP,'" Paul said in an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America." "I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business."


    Yes, well, we're talking (Ayn) Rand Paul (none / 0) (#32)
    by Zorba on Fri May 21, 2010 at 05:20:27 PM EST
    here, ZtoA.  It doesn't seem to have occurred to him that BP is a British company.  Of course, it wouldn't even matter if it were 100% American, because the President doesn't give up his First Amendment rights just because he's the President.  He can say pretty much anything he wants to, about pretty much anything or anybody (whether it's politically wise of him to do so or not is another discussion).  Paul must not realize that the First Amendment is still part of the Constitution of the United States of America.  Apparently, he's of the opinion that we're the United Businesses of America.  Having said that, just because Obama is trash-talking BP does not necessarily mean he'll do bupkis about forcing them to do anything more.  Remember, he took the health insurance companies to "the woodshed," too, shortly before the bill giving them millions of mandated customers was passed.

    Yes, time is ticking (none / 0) (#34)
    by ZtoA on Fri May 21, 2010 at 07:59:19 PM EST
    for Obama administration or BP or anyone to do anything. Obama did get sort of mad that BP and Haliburton and the engineering firm (can't recall the name off hand) were playing pass the buck. Well, what did anyone expect them to do? Its all pre-legal posturing. I just checked into HuffPo and see that James Carville is taking Obamb to task. If Carville, and as jbindc says, Tweety get on Obama administration's case then there might be some action. (and btw, HuffPo is getting really creepy like some sort of demented boy/girl scout site with earning "badges")

    The opposing forces (none / 0) (#36)
    by Zorba on Fri May 21, 2010 at 08:38:59 PM EST
    (and there are many) in this mess seem to be, unfortunately, leading to a paralysis.  BP doesn't want to spend more than they have to, and wants to recover any oil they can and save the well, if they can.  Transocean and Halliburton are trying to point fingers at BP as the main problem, but it's certainly not clear to me that they are without any blame.  The Obama administration has not been pro-active in this mess, and to my mind (and to many others), has seemed to be taking a back seat to whatever BP is doing.  I don't think that Chris Matthews and James Carville getting on his case will do much to move Obama- maybe if someone can get to Axelrod and Emanuel and persuade them, they can persuade Obama.  I'm just not optimistic about this whole thing, and I'm not really sure that even strong measures will do much good.  I think this a disaster of major proportions, and it will have long-term, negative effects.

    PS (none / 0) (#37)
    by Zorba on Fri May 21, 2010 at 08:41:27 PM EST
    Re:  HuffPost.  I haven't been a regular reader in a really long time.  It got creepy to me awhile ago.

    Heckuva job, Big O. (none / 0) (#29)
    by Lora on Fri May 21, 2010 at 03:56:40 PM EST

    Chris Matthews (none / 0) (#30)
    by jbindc on Fri May 21, 2010 at 03:57:35 PM EST
    weighs in

    Whatever would we do without him?

    Chris Matthews has come a long way since the infamous thrill up his leg.

    The MSNBC anchor, once so enamored with Barack Obama that he admitted a campaign speech sent a thrill up his leg, has now told Jay Leno that Obama scares him.

    "The President scares me," Matthews said of Obama's response to the Gulf oil spill disaster. "He's been acting a little like a Vatican Observer here. When is he actually going to do something? And I worry; I know he doesn't want to take ownership of it. I know politics. He said the minute he says, 'I'm in charge,' he takes the blame, but somebody has to. It's in our interest."

    Matthews described the oil spill as "the scariest thing I've ever seen" and used the opportunity to make a dig at Dick Cheney.

    "I don't know where to start," he said. "I mean, Halliburton, sound familiar? Cheney was the head of Halliburton. When he got to Vice President, the oil company gave him a $34 million signing bonus to become Vice President of the United States."

    Drill Baby Drill? (none / 0) (#38)
    by john horse on Sat May 22, 2010 at 07:45:16 AM EST
    Remember that "Drill Baby Drill" chant from the GOP Convention.  Every major Republican repeated it like a mantra.  

    What Republicans and pro-corporate Democrats liked to point out was that the chances of major oil leaks were pretty small.  And they were right.  However, what they didn't say was that if a major oil leak did occur it would be devastating both to the local economy and to the environment.  And they also didn't say that the amount of oil we would get from these new oil leases would be, literally, a drop in the bucket.  Finally, most of those who favored "drill baby drill" also thought that government should be more pro-business and be less stringent on the regulation.  As a matter of fact, government regulators during the Bush administration were literally caught in bed with oil industry lobbyists.

    What I am not saying is that another tragedy is inevitable or likely.  I still believe that the chances of a major oil spill or leak is small.  What I am saying is that those who favor "drill baby drill" should, at least, acknowledge that the possibility exists.