CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Obama appeases all the "drill baby drill" Goopers
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Obama appeases all the "drill baby drill" Goopers - Page 3

post #101 of 698
I guess it wasn't worth investing in a couple of emergency shut-off valves.

I go on vacation to Orange Beach and Gulf Shores, and I hate to think of its beauty being destroyed because of beaurocracy and laziness. Seeing pictures of sea turtles and squids washing ashore just makes me want to cry.
post #102 of 698
The mood here is pretty damn shitty, I can tell you that.
post #103 of 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by audioofbeing View Post
I'm not sure if I'm confusing what you mean, but we had submersibles in the Challenger Deep in the 1960's. 5000 feet is significant, but we've certainly had manned vehicles far, far deeper than that.
That would be a bathyscape, which is LIKE a submarine but not the ones we currently have active. It was sort of lowered to that depth and it took a long time to pull it back up... so, theoretically they could LOWER a cap on top of the gushing oil however they have no way to weld it in place since people cannot just leave a bathyscape (they would be crushed) and there is no robotic arms on one of those. We decided to go unmanned robotic submarine route, instead of manned bathyscape route. Technology's bad!

Quote:
The deepest-diving large, military-style submarine was the Soviet submarine K-278 Komsomolets, with a hull made of titanium, making it very expensive, but able to withstand significantly deeper dives than the best submarines made of high-grade steel, like American nuclear submarines. The Komsomolets was a nuclear powered submarine specially designed to make trips as far down as 1300 meters (4265 feet) below sea level, definitely less than the Trieste, but very significant because the Komsomolets had to "defend" a much larger air bubble against the encroaching pressure of the surrounding ocean.

Compared to the best American nuclear submarines, of the Seawolf class, Komsomolets had about 78% better diving capabilities. Seawolf submarines have an estimated crush depth of about 2400 feet (730 m).
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-...ine-can-go.htm

Like I said on the previous page... there are no SUBMARINES that could go to that depth of 5000 ft. Now, keep in mind... that's with PUBLIC information. I have no idea about classified shit.
post #104 of 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeypants View Post
The mood here is pretty damn shitty, I can tell you that.
what part of the gulf coast are you from?
post #105 of 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post

Like I said on the previous page... there are no SUBMARINES that could go to that depth of 5000 ft. Now, keep in mind... that's with PUBLIC information. I have no idea about classified shit.
Got ya. Figured it was probably a terminology issue. And yeah, considering how much faster our aircraft carriers move over their claimed top speeds, it's anybody's guess what the real operating depth on our subs are.
post #106 of 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post
That would be a bathyscape, which is LIKE a submarine but not the ones we currently have active...Like I said on the previous page... there are no SUBMARINES that could go to that depth of 5000 ft. Now, keep in mind... that's with PUBLIC information. I have no idea about classified shit.
I'd like to introduce you to the DSV Alvin. Been in service since '64, manned, has robotic arms, has made multiple dives to the wreckage of the Titanic and to black smokers, and is not a bathyscaphe. Can go for 9 hours at 4500 metres deep.

Seriously dude, five minutes on Google and Wikipedia to find that shit.

[edit]Oh yeah, there's also the Mystic class DSRV that dives to 5000 feet, is manned and has a robotic arm. There are only two, and one's been decommissioned, but the other's mothballed and could potentially be put back into service.
post #107 of 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fafhrd View Post
I'd like to introduce you to the DSV Alvin. Been in service since '64, manned, has robotic arms, has made multiple dives to the wreckage of the Titanic and to black smokers, and is not a bathyscaphe. Can go for 9 hours at 4500 metres deep.

Seriously dude, five minutes on Google and Wikipedia to find that shit.

[edit]Oh yeah, there's also the Mystic class DSRV that dives to 5000 feet, is manned and has a robotic arm. There are only two, and one's been decommissioned, but the other's mothballed and could potentially be put back into service.
I was under the impression that Alvin was out of service. Interestingly enough, Alvin's status hasn't been updated since 2008. Either way, they're not sending Alvin down there. Alvin operates a lot like the bsphere I was talking about above, remember Alvin is not a submarine. She needs a support ship to drop her in and she has a limited range from the support vessel. The oil would gum up the works something fierce. That's why they're using robotic DSV's, they have better range (we're not talking depth here) and can come in from the side where there is little to no oil (dive down and attack the problem from near the bottom)
post #108 of 698
post #109 of 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by C.S. Lewis Jr. View Post
what part of the gulf coast are you from?
Pensacola.
post #110 of 698
Can't they like you know, just drop a huge rock on it?
post #111 of 698
If this incident wasn't so catastrophic, I might have said it's a good thing, in the long run... this could very well put a halt to much, if not all of the administrations baffling "drill baby drill" nonsense. But because it's such a disaster, I'm not even sure the end of ALL off-shore drilling could offset it. At least it'll shine a spotlight on the insanity of Sarah Palin types.

It's kinda like how I hope Tea Partiers are responsible for the failed NY bombing -- ideally, I'd like for no one to be put in a position to potentially lose their life to some political maniac, but if it does happen, some good might as well come of it in the form of shifting the publics attention.
post #112 of 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonBaseNick View Post
Can't they like you know, just drop a huge rock on it?
post #113 of 698
It's interesting (and not at ALL surprising) how damn near every single one of the "drill baby drill" assholes in my community/region totally change their tune when something like this inevitable atrocity takes place.

Once the inevitable reality of offshore drilling gets shoved right in everyone's face, they don't like it so much. Because fucking up all the water around us isn't an option, gas needs be damned.

Now they're all sitting around like, "but... but... the oil companies ASSURED us this couldn't happen!"

Yeah, it's like the rest of us have been saying forever. Oil companies are run by greedy fucking whores and they don't give shit. They lie.

I just hope this wakes people up enough to not create any new drilling operations out in the gulf, and also to really start busting ass on new energy sources.

Fuck what an oil company tells you regarding their technology. Is it important to you to not have fucking catastrophes like this? Then there's one common sense way to insure they don't happen: don't drill out in the fucking water. Otherwise you're just asking for it to be ruined and polluted.
post #114 of 698
Lovely:

http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_15980/cont...tguid=T1dHWrmZ
Quote:
"The following is not public," reads the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Emergency Ops document dated April 28. "Two additional release points were found today. If the riser pipe deteriorates further, the flow could become unchecked resulting in a release volume an order of magnitude higher than previously thought."

In scientific circles, an order of magnitude means something is 10 times larger. In this case, an order of magnitude higher would mean the volume of oil coming from the well could be 10 times higher than the 5,000 barrels a day coming out now. That would mean 50,000 barrels a day, or 2.1 million gallons a day. It appears the new leaks mentioned in the Wednesday release are the leaks reported to the public late Wednesday night.
post #115 of 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonBaseNick View Post
Can't they like you know, just drop a huge rock on it?
Also known as The Killer Croc Solution To Everything (TM).
post #116 of 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post
Fire a nuke at it!
Funny thing is, is that I heard that this might even work!

someone here has had to have heard to conspiracy theory that the destruction of the Oil rig was due to an North Koren sub.
post #117 of 698
This isn't good. Apparently the fire boom's can contain 1800 barrels an hour and the government didn't have any on hand and when they did get them, they didn't use them. This shit could have been contained a lot better or you know, at all./

[source]
Quote:
If U.S. officials had followed up on a 1994 response plan for a major Gulf oil spill, it is possible that the spill could have been kept under control and far from land.

The problem: The federal government did not have a single fire boom on hand.


View full size(AP Photo/U.S. Coast Guard, Petty Officer 1st Class Justin Sawyer)This April 28, 2010 image made from video released by the Deepwater Horizon Response Unified Command, shows an in situ burn in the Gulf of Mexico, in response to the oil spill after the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon. The "In-Situ Burn" plan produced by federal agencies in 1994 calls for responding to a major oil spill in the Gulf with the immediate use of fire booms.

But in order to conduct a successful test burn eight days after the Deepwater Horizon well began releasing massive amounts of oil into the Gulf, officials had to purchase one from a company in Illinois.

When federal officials called, Elastec/American Marine, shipped the only boom it had in stock, Jeff Bohleber, chief financial officer for Elastec, said today.

At federal officials' behest, the company began calling customers in other countries and asking if the U.S. government could borrow their fire booms for a few days, he said.

A single fire boom being towed by two boats can burn up to 1,800 barrels of oil an hour, Bohleber said. That translates to 75,000 gallons an hour, raising the possibility that the spill could have been contained at the accident scene 100 miles from shore.

"They said this was the tool of last resort. No, this is absolutely the asset of first use. Get in there and start burning oil before the spill gets out of hand," Bohleber said. "If they had six or seven of these systems in place when this happened and got out there and started burning, it would have significantly lessened the amount of oil that got loose."

In the days after the rig sank, U.S Coast Guard Rear Admiral Mary Landry said the government had all the assets it needed. She did not discuss why officials waited more than a week to conduct a test burn. (Watch video footage of the test burn.)

At the time, former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration oil spill response coordinator Ron Gouguet -- who helped craft the 1994 plan -- told the Press-Register that officials had pre-approval for burning. "The whole reason the plan was created was so we could pull the trigger right away."

Gouguet speculated that burning could have captured 95 percent of the oil as it spilled from the well.

Bohleber said that his company was bringing several fire booms from South America, and he believed the National Response Center discovered that it had one in storage.

Each boom costs a few hundred thousand dollars, Bohleber said, declining to give a specific price.

Made of flame-retardant fabric, each boom has two pumps that push water through its 500-foot length. Two boats tow the U-shaped boom through an oil slick, gathering up about 75,000 gallons of oil at a time. That oil is dragged away from the larger spill, ignited and burns within an hour, he said.

The boom can be used as long as waves are below 3 feet, Bohleber said.

"Because of the complexity of the system and the obvious longer production time to build them, the emphasis is on obtaining and gathering the systems," he said.

Bohleber said his company has conducted numerous tests with the Coast Guard since 1993, and it is now training crews on the use of the boom so workers will be ready when they arrive.

"We're arranging for six to be shipped in. We keep running into delays. Hopefully, they will be here by Wednesday to be available for use on Thursday. Bear in mind, two days ago, we thought they would be here today."
post #118 of 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post
This isn't good. Apparently the fire boom's can contain 1800 barrels an hour and the government didn't have any on hand and when they did get them, they didn't use them. This shit could have been contained a lot better or you know, at all./

[source]
so is it Bill Clinton's, George Bush's or Obama's fault? Or are we just indicting the federal government in general? What would you have said to spending millions of dollars on this kind of technology two months ago?
post #119 of 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuddL View Post
so is it Bill Clinton's, George Bush's or Obama's fault? Or are we just indicting the federal government in general? What would you have said to spending millions of dollars on this kind of technology two months ago?
Well, if you read the article it said they were given pre-approval to burn. Seems like it's someone down the chain's fault.

ETA. My bad, it was the former NOAA guy that said they were given pre-approval to burn ... as in from the plan in place. This means the current government never implimented the plan. So, the answer is Obama. And for the record, the fire boom costs a few hundred thousand dollars... not millions.
post #120 of 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post
Well, if you read the article it said they were given pre-approval to burn. Seems like it's someone down the chain's fault.

ETA. My bad, it was the former NOAA guy that said they were given pre-approval to burn ... as in from the plan in place. This means the current government never implimented the plan. So, the answer is Obama. And for the record, the fire boom costs a few hundred thousand dollars... not millions.
you're such a fucking moron.
post #121 of 698
What a disaster, so we never had the equipment to handle this in the first place. The part that irks me with relation to the current administration is that they were thinking of allowing more drilling in the Gulf, would have been nice if somebody reviewed how ready we were to handle this exact scenario before suggesting such a thing.
post #122 of 698
Quote:
"We're arranging for six to be shipped in. We keep running into delays. Hopefully, they will be here by Wednesday to be available for use on Thursday. Bear in mind, two days ago, we thought they would be here today."
This pretty much is the definition of government..
post #123 of 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica View Post
What a disaster, so we never had the equipment to handle this in the first place. The part that irks me with relation to the current administration is that they were thinking of allowing more drilling in the Gulf, would have been nice if somebody reviewed how ready we were to handle this exact scenario before suggesting such a thing.
Proactive is not in the American dictionary.

I'm going to have to assume you're being a bit sarcastic, though. Otherwise, I do believe you're in for a string of rude awakenings over the next 20 years or so, as we really start to reap what we've sown.
post #124 of 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuddL View Post
you're such a fucking moron.
http://www.politico.com/largevideobo...id=82523507001

Obama administration "Ready from day 1!"
post #125 of 698
Thing is, Snaieke, when this happens on a Democrat's watch, they scramble to get it fixed. When, say, a city gets washed away by a hurricane, a Republican would just sit at home and pat Michael Brown on the back.

Hypothetically speaking, of course.
post #126 of 698
Ex-FEMA head Brown says Obama wanted the spill.

Really, Brownie? How about a heaping dose of "Go Fuck Yourself!"
post #127 of 698
Brown's next gambit: "Obama wanted the oil spill so that everything would turn BLACK."
post #128 of 698
Awesome that Fox actually dug this guy up from wherever he's been the last 5 or so years. Didn't he already sufficiently prove that no one should ever give a flying fuck what he thinks about pretty much anything?
post #129 of 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Umami View Post
Awesome that Fox actually dug this guy up from wherever he's been the last 5 or so years. Didn't he already sufficiently prove that no one should ever give a flying fuck what he thinks about pretty much anything?
Yes. Yes he did.
post #130 of 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather View Post
Thing is, Snaieke, when this happens on a Democrat's watch, they scramble to get it fixed. When, say, a city gets washed away by a hurricane, a Republican would just sit at home and pat Michael Brown on the back.

Hypothetically speaking, of course.
Scramble to get it fixed? Dude, they took 8 days to go out and order the thing.

http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-sp...ill_anima.html

Look at the spill timeline, by day eight it had already reached land. The thing isn't stopped yet and apparently, this fire boom could have burned off as much oil as this thing has been leaking and recent studies indicate the flow is increasing and it could reach as much as 50,000 barrels a day (from the current est. 5000) and there aren't enough booms available to burn off that much oil.
post #131 of 698
I would almost, almost write off laying blame with the administration on the grounds that someone further down the chain should've been on top of this, making noise about it.

BUT, he had to open his fucking yapper about MORE drilling operations, which means they should've looked into the current reality thoroughly enough to have something like this in place.

Now, I'd like to think they would have before they really made any concrete moves to open up more drilling out there. But... we're here now. Fix the damn thing first. Then I'll worry about who fucked up and when.
post #132 of 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeypants View Post
BUT, he had to open his fucking yapper about MORE drilling operations, which means they should've looked into the current reality thoroughly enough to have something like this in place.
This.

I can understand not anticipating certain things, but the moment you say you will allow more drilling and that we shouldn't worry about what just happened, it is not unreasonable to have expected them to do their homework.
post #133 of 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post
Scramble to get it fixed? Dude, they took 8 days to go out and order the thing.

http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-sp...ill_anima.html

Look at the spill timeline, by day eight it had already reached land. The thing isn't stopped yet and apparently, this fire boom could have burned off as much oil as this thing has been leaking and recent studies indicate the flow is increasing and it could reach as much as 50,000 barrels a day (from the current est. 5000) and there aren't enough booms available to burn off that much oil.
Look you fucking cretin, they don't need "a" fire boom, they need many (at least six or seven it seems), and you're referring to a plan from a report that was done in 1994(!) and was never implemented, by any administration.

I agree, once Obama decided to open up more drilling he opened himself up to criticism on not being prepared for potential fallout. But please, let's not act like this is purely Obama's fuck up. This is the government's fuck up.

ETA:

And, let's be clear, BPs fuckup. Neither the private nor the public sector is incentivized to take these kinds of threats seriously until they happen, because they simply don't happen often enough to be profitable in the marketplace, or in the voting booth.
post #134 of 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuddL View Post
Look you fucking cretin, they don't need "a" fire boom, they need many (at least six or seven it seems), and you're referring to a plan from a report that was done in 1994(!) and was never implemented, by any administration.

I agree, once Obama decided to open up more drilling he opened himself up to criticism on not being prepared for potential fallout. But please, let's not act like this is purely Obama's fuck up. This is the government's fuck up.

ETA:

And, let's be clear, BPs fuckup. Neither the private nor the public sector is incentivized to take these kinds of threats seriously until they happen, because they simply don't happen often enough to be profitable in the marketplace, or in the voting booth.
Then why don't they have 6 or 7? This is where a President is fucking instrumental. You have HIM call up and ASK other nations for help! You don't have some guy in the coast guard (or Navy, the article wasn't very specific) ask the manufacturer to see if he can wrangle up a few more. That's just fucking ludicrous! Not to mention ONE would be a hellova lot better than ZERO.

I understand JuddL, you're hyper-partisan and you can't see past the blue but try and remove your head from your ass for a minute and think how a real President would handle the situation.

ETA

Oh and this is something that should have been done on DAY FUCKING ONE NOT DAY FUCKING EIGHT.
post #135 of 698
http://www.dec.state.ak.us/spar/evos/thennow.htm#resp

Not implimented you say? Hmmmmmmm

Quote:
March 1989
No fire boom or systems to ignite and burn the contained oil.

Mach 2009
3,600 feet of fire boom with helicopter-carried igniter systems.
THIS is the type of response that should have happened, Alaska seems like they know what the fuck they're doing, why doesn't the federal government? Read the full link for all of their response capabilities.
post #136 of 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post
Then why don't they have 6 or 7? This is where a President is fucking instrumental. You have HIM call up and ASK other nations for help! You don't have some guy in the coast guard (or Navy, the article wasn't very specific) ask the manufacturer to see if he can wrangle up a few more. That's just fucking ludicrous!....try and remove your head from your ass for a minute and think how a real President would handle the situation.
You voted for Bush twice, right?
post #137 of 698
Hey Joey, I'm in Pensacola too, and let me add another voice of "Oh shit" to the discussion, being a local and all.

I really can't imagine that they're going to endorse more drilling after this debacle. Widespread panic hasn't occurred yet, but a few friends of mine who work in the condo/beach hotel business, they're already receiving cancellations and the like.


Just, most everyone I know is stunned about this. Even those who aren't directly involved in any of the tourist based industries. If this isn't contained or fixed, I could see this crippling the entire gulf. Most all our businesses are dependent on people vacationing here, so it's like this horrific domino effect.
post #138 of 698
Whoa. There's someone else on here from my hometown? Weird...

I'm not up on the latest "landfall prediction." Is it Saturday now? ETA: Maybe not. Looks like we might be spared a few more days. The main concentration is still off of Louisiana.
post #139 of 698
They appear to have burned some of the oil, no specifics given on how long or how much was burned. It's also worth noting they are about out of dispersant and the manufacturer is depleted and has to make more. At this point they're running out of options to contain the oil (with their boom plan, they don't have enough booms to cover the entire areas that will be affected) and before the relief well is completed (est. 90 days to complete, they started about two days ago I believe) they could have up to half a million barrels of oil* in the gulf before this is over or about 21,000,000 gallons. Rumors are the well has about 10 million barrels, it's understandable now why BP wants to drill a relief well instead of more aggressive options, this way they lose out on oil but they get their new rig up in place making them money before the government can say no more oil rigs in the gulf, very smart!

http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-sp...gulf_burn.html

Quote:
Oil spill responders were able to doa controlled burn of some of the oil in the Gulf of Mexico on Wednesday, officials said.


Chris Grangr / The Times-PicayuneA shark, bottom right, confronts a line of oil about three miles northwest of the Chandeleur Islands in the Gulf of Mexico.Doug Suttles, a BP executive, said the controlled burn was one of the methods responders are using to fight the spread of the oil. Dispersants are also being used to help break up the oil.

The Coast Guard said no populated areas were expected to be affected by the controlled burn and authorities said they did not anticipate impacts to marine life. They said the Environmental Protection Agency was continuously monitoring air quality and would halt burning if there were problems
* at 5,000 barrels a day... however there are concerns that it could leak up to 50,000 barrels a day which would put it around 4.5 million barrels or just south of 200 million gallons of oil. fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck.
post #140 of 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeypants View Post
Whoa. There's someone else on here from my hometown? Weird...

I'm not up on the latest "landfall prediction." Is it Saturday now? ETA: Maybe not. Looks like we might be spared a few more days. The main concentration is still off of Louisiana.


Yeah, I go to UWF. It'd be cool to meet another Chewer, send me a pm.

It's just hard to see any other outcome besides "Doom". How badly has Louisiana been impacted?

And does this 100 ton bell have any chance of working? I know a few folks in the charter business and there have been whispers about sueing BP, should thing go more south overall. Is it even feasible?
post #141 of 698
Sounds like joeypants may be doing some drilling of his own. High five!
post #142 of 698
Obama administration officially out to fuck southern states.

U.S. not accepting foreign help on oil spill. Aid offered by governments of Canada, Croatia, France, Germany, Ireland, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Republic of Korea, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United Nations. "These offers include experts in various aspects of oil spill impacts, research and technical expertise, booms, chemical oil dispersants, oil pumps, skimmers, and wildlife treatment," the email read.

Now that's change you can believe in!


Quote:
U.S. not accepting foreign help on oil spill

When State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley refused to tell reporters which countries have offered assistance to help respond to the BP oil spill, the State Department press corps was flabbergasted.

"As a policy matter, we're not going to identify those offers of assistance until we are able to see, you know, what we need, assess the ongoing situation. And as we accept those offers of assistance, we will inform you," Crowley said.

Reporters pointed out that the Bush administration identified assistance offers after the Katrina disaster, so what is this, a new policy? They pressed Crowley, but he refused to budge.

Then they mentioned Iran's offer of assistance, through its National Iranian Drilling Company. Crowley said there was no Iranian offer of assistance, at least in any official capacity. The reporters kept on it, asking why it was taking so long to figure out what was needed in the first place? That's the Coast Guard's decision, Crowley explained.

Late Wednesday evening, the State Department emailed reporters identifying the 13 entities that had offered the U.S. oil spill assistance. They were the governments of Canada, Croatia, France, Germany, Ireland, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Republic of Korea, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United Nations.

"These offers include experts in various aspects of oil spill impacts, research and technical expertise, booms, chemical oil dispersants, oil pumps, skimmers, and wildlife treatment," the email read.

"While there is no need right now that the U.S. cannot meet, the U.S. Coast Guard is assessing these offers of assistance to see if there will be something which we will need in the near future."

The Obama administration has been relentless in its messaging that it is doing everything possible to aggressively respond to the oil spill. But for the record, the current message to foreign governments is: Thanks but no thanks, we've got it covered.

A State Department official, speaking on background, said that the decision not to initially release the names of offering countries came directly from the State Department leadership.
[source]
post #143 of 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott View Post
Sounds like joeypants may be doing some drilling of his own. High five!
ahhaha
post #144 of 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake View Post
ahhaha
Just make sure you use a reliable boom, jp...the last thing the Gulf needs now is another spill.
post #145 of 698
Oil spill officially reached Louisiana

Here's a map of the proposed booms to protect coastline, as you can see the Freemason island has all of the proposed boom deployed, good for them however there are other nearby places that were woefully lacking in boom as of May 1st when the map was created. I can't find an updated map...

http://www.nola.com/news/wide.ssf?ht...7fd21ca886.jpg

They plugged one of the three leaks but the same amount of oil is spewing out of the well but they're poised to contain the bulk of it with the big metal box that they're going to drop today. Hopefully it works however there is a lot of math and luck involved in this which means things could go wrong, infact.. what isn't being published is if this goes really wrong it could amp up the output from the 5000 barrels to up to the maximium 50,000 barrels. Let's all cross our fingers that the calculations weren't on a Windows PC
post #146 of 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott View Post
Sounds like joeypants may be doing some drilling of his own. High five!
So juvenile, yet so funny. Ha. No, no. For now, I'm taken. Anyways...


I really hope this magic box works. I'm curious what the lasting impact will/would be if the leak is more or less stopped with it.
post #147 of 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post
it could amp up the output from the 5000 barrels to up to the maximium 50,000 barrels.
Yeah, saw that on Maddow yesterday. Pretty terrifying.
post #148 of 698
I have to, HAVE to go to the beach this weekend in case this shit hits land sometime soon. It gets so fucking hot/humid here the only way I can do the beach is if I'm in the water basically the whole time.

Once we hit some sort of "no swim" advisory, it's no more beach for me.

Re: the 50,000 barrel escalation... I was really hoping that link about the leaked memo I posted earlier would prove to be bullshit. Guess not.
post #149 of 698
It's alright. There won't be any spill. I swallow.

Ahem.

If there's any silver lining, there may be somewhat of an economic boom that will help the folks that run some of the more 'practical' beach based business. Boss of an uncle of mine owns a fishing camp in Venice, LA. Apparently BP has booked all 30 rooms at $1000 a pop for at least the next six months. As soon as the news was spilled, he was apparently approached with the contract. Ten to a room, with them hiring a cleaning service so the hotel doesn't have to expend those funds.

I imagine there are several similar stories going on, and will be more in case of landfall. At least that's something for part of the community down here. But I've heard stories of several charter captains have about 20-25 trips canceled each. I hope BP puts them to work or something...

So why no foreign aid? I sort of get it, afterall the liability for cleanup should fall to those responsible for it. I'm tempted to call in a few former dates who worked on oil rigs to see if there's any inside skinny to be had. My dad used to captain the supply boats so I'm sure he still has some connections there as well. This is getting pretty nuts.

(And on a very selfish note, I hope to god the folks in Apalachicola are doing something to conserve/protect the areas where they harvest their oysters and the like. That would be a sad, damn shame to see that-and other establishments like that go.)
post #150 of 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayward_Woman View Post
It's alright. There won't be any spill. I swallow.

Ahem.
Heh.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Obama appeases all the "drill baby drill" Goopers