Why isn't the Tea Party protesting BP?
in [Technical]
|
From: hls on 12 Jul 2010 16:34 "Scott Dorsey" <kludge(a)panix.com> wrote in message news:i1fsm0 > Because there has never been anything like it, nobody is really sure what > happened originally or how to deal with it. That's a shame, and it's a > really bad thing, but it's not surprising. > --scott Ixtoc 1 is close. Link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ixtoc_I_oil_spill It was in much shallower water, and was putting out less oil (about 20K barrels per day), but it took the better part of 10 months to regain control. On this one, they lost circulation into the formulation, and therefore there was no heavy drilling mud column to control the pressure. In TransOcean, they were circulating salt water, not drilling mud. It is not yet clear what the primary cause of the blowout was. Could have been the pressure kicks were normal for that area, and the salt water just couldnt hold them down. Could have been other things as well.. But basically, if the BOP had worked as designed, it shouldnt have happened.
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 12 Jul 2010 17:47 On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 14:54:02 -0500, hls wrote: > > "Hachiroku ハチロク" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message > news:2AI_n.11343 >>> Obama, though I detest his administration's methods, cannot be blamed >>> for this. >> >> >> Of course he can! They blamed Bush for Katrina. >> >> > I never met anyone stupid enough to blame even Bush for Katrina.. They were out there. WAAAAY out there! > The > response > of FEMA, under Bush, was worst than pisspoor. But by the same token, > Louisiana's > response (which should have been immediate as far as evacuation) was as > bad or > worse, and lead to most of the deaths by drowning. You mean... http://www.windypundit.com/archives/2005/images/20050902-NolaSchoolBuses.jpg as opposed to Houston: http://www.greatdreams.com/weather/hurricane-gustav-busses.jpg > > Obama could have done no more about the cause and nature of this incident > than > Bush could have about the cause and nature of Katrina. And I suspect his > avenues > of response after the fact were even fewer. > > After all, what the hell does a socialist ideologue, a guy who has no > expertise in oil > exploitation at all, have to offer in a case like this? About the same as he has to offer in health care, Immigration, yada yada yada... > > As far as the Dutch skimmers, this is NOT a "leak" and not a "spill". > This is a full > fledged blowout... If you've never seen one, a "blowout" is to a "leak" > what the > flood of Noah is to taking a pee. It has still been noted that the skimmers work better when the oil is fresh than after it has become a 'sheen'. If Obama had accepted the help, chances are a lot less oil would have reached the beaches. > > With all due respect, a lot of systems have been devised in Europe, some > with collaboration > of university academes, and sometimes funded by the EU, and these are not > always > viable and robust solutions to a disaster like this one. Better to try and possibly fail than not to try at all. After all, the worst outcome would have been to have what we have now.
From: hls on 12 Jul 2010 17:50 "Hachiroku ハチロク" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message news:w3M_n.28502 > > It has still been noted that the skimmers work better when the oil is > fresh than after it has become a 'sheen'. If Obama had accepted the help, > chances are a lot less oil would have reached the beaches. Hachi, when it comes up from a mile deep, it will be in relatively thin layers on the surface. Just a few ounces of oil can cause a sheen that can be seen for MILES by government helicopters. We are talking about relatively thin layers, many many square miles of dispersion. This is a difficult task for any technology.
From: Tegger on 12 Jul 2010 18:53 Bob Cooper <bc(a)nowhere.com> wrote in news:MPG.26a5250746b10ad898968a(a)news.eternal-september.org: > In article <Xns9DB2F07824CECchuck(a)127.0.0.1>, chuck(a)nil.car says... >> >> Bob Cooper <bc(a)nowhere.com> wrote in >> > >> There's one thing that comes to mind to me with the above: Isn't it >> possible that the authority and responsibility to do the clean up >> rests with BP and no one else to the extent that the government >> simply *can't* get involved or remove them from such? > > POTUS can pretty well do what he wants in a case like this. Yep. That's precisely what Executive Orders were meant for. The US government is indeed set up to go slow and steady, but Executive Orders are the outlet for stuff that absolutely, positively needs to get done now. Either Obama is the supreme opportunist, or he's an astonishing bumbler. I vote for both, actually. -- Tegger
From: Scott Dorsey on 12 Jul 2010 19:01
Tegger <invalid(a)invalid.inv> wrote: >The US government is indeed set up to go slow and steady, but Executive >Orders are the outlet for stuff that absolutely, positively needs to get >done now. > >Either Obama is the supreme opportunist, or he's an astonishing bumbler. I >vote for both, actually. If you were president, and you had the ability to issue executive orders and the ability to request funding from Congress, what would you do? If I were president, my first thought would be to keep my mouth shut and distance myself from the disaster as thoroughly as possible. But if it were too late to do that, what would you do? --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |