This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
NEW 4-Mile Long Oil Slick Near BP's Gulf Oil Well
CNN reports:
An oil sheen about four miles long has appeared in the Gulf of Mexico near the site of the worst oil spill in U.S. history, a Coast Guard spokesman said Thursday.
It was not immediately clear where the oil is coming from, said Petty Officer 3rd Class Ryan Tippets. [Although previous oil has been matched as a "dead ringer" to the BP well.]
Coast Guardsmen went to the location after seeing the oil on a satellite image, Tippets said. The response team collected samples and sent them to the Coast Guard Marine Safety Lab in Connecticut for testing.
***
The sheen is near the spot where, on April 20, 2010, BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded over the Macondo well, killing 11 workers and spewing oil that spread across a huge portion of the Gulf.
(And see this.)
As we’ve noted for years, BP’s Macondo oil well is still leaking … and will leak for years.
For example, we noted in March:
In June of 2010, BP officials admitted to damage beneath the seafloor under BP’s Gulf Macondo well.
Numerous scientists have speculated that the blowout and subsequent clumsy attempts by BP to plug the well could have created new seeps, and made pre-existing natural seeps bigger.
***
Washington’s Blog interviewed one of the world’s leading experts on oil leaks in 2010, Robert Bea. Dr. Bea noted that we may never be able to fully stop BP’s oil leak:
Few people in the world know more about oil drilling disasters than Dr. Robert Bea.
Bea teaches engineering at the University of California Berkeley, and has 55 years of experience in engineering and management of design, construction, maintenance, operation, and decommissioning of engineered systems including offshore platforms, pipelines and floating facilities. Bea has worked for many years in governmental and quasi-governmental roles, and has been a high-level governmental adviser concerning disasters. He worked for 16 years as a top mechanical engineer and manager for Shell Oil, and has worked with Bechtel and the Army Corps of Engineers. One of the world’s top experts in offshore drilling problems, Bea is a member of the Deepwater Horizon Study Group, and has been interviewed by news media around the world concerning the BP oil disaster.
***
WB: Is it possible that this fractured, subsea salt geology will make it difficult to permanently kill the oil leak using relief wells?
Bea: Yes, it could. The Santa Barbara channel seeps are still leaking, decades after the oil well was supposedly capped. This well could keep leaking for years.
Scripps mapped out seafloor seeps in the area of the well prior to the blowout. Some of the natural seeps penetrate 10,000 to 15,000 feet beneath the seafloor. The oil will follow lines of weakness in the geology. The leak can travel several horizontal miles from the location of the leak.
[In other words, the geology beneath the seafloor is so fractured, with soft and unstable salt formations, that we may never be able to fully kill the well even with relief wells. Instead, the loss of containment of the oil reservoir caused by the drilling accident could cause oil to leak out through seeps for years to come. See this and this for further background].
***
WB: I have heard that BP is underestimating the size of the oil reservoir (and see this). Is it possible that the reservoir is bigger than BP is estimating, and so – if not completely killed – the leak could therefore go on for longer than most assume?
Bea: That’s plausible.
WB: The chief electronics technician on the Deepwater Horizon said that the Macondo well was originally drilled in another location, but that “going faster caused the bottom of the well to split open, swallowing tools”, and that BP abandoned that well. You’ve spoken to that technician and looked into the incident, and concluded that “they damn near blew up the rig.” [See this and this].
Do you know where that abandoned well location is, and do you know if that well is still leaking?
Bea: The abandoned well is very close to the current well location. BP had to file reports showing the location of the abandoned well and the new well [with the Minerals Management Service], so the location of the abandoned well is known.
We don’t know if the abandoned well is leaking.
WB: Matthew Simmons talked about a second leaking well. There are rumors on the Internet that the original well is still leaking. Do you have any information that can either disprove or confirm that allegation?
Bea: There are two uncorroborated reports. One is that there is a leak 400 feet West of the present well’s surface location. There is another report that there is a leak several miles to the West.
[Bea does not know whether either report is true at this time, because BP is not sharing information with the government, let alone the public.]
»
- advertisements -
Twoheaded fish anyone?
or would you prefer 1 eyed shrimps for your cocktail?
The PSI force behind that Macondo well is far more immense than any other well tried by BP. You can bet they were sweating bullets attempting to plug it. I would suspect BP is highly relieved the well is away from faults and is praying the surface around there just continues to hope the surface just continues to seep, and probably will for decades to come.
It can't be oil. Hubbert said we ran out 40 years ago.
If by ran out, you mean that continental United States of America reached peak production of light sweet crude from conventional wells.
"If by ran out, you mean that continental United States of America reached peak production of light sweet crude from conventional wells."
You'll have to ask Hubbert. You don't think he "lawyered" things do you?
George, as much as I respect your "due diligence", a short excursion to higher latitudes/altitudes, may be in your cards?
GW and similar chronically negative bloggers will go insane eventually.
A steady diet of negativity will warp one's mind, eventually driving them insane.
It also appears GW can't accept the reality that this psychopathic government will destroy America eventually.
I've accepted it. I know America's days are numbered. My kids and grandkids have no future here in America.
Who knows, it may happen sooner than I think. I wonder if America will survive another presidential term. Obama, Romney, it doesn't matter. Higher powers want America taken down. It's so obvious.
But I'm not negative about it. I've accepted it. I'm neutral about it you might say, taking an "oh well, shit happens" attitude.
And I certainly wouldn't waste my time blogging about all the negative shit the government is doing ...unless I could make some good money doing it, like Rush Limbaugh for example.
But spending hours each day blogging about all the criminal crap the government is doing, and make little or no money at it? Forget it.
thank goodness fukushima has been contained.
Yen Cross, do you mean:
(1) I'll be bumped off
(2) I should go get spaced out like Obama in Denver</sarc>
Or (3) I should write about more uplifting subjects?
#3 George. You're on my "like list". :-)
I like this one "Rat takes a bath"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=fvwp&v=tFdSZBdpINw
Thanks to you both. I'll be sure and review ,"post manana close".
Why not just pump the oil out? Was that the deepest well ever and we failed at it so now we won't touch it? Or is it just a political hot potato?
They can't pump it out because, to date, they don't have as yet the technology to control oil coming from the ground @ 40,000-60,000 ft.lbs.per sq. inch of pressure.
That's what caused it to blow in the first place.
It was'nt lack of regs. that caused it.
It was incredible natural pressure never experienced before.
Although they've stopped for now due to hitting miles thick granite, BP is up in Alaska @ Prudhoe Bay attempting the same depth again for oil.
Deep sea drilling the the word "just" don't play well together.
Puhleeeze GW ... they recently lubed the Stargate at the bottom of the Gulf, and a little oil went astray.
...the BP man who sold the world. lol. Macondo Well, such a strange fictiitiious name. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBlwhVyZxmQ&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6QvSue4rDs&playnext=1&list=PL9FEA062A10B26394&feature=results_video
So... the west coast and Alaska are radioactive from Fukashima... the Gulf Coast is polluted from the BP spill..... the southwest is drying/burning up.... we're running out of livable places in the US.
South Bronx
Always the South Bronx
The Bronx is full of yankee fans. By definition, that is not liveable for people of even average intelligence.
A corporation can behave responsibly? What was i thinking?! Next...
But but but ! It's all a big lie to make big oil corporations look bad!
For those who think free markets are perfectly efficient and no regulation is needed, can you explain this?
The US government limited the liability of oil companies, in a free market they would have been totally liable and likely not so wreckless.
Totally liable to whom, and who would enforce the liability?
Oil companies in more deregulated countries leave environmental disaster in their wake.
you missed the point... people who could have and would have sued BP for all manner of damages were forced into a government controlled system that limited BP's liability and screwed private citizens right to recover.
No, I acknowledged they could sue. I didn't miss the point. I'm just asking who they would sue and how they'd go about it if there wasn't a regulation saying oil companies couldn't pollute public land. For example, oil companies in South America and Mexico pollute. Are the citizens sueing? Is there any regulation?
Do you really want a system where citizens have to sue for damaged every other day because BP is in there messing up the Gulf so badly they can't dip their toes without getting a cancerous mole? That sounds horrible. My point being: I think regulation that is actually enforced (and most of the time it is, since we don't have many spills in this country) is a good thing in some instances. Free market/invisible hand has holes in it because when it comes to a public resource (such as a river, lake, or any body of water) nobody has a majority stake in the game and the reource has multipe use.
For a start, oil 'companies' have legal privileges (limited liability, for instance) granted them by the State, which is hardly the free-market situation envisaged by libertarians.
Most libertarians also believe in more extensive property ownership, so that when oil spills occur, they wouldn't happen on 'public' property - the property would be privately owned, and the owner would sue the oil drilling organisation - which wouldn't have limited liability to defend its owners and executives, meaning their personal wealth would be depleted if they were found guilty of negligance. This would mean there'd be higher incentives for the oil company to ensure spills didn't occur.
How 'we'd' divvy up natural resources like the sea anything like equitably is a pretty big question, though. I could see that becoming one great big oligarch-fest, with Goldman Sachs and Exxon owning the GoM in exchange for letting Uncle Sam off 20% of the money 'we' owe them that they created out of thin air to begin with. Frankly, I think if we just took away legal liability privileges from corporations, that alone would chivvy them up to be a lot more careful.
For example, oil companies in South America and Mexico pollute. Are the citizens sueing? Is there any regulation?
Do you really want a system where citizens have to sue for damaged every other day because BP is in there messing up the Gulf
Well, if BP didn't have limited liability, and the fines & damages were set sufficiently high, they'd do their damnedest to ensure spills didn't occur, wouldn't they?
You seem pretty confused about what a free market envisaged by most libertarians would look like if you think Mexico and South America are pertinent examples.
I agree with your concept of eliminating the corporate form, but otherwise you miss the point.
Who would enforce the fines and damages? Private persons? On what authority and with what money? Their own? If their own, then you are advocating a system where only those with money to begin with have any say. That sounds a lot like what humanity has faced for most of its existence (oligarchs, kings, queens, etc running the show).
And the "pretty big question" about who would "divvy up" the land on which the oil drilling individuals drill is more than just a "pretty big question," it exposes the fallacy of your view. Who is to convey ownership to the Gulf of Mexico if not We The People?
Who would enforce the fines and damages?...
see my earlier reply: http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-10-04/new-4-mile-long-oil-slick-near-bps-gulf-oil-well#comment-2858046
And the "pretty big question" about who would "divvy up" the land on which the oil drilling individuals drill is more than just a "pretty big question," it exposes the fallacy of your view.
Land isn't so much of a problem, but I personally can't see how we could workably divvy up certain resources, for instance, the oceans. But as I'm not an anarchist, I'd be happy to see these under the remit of strong but limited governments that would tax access to them and enforce environmental standards to minimise externalities.
Who decided ownership of the land? Who owns the Grand Canyon?
Who decided ownership of the land? Who owns the Grand Canyon?
This is an interesting question, and one I haven't got round to researching in any depth. My understanding is that most libertarians view the people who have worked any unused land to have 'homesteading' rights... and this certainly is how many people throughout history come to view bits of real estate as 'their' land.
Of course, a lot of desirable land today has been forceably taken from someone at some time or other. You could reasonably look at those bits as being stolen property, and, thus, the present 'owner' hasn't a proper claim to them. At this point, if you were to think along 'fairness' lines, you start having to perform forensic accounting. Clearly, if the property was 'stolen' 5 years ago, restoring it to its previous owners (assuming they had a 'proper' claim on it themselves) probably won't be too difficult... but what about 50 years ago? 75? 100? 300? Obviously, the longer time has passed, the harder it would be to return the land to its previous owners or their descendents in anything like a 'fair' way.
From my perspective, one of the few legitimate roles of government is to punish and prevent predation. As people who 'own' land are some of the greatest beneficiaries of any particular government's protection, they should help pay for it, and taxing their land's market value would be the way to do it. It would also be more resource efficient, because if the land isn't being used productively, the owner would be facing fiscal loss in proportion to the degree other people believed they could use it themselves.
As I said, this is not something I've yet looked into a great deal, so I'd be interested in hearing other people's views.
Why does the MSM Propaganda network own the broadcast spectrum?
First off, nobody thinks anything is "perfectly efficient," let alone real markets. As for the "no regulation needed," comment are you really dense enough to not understand this happened in a highly regulated environment?
Regulation is a false god.
I'm not dense at all. Likely smarter than you by any standardized testing, but let's not getting in a pissing match. I just have one simple question:
I'd like to know why this wouldn't happen more often in a completely free market that many Libertarians envision. If you can't answer that, then move on.
Libertarians do not envision totally free and unfettered markets.
Smaller and more precisely regulated via principles as opposed to exceptions, yes.
To wit: It would be very hard for any sane Libertarian to argue against penalties for fraud, in particular both compensatory and criminal.
The modern regulatory state has supplanted fraud with a honeycomb of fine regulations and exceptions in which nobody is ever punished for serious crimes; ergo the MBS/Credit meltdown and bankers. The Libertarian approves not of unequal application of the rule of law... identifies no privileged class.
No, real Libertarians are not as you suggest, as is painted by the managed press, any more than Tea Party folk desire to eat small black children.
Which libertarians have you been talking to? Many of the self-professed libertarians here envision totally free and unfettered markets.
Many of the self-professed libertarians here envision totally free and unfettered markets.
'Many'? Oh really? How many? 5%? 95%? They want no punishment for fraud, breach of contract, or externalities?
That's news to me. To them, too, probably.
We have regulations out the wazoo, and only selective enforcement of them. When government lacks credibility because it won't equibly enforce laws, what can you expect? The result is the distaff form of anarchy -- law of the jungle, not the Murray Rothbard kind of Libertarian anarchy. In the present discussion, it might be equible for BP to make whole for the damage done. But they gave $20B to the administration to stave off justice meted out to them. More regulation will not affect BP, unless there is honest and fair administration of the laws. In fact, more regulation will limit BP's competitors, and BP has already limited their maximum loss. They have purchased the catbird seat from a corrupt government that will not do its job.
News to you. I have engaged in numerous debates with posters here who believe that government has no business telling business what to do, ever.
I have engaged in numerous debates with posters here who believe that government has no business telling business what to do, ever.
Are you conflating regulation with, say, enforcement of contracts and punishment of fraud? because when most libertarians argue against the former, they're not necessarily against the latter. Nor are they necessarily arguing against environmental regulations in situations where a common good cannot be sensibly/practicably be made private.
If we're talking about contracts with public entitites (e.g., collectives of the public owning the Gulf of Mexico), then the public entities should have the power to regulate the use of the land that belongs to the public, no? And that would include regulations designed to protect the collective asset, no?
In short... yes.
However, that's the situation we have now. And though it empirically works better than where we had complete collective ownership of public and private goods (ie, communist countries) it's still a bit of a fucking mess.
As usual, in a majoritarian dictatorship such as ours, there is a risk that the electorate will start free-riding through the vote, or that industry will hijack regulation. Or that regulation will get hijacked by special interests (AGW, anyone?) to everyone else's detriment.
Ideally, the oceans would be owned by someone who would have the power to sue the living daylights out of companies like BP who mess it up. I cannot see how we get from where we are today to where something like the ocean could be owned without it winding up in the hands of oligarchic interests, so I think the current government ownership model is probably the least worst situation.
I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise, though.
Do you or do you not condone and advocate the institutionalization of coercion as a fundamental organizing basis of society?
I am only looking for a "yes" or a "no" here, so don't evade the question.
No.
Coercion has existed throughout human history because socioopaths tend to rise to power.
The system I advocate is one of self-governance via elected officials that involves rules that sociopaths consider coercion because they are not allowed to take from others by their coercion. Our current system only barely resembles what I advocate (the election part).
If your system involves taxation, or the enslavement of a minority to the will of a majority, how is that not coercion?
How do you define taxation?
"How do you define taxation?"
How about being taxed equally?
How do you define coercion?
So akak can't speak for himself, but who owns the Gulf of Mexico? You? BP?