- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 7,025
- Reaction score
- 2,896
- Location
- Deep in the Heart of Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I hope this works. BP's response has been inept so far and it would be good to shut this problem down and focus more on cleanup efforts.
They say that what we are seeing now is drilling mud coming out not oil.
I hope this works. BP's response has been inept so far and it would be good to shut this problem down and focus more on cleanup efforts.
The problem faced is a new situation that has never been encountered. Major challenge dealing with a "structural problem" under the weight of 5000 feet of water. Not sure how you conclude that the lack of success to this point translates to ineptness??
.
Because it is not a new problem. We have had underwater leaks in the past.
The situation is unique. Just can't spin your way around it....
.
Ok. How is it unique?
Spin? :shock:
Because it is not a new problem. We have had underwater leaks in the past.
I was under the impression that this leak was unprecedented in terms of its depth and volume. Is that not the case? (Serious q)
As to the video: Yea, it looks terrible but the brown stuff is mud, not oil.
Not to sound like an imbecile, but can't we just run a big tube down there and pour hot molten metal into it or something?
Or drop a giant boulder into it, or, I dunno.... how big is this hole anyway?
Surely there's some way we can plug it up or block it, at least temporarily, while we think of a more permanent solution.
Not to sound like an imbecile, but can't we just run a big tube down there and pour hot molten metal into it or something?
Or drop a giant boulder into it, or, I dunno.... how big is this hole anyway?
Surely there's some way we can plug it up or block it, at least temporarily, while we think of a more permanent solution.
Not to sound like an imbecile, but can't we just run a big tube down there and pour hot molten metal into it or something?
Or drop a giant boulder into it, or, I dunno.... how big is this hole anyway?
Surely there's some way we can plug it up or block it, at least temporarily, while we think of a more permanent solution.
Part of the problem was that BP initially wanted to see if it could salvage the well since it already drilled it. So they used a lot of standard methods to conservatively shut off the leak.
That's what I suspected.
I suspected they were trying to salvage the well.
I was just talking to my husband about that today.
Damn them.
History will probably show BP's response will be only a prologue in their book of sins. Additionally, BP has a fiduciary responsibility to its stockholders to underestimate and minimize the size of the spill as much as possible.
How does this benefit BP? Because one of the ways in which BP will pay damages is according to the number of barrels spilled. For example, current US law calls for a barrel tax on every barrel spilled as if it were sold, which is also why last week Congress introduced legislation to quadruple the barrel tax to 32 cents per barrel. Civil damages will also be awarded in some cases on the basis of barrels spilled, and it's estimated BP may end up paying nearly $5000/barrel spilled by the time this is all over.
Given that the 1979 Ixtoc well blowout was a similar sort of disaster and spilled 140 million barrels before it was capped, even if only 100 million barrels are spilled, BP is looking at potentially a 5 trillion dollar payout.
How do you figure? There's no fiduciary responsibility to lie.
I'm not sure how you arrived at this number, but that's absolutely not possible. BP's market cap is only $130b. Total actual damages in the Exxon Valdez case were only $287m, so unless this spill is 17000 times worse than that one, costs won't approach $5T.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?