TexasCHLforum.com

Looks like the new cap is working (about 3 months too late.)

Now to just get the relief wells done and the old one blocked at the bottom.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100715/ap_ ... _oil_spill" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

GO BP STOCK RALLY!!!!!!!

I'm sorry but I have to ask. Why wasn't this done in a more timely manner?

mctowalot wrote:I'm sorry but I have to ask. Why wasn't this done in a more timely manner?

Try playing pin the tail on the donkey with the picture on the floor while someone holds you up by your feet and swings you around.

Now try it from a mile up.

I think BP has done everything possible to cap this well and stop the leak. I have worked as a contractor to most of the large oil companies, and I can tell you that they are good stewards of the environment in my opinion. Why wasn't the leak stopped earlier? Because it's never been done before. Why was BP drilling a mile down? Because the US Gov't won't let them drill in safer territory. Do you realize how much it costs to support one rig just 50 miles offshore, vs. a rig in shallow water or on land. Multiply every cost times 10, at least. It's not something oil companies want to do, they have to do it. BTW, Petrobras, the Brazilian gov't owned oil giant is drilling 3 times the depth of the Deepwater Horizon, and they are doing it with full US support and OUR money.

I flew on the Exxon Valdez spill itself from day one, and on monitoring projects for 2 years, and saw the devastation first hand. But I also saw the multitude of false damage claims made by the media. I hauled around every possible Gov't and oil company contracted -ist (Environmentalist, Geologist, Hydrologist, Ornithologist, Biologist, etc.) if their was an -ist in their title, we took them everywhere up and down Prince William Sound, Seward, Kodiak Island and the Aleutian Chain. We landed on every beach in the region and usually stayed with the teams. The Exxon people were dedicated to the cleanup and took it very seriously. At no time did I find anything but people trying to do right by the mess they had on their hands caused by a negligent captain on one of their tankers.

I don't condone any criminal negligence on BP's part, and if that is found, the guilty must pay. But as to why it took so long, I guess I could ask, "why did they HAVE TO drill there in the first place," when we are sitting on huge oil reserves right here at home. For those that want to prevent drilling in ANWAR, perhaps they should actually go there. The proposed drill sites are only a fraction of the ANWAR area. Oh yeah, the Caribou migration. They said the same to stop the trans-Alaska Pipeline back in the Seventies. Only trouble is, the caribou move freely and walk quite calmly under the pipeline from one end of the North Slope to the other. In fact, they often congregate near the pipe in winter for warmth. And as to a "spill," that doesn't happen drilling on land.

End of rant.

Ok, let me try to nip this in the bud. I understand all of the above, and I'm with y'all on all that. What I was trying to ask is why this particular method wasn't attempted sooner in the game?

P.s. I was playing pin the tail on the donkey in the exact method you described last week.

mctowalot wrote:Ok, let me try to nip this in the bud. I understand all of the above, and I'm with y'all on all that. What I was trying to ask is why this particular method wasn't attempted sooner in the game?

Ever since the well started leaking, BP and other companies have been working around-the-clock evaluating and trying various methods to stop the leak. Many ideas were thought of, considered, debated and some were tried. Fortunately this one was tried and it worked.

mctowalot wrote:Ok, let me try to nip this in the bud. I understand all of the above, and I'm with y'all on all that. What I was trying to ask is why this particular method wasn't attempted sooner in the game?

P.s. I was playing pin the tail on the donkey in the exact method you described last week.

My apologies for the rant. Didn't mean to jump, but I guess I'm just reacting to all the family members that asked the same question but didn't want to hear any answers

No problem, I can see that my original post came across with an unintended tone. I have similar family members - all mouth and no ears.

FWIW, IMHO it's a crime they were required to be operating at that depth. But to a "lay person" such as myself, this repair looked pretty straight forward (remove cover, insert large pipe, bolt down and add to the stack as necessary). I guess that after watching all the gut wrenching failed attempts this one looked "easy".

And to think I cut off all my hair to donate to the "hairboom" cause! - Just kidding.

look on the bright side, think of all the jobs the clean up is going to create!!

flb_78 wrote:look on the bright side, think of all the jobs the clean up is going to create!!

...and Obama will take credit for them also!

Good work . . . but still too late, as the damage has already been done.

One comparatively minor benefit to the BP/Macondo oil spill is it has raised public awareness of petroleum extraction and the effort, investments and risks involved in keeping gasoline, diesel and other petroleum-derived products widely available for everyone. One can hope this will lead to more informed choices and decisions regarding petroleum, energy, etc . . . but better to avoid raising one's hopes lest one is later disappointed.

G26ster wrote:BTW, Petrobras, the Brazilian gov't owned oil giant is drilling 3 times the depth of the Deepwater Horizon, and they are doing it with full US support and OUR money.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/braziloil.asp
This was supposedly last updated BEFORE the Macondo well blowout.

yerasimos wrote: http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/braziloil.asp
This was supposedly last updated BEFORE the Macondo well blowout.

I'll go with the WSJ

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 24166.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I left out a few "minor" details about the Snopes article that I found interesting. I think the major issue with the Snopes article was that Obama authorized the loan. I won't argue with their contention that part is untrue. However, a few points they missed.

1. Although the board of the Export-Import Bank (5 members) were all appointed by GW Bush, Obama was President at the time the decision to "make the loan" was made. No influence there? The fact that George Soros was heavily invested in Petrobras and had contributed millions to Obama was no factor (see below)? The Snopes article always mentions that the board was appointed by George Bush, but leaves out the fact that when the loan was granted Obama was the "actual" President. The EIB says that private investment firms are actually making the loans and it doesn't cost the taxpayer a dime. I wonder who guarantees that loan in the event of default - the federal government (i.e. US taxpayer)?

2. The article mentions that George Soros had sold 22M shares of Petrobras, but it failed to mention that those shares were common stock, and failed to mentioned Soros turned around and bought 5M shares of preferred stock, which gives his fund voting rights not granted by common stock. Regardless of how many shares Soros sold or bought back prior to the loan, he is still a major investor in Petrobras and will makes more billions if the drilling is successful.

Apparently it is OK for the US to back loans to Brazil for ultra-deep water drilling because, "it will create jobs for Americans," but ban deep water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Those rigs are shut down and are not going to wait for law suits and appeals that will drag on for years, they are already moving elsewhere and are not coming back any time soon. Thousands of Americans will be out of work in the Gulf for many years to come.

So the only thing that I see shown by the Snopes article that is incorrect is the part about Obama signing an Executive Order. In the wake of the disaster in the Gulf, what has the Obama administration done to demand that Brazil halt ultra-deep water drilling off their coast, especially since it is backed by a loan from a US government agency? I would be very interested to know.

I'm not condeming Obama or Bush over this deal. I'm simply stating that the US Gov't, regardless of it's leadership, seems to have a propensity for making foreign countries richer and the US poorer.

I haven't read this entire thread but I just heard obama giving a news conference and it was sickening.

Now that the oil is stopped, he makes it sound like he responsible for saving the day.
All he could say was..."I" .."we"..."I"...."I"...."we" ..."I"..."I".

Now, this is in contrast to when the oil was flowing. All he could say was "BP".."BP"..."BP".