Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
He's basically saying that
1) What BP has been trying to fix, and has thus far failed at, is a minor leak compared to the inevitable open hole on the ocean floor that is spewing much of the oil. The gash's existence hasn't been confirmed by BP, and it may not exist, but the volume of oil being found in the ocean, and the size of the blowout is inconsistent with the size of this leak at the drilling pipe.
2) If this hole exists, and evidence says it probably does, there are two ways to fix it. One is to let it run it's course, which could take 30 years and poison not only the Gulf of Mexico, but the Atlantic Ocean as well. The second is to use a nuclear device to crush the rock around the hole and close it.
3) The amount of oil in the Gulf of Mexico is a time bomb for hurricane season, when a big storm could cover the entire gulf coast in crude oil, basically causing complete destruction.
The first two statements could prove false, and let's all hope they do, but the third is as terrifying as poisoned oceans and deep sea nuclear explosions on top spewing oil reservoirs.
Isn't this basically the craziest shit you've ever heard in your life? Real Life Boogaloo indeed
lordy. i hope you're wrong.
ReplyDeleteyeah i mean, the stuff he says above is conjecture, but so is most everything being said about the leak, and so far the trend has been for the disaster to reveal itself as bigger and bigger as time goes on. yes, terrifying.
ReplyDeletewe're really in uncharted waters here (pardon the metaphor). worst ecological disaster in human history type shit. i mean who knows, maybe this could mark the real turning point between oil and sustainable energy...reaching for silver linings here.
and our president hasn't talked to bp ceo tony hayward once, once! http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/searching-for-an-ass-to-kick/article1596854/ the president has deferred to bp on both the technical aspects and to carry out the operations, but hasn't had the time to have a five minute conversation with the man in charge of this in the last 50 days.
ReplyDeleteOne of the few things that will probably be reliable over the next 25 years, will be the continual discoveries of how grossly under-estimated the preliminary costs and impacts of the spill currently are.
ReplyDeleteVince, I get your frustration over Obama and Hayward not having had a sit down talk over the last two months, but Hayward has proven to offer little, especially considering as of last week he was still publicly denying the vast expansing plumes of oil underneath the ocean's surface. Chances are he won't be with BP much longer.... Here's an article on the Public Trust Doctrine I thought you might want to check out http://www.sacbee.com/2010/06/10/v-print/2814505/tool-to-protect-nature-overlooked.html
As Peter alluded to, moving away from oil is a necessity and but its also something we can do now.It starts with your choices- drive less, buy offsets, and when available, opt for alternative energy sources. For you New Yorkers, you may want to check this out if you're interested.
http://www.greenpowernyc.com/index.html
Duke has sent a research team down to the gulf, and there'll probably be more research devoted towards it in the coming months/ years.
The craziest thing guys, is that working on trying to understand and mitigate the range of impacts from the oil spill could be something someone our age could spend their entire career working on...nuts
Kirby, that is interesting insight about the bredth of the disaster. Also, I agree with you about the public trust doctrine. Our emergency response is not prepared to handle many diasters (including terrorist attacks) because of cuts by Congress and two adminstrations.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I don't think Hayward is going anywhere. He is the face of BP in all of those horrible ads. More importantly, I am upset Obama hasn't met with Hayward because it shows an inability to take part in basic mangement of the disaster. If Hayward has not good ideas then why has the White House deferred to BP for so long? There are other signs of poor mangement besides not talking to Hayward. Obama didn't know the head of MMS (who is in charge of regulation) had resigned or was fired.
There is an intersting op-ed in the Washington Post today: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/14/AR2010061404481.html?hpid%3Dopinionsbox1&sub=AR. Particularly it states "The issue isn't what Obama is feeling, it's what he's doing. Why haven't skimmers been brought in from around the world to scoop up more of the oil? Why isn't the defense of the coastline being run like a military campaign, with failure not an option? Why is the answer to every question essentially the same -- 'We've repeatedly asked BP to get that done.'"
We'll see if Obama can right the ship tonight.
what did you guys think of the speech the other night? honestly the $20 bn doesn't please me as much as it should, considering oil's still gushing...
ReplyDeleteFrom what I understand the $20 billion is not a cap, but a starting point. It is also in an escrow account, meaning it is gaining interest. It was an interesting move by Obama because BP is not legally required to create an escrow account unless ordered by a judge. They did so obivously for PR reasons. It is a graet thing Feinberg is manging it. He did a wonderful job with the 9/11 vicitms account.
ReplyDeleteThe speech was alright. A little short on details. I still think a lack of leadership in terms of mitgating the disaster.
I thought the speech was pretty good for the most part,especially considering the political handicap of not being able to say anything that might result in bad business for anyone. While he hit on the well-worn call for getting off of oil, pushing the climate bill like he did the health care bill would be a more significant move by bringing action to his words.
ReplyDeleteGiven the bull stubborn and rather incompetent move that Republicans in Congress take in blocking anything Obama promotes, its really quite surprising he's able to get much of anything done on the leadership end.
He's still got my vote of confidence in trying to right the ship of regulatory failings that trace back before his term began.