backtop


Print 32 comment(s) - last by letmepicyou.. on Jul 17 at 10:23 PM


Oil gushing from the well before the containment cap  (Source: CalFinder)

New containment cap  (Source: xinhuanet)
New containment cap stopped the leak, but the job isn't finished yet

Just five days shy of three months since the oil leak started in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, and 184 million gallons of oil spilled later, BP finally found a solution that successfully contained the oil. 

The 75-ton containment cap placed over the damaged oil well earlier this week has undergone an extensive 48-hour testing period in hopes of a successful end result. Thankfully, this method worked. For the first time since the leak erupted 85 days ago, oil has finally stopped flowing to the surface of the Gulf.

But plugging the oil well is only the beginning of resolving this environmental disaster. Now that the containment cap is placed and doing its job, engineers will begin monitoring pressure gauges making sure that there are no leaks elsewhere. The worst case scenario right now is that pressure from the oil under the containment cap could damage the well further, which would lead to oil spilling out from other areas on the sea floor. 

So the waiting game begins. Any signs of new leaks will means engineers will have to reopen the cap and let oil spill into the Gulf once again. The engineers are hoping that the well holds out for the next two days of close observation, but even if it does hold out, they have to conduct a seismic survey of the ocean floor to make sure oil isn't escaping from the well into the bedrock, and in order to conduct such a survey, engineers have to open the vents again, which releases more oil.

"For the people living on the Gulf, I'm certainly not going to guess their emotions," said Kent Wells, BP vice president. "I hope they're encouraged there's no oil going into the Gulf of Mexico. But we have to be careful. Depending on what the test shows us, we may need to open this well back up."

Those surrounding the Gulf like fisherman and restauranteurs, who have lost their jobs due to the oil leak, have shown mixed reviews on the new containment cap solution. Some are relieved while others don't trust BP enough to rest assure that this is a permanent solution. 

Others, such as Alabama Gov. Bob Riley, showed a greater sense of relief that BP has closed off the well.

"That's great," said Riley. "I think a lot of prayers were answered today."

The video feed on BP's website showed the oil cloud, which has been gushing ever since the Deepwater Horizon exploded and sank, thin and eventually fade out at 2:25 pm CDT. The containment cap in place is designed to restrict oil from entering the ocean by restraining it inside the well and also allowing ships at the surface to siphon oil from inside of it. 

The containment cap seems to be doing its job for the time being, but it is not a permanent solution to this catastrophe. BP is currently drilling two relief wells, due to be completed in mid August, which will pump cement and mud into the well with the idea of plugging it permanently. After this is accomplished, a mass clean-up, expected to take years, will take place in the Gulf.

Every little bit counts, and in this case, a huge weight has been lifted off of many shoulders today, even if it is temporary. Randall Luthi, president of the National Ocean Industries Association, which is a trade group representing the offshore oil industry, noted that "industry officials and their families are taking a big sigh," but to others, the damage has already been done and the last thing anyone should do is assume that this has been taken care of.

"I think it's a little premature to say it's definitely over," said Steve Shepard, Gulf Coast chairman of the Mississippi Chapter of the Sierra Club. "They've gotten our hopes up so many times before that in my mind I don't think it's going to be over until Christmas."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Loving Obama
By Aloonatic on 7/16/2010 5:18:40 AM , Rating: 5
You've got to laugh.

Now that the cap is on and it seems to be working, with the other clean up operations going pretty well too, as the other drills are getting close to their goal and blocking off the leak under ground....

Suddenly, in the pres conferences it's all "we" are doing blah blah blah...

Funny guy.




RE: Loving Obama
By web2dot0 on 7/16/10, Rating: -1
RE: Loving Obama
By Aloonatic on 7/16/2010 7:36:15 AM , Rating: 5
I expect him to say that British petroleum are close to getting on top of this.

Rather than all of a sudden being all we are close to ending this or whatever.

When it was all going wrong, it was all British petroleum this and that.

Now that a solution is close, suddenly it's all we we we?

I am going by what I have seen on the news by the way, so maybe I have seen different clips to you, but it just struck me as funny how he has changed his tune and wants to be part of this all of a sudden, now that things are going well.

I didn't think that I was being particularly cryptic with my first post, sorry for any confusion.

To clarify, I am delighted that the end is in sight and that (hopefully) the water in the Gulf will not have oil spewing into it from this broken pipe for much longer.


RE: Loving Obama
By hughlle on 7/16/2010 7:40:52 AM , Rating: 5
fully agreed, the moment it was all going bad it was BP not paying enough, doing enough, the moment things start to look possbily positive it becomes "after much work money and effort we have managed blah"

jog on.


RE: Loving Obama
By retrospooty on 7/16/10, Rating: 0
RE: Loving Obama
By Aloonatic on 7/16/2010 8:42:16 AM , Rating: 3
He took it on the chin by blaming other people when it was all going wrong, and then sidles in when the fix is underway and suddenly wants to be part of what is going on as if he was part of the solution?

As for your your last paragraph, I think that our moronic last Prime Minister, who's solution to every problem has been o either tax it or throw sack loads of other people's (usually tax payers) money at it, seems to have infected your government with his ideas. Sorry about that. It will probably do more damage to you country in the long term than several broken oil pipelines leaking oil into the oceans on your coast.


RE: Loving Obama
By mcnabney on 7/16/2010 10:21:40 AM , Rating: 1
Actually, the only blame being pushed were the issues leading up to the rig blowing up and the blowout preventer failing.

After that it has been trying one thing after another.

Now there has been some blame being foistered about considering payments that BP should be making, but that is between the gulf residents and BP. They aren't just going to drop $20B in the French Quarter and let it be first come first served. I never really understood why the President was that closely tied to this. The only thing that he could have done that would piss me off is if he had the Feds start taking over from BP and getting the taxpayer on the hook for all of the cost.


RE: Loving Obama
By Aloonatic on 7/16/2010 9:37:28 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, reading back your comment again, I'm not convinced that you read my initial comment properly and understood what I was saying at all.

I'm not sure who "they" are, in relation to what I wrote about.

Still, I enjoyed your arrogant and internet tough guy tone, so it wasn't a complete loss :o)


RE: Loving Obama
By web2dot0 on 7/17/2010 2:15:45 PM , Rating: 1
I'm not sure why he shouldn't say "we" when it's in fact "we" that capped the leak.

I'm not sure you understood my comment at all buddy.

I'm sure you enjoy beating people up when they are down. Elbow from the sky!

He took like hard on this chin on this one, so when it comes time to redeem himself, he should be allowed to take some credit. He's a politician, not a saint.

We should be more concerned about the end result not your ignorant internet sniping.


RE: Loving Obama
By Aloonatic on 7/17/2010 6:02:16 PM , Rating: 4
I am not your buddy.

Why shouldn't he be saying "we" now, in almost every other sentence when describing how things are going well now? Well, was it "we" when BP were dragged infront of that committee or whatever it was? Was Obama there next to the BP exec then? Erm.... No.

I'm not really sure why you seem to have taken my comment so personally, but you should probably calm down.

I don't know what you have seen, but he hardly took it on the chin. The very simple point I was making was that when it was all going wrong it was all British Petroleum's problem, and that he was going to make sure that they took responsibility, paid etc. Now that things are improving, it's all we are dong blah blah blah..

I have never said that he is a saint, but I suspect that is why that you have taken this so personally and so hard. I suspect that you have fallen for the hype and bought into the new politics etc, but as we have seen, he is just another opportunist, self serving politician. Just like those who went before him, and those that will follow.

I'm not sniping, I just made a simple comment on a technology web site onto which you seem to have projected all sorts of issues and personally problems. You seem very angry and I have hinted above as to a theory of mine about that, but I am only the messenger, pointing out what I have seen and how I find it quite amusing, nothing more.

So please quit the patronising, holier than thou act and get off of your high horse. Of course I am concerned about the outcome you patronizing, conceited..... fool. I do not see anything that I have written above that would make you or anyone else believe that I am not at all happy to see things going well. However, that doesn't and should stop/preclude me from commenting about other aspects of what is going on, you do realise that?

I'm sorry that you are so angry and upset about this, but it's not my problem so please stop with the personally attacks on me and move on. Thanks.

Good day *tips hat*


RE: Loving Obama
By FITCamaro on 7/16/10, Rating: 0
RE: Loving Obama
By Anoxanmore on 7/16/2010 1:54:09 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously FIT you have to stretch that much?

Quit watching Fox for all of 20 minutes and research their so-called amendment. Do you even know what it says?

The press has access. They don't have access to an active worksite without an escort and permission, just like they don't have automatic access to a fireworks float. Pushing for a ill conceived notion to break rules that are in place across the country--not just in the Gulf--is short sighted. And is in place to keep folks safe on both sides of the work site.

Freedom of the press is the freedom to publish. Not freedom to go anywhere. In the same way that the press doesn't have free rein to poke around construction sites. Or military bases.

This is an attempt to make a single site an issue, while then endangering folks across the country because folks don't understand possible consequences. The rules are for ALL clean up sites, and work areas. Not just the Gulf. And the 20m rule means that they can still take pictures from outside with as monstrous a lens as they'd like.


RE: Loving Obama
By knutjb on 7/16/2010 2:56:23 PM , Rating: 2
Get your facts straight and drop your progressive Obama can do no wrong bias.

Senator Bill Nelson-D Florida was taking press with him to see the spill with full knowledge and approval of the US Coast Guard. The night before the trip the press was prevented by the US Coast Guard, not BP, from going along. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/6/11/875154/-To... That isn't Fox or a right wing news source. Maybe you should watch Fox and the other media to see what they aren't showing...

Why? You need to ask the White House because they are running the show. What is it they don't want the press to see?


RE: Loving Obama
By Anoxanmore on 7/16/2010 3:01:19 PM , Rating: 1
I didn't vote for Obama, but if you right wingers are going to make up stories... ;)

It's the same government that blocks folks from approaching 20m from a firework display platform. The same government that keeps folks at a 20m distance from cranes on boats, and that keeps folks 20m from boats engaged in firefighting.

It's the same rule. It's just that some folks fail to comprehend the scale of this disaster. That is on your heads, not the Fed and the Coast Guard.

The press is free to report, and I don't see a lot of jack booted thugs beating down doors to suppress the story about the zone. Only folks who violate the same zone that is around other water construction or sites are getting popped. And publishing pictures of their violation, in a public forum, and then wailing as it's used as evidence against them for violating that zone.

Freedom of the press is the freedom to publish. Not the freedom to go anywhere they'd like. Unless of course, you'd like to see press passes sail you through any security check point, and have reporters sitting in on every RNC and DNC or boardroom or military base. Because, that won't have unintended consequences at all, will it?


RE: Loving Obama
By knutjb on 7/16/2010 4:02:02 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I didn't vote for Obama, but if you right wingers are going to make up stories... ;)
Make up stories? A Democrat Senator taking a couple of reporters out to see the mess was made up? Come up for air.
quote:
It's the same government that blocks folks from approaching 20m from a firework display platform. The same government that keeps folks at a 20m distance from cranes on boats, and that keeps folks 20m from boats engaged in firefighting.
But they'll a US Senator go on a fireworks barge? False argument.
quote:
It's the same rule. It's just that some folks fail to comprehend the scale of this disaster. That is on your heads, not the Fed and the Coast Guard.
And the scale has what to do with it? Oh the NEWS STORY. Again False argument. And it IS, PARTIALLY the Feds fault. They were about to give them a safety award, lack of inspections, with help from environmentalists they pushed drillers from known safe drilling depths out into very deep waters. BP holds the biggest chunk of fault but to ignore the Feds, and environmentalists, role is glaringly ignorant.
quote:
The press is free to report, and I don't see a lot of jack booted thugs beating down doors to suppress the story about the zone. Only folks who violate the same zone that is around other water construction or sites are getting popped. And publishing pictures of their violation, in a public forum, and then wailing as it's used as evidence against them for violating that zone.
Again false argument, if the area is unsafe for the Press what makes it safe for the Senator or his staff?
quote:
Freedom of the press is the freedom to publish. Not the freedom to go anywhere they'd like. Unless of course, you'd like to see press passes sail you through any security check point, and have reporters sitting in on every RNC and DNC or boardroom or military base. Because, that won't have unintended consequences at all, will it?
This is in the open sea not on a military base though we do allow the press into far more dangerous combat zones. The press was restricted from seeing something that was not "unsafe" but held back for political reasons. Pull your head out.


RE: Loving Obama
By Anoxanmore on 7/16/2010 4:33:17 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Make up stories? A Democrat Senator taking a couple of reporters out to see the mess was made up? Come up for air.

You said I had a bias towards Obama, I called you on that by saying I didn't vote for him, in addition to the fact the right wing media had to make up lies as well. :) See how that works?
quote:
But they'll a US Senator go on a fireworks barge? False argument

I'd highly suggest you read up what a false analogy is before you comment on one. In this case it is a very legitimate comparison since we are referring to safety standards with natural disasters, the same regulations required for Katrina after the storm had passed. The reason the media was able to report like that did, a bunch of them got stuck there during the storm. :)
quote:
And the scale has what to do with it? Oh the NEWS STORY. Again False argument. And it IS, PARTIALLY the Feds fault. They were about to give them a safety award, lack of inspections, with help from environmentalists they pushed drillers from known safe drilling depths out into very deep waters. BP holds the biggest chunk of fault but to ignore the Feds, and environmentalists, role is glaringly ignorant

Again false argument, if the area is unsafe for the Press what makes it safe for the Senator or his staff?

You keep using those words, I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
quote:
This is in the open sea not on a military base though we do allow the press into far more dangerous combat zones. The press was restricted from seeing something that was not "unsafe" but held back for political reasons. Pull your head out.

It doesn't matter where it is, if there is a disaster and they require the press a certain amount of distance away, the press had better respect it, especially if they want tours and locations they have the means and access to get where they want. Doing it secretly is without journalistic merit, I wish you could see the egg on your face at this point, but alas there are no mirrors.


RE: Loving Obama
By knutjb on 7/16/2010 5:15:06 PM , Rating: 3
False arguments, fallacies, are points in your argument that do not support what you proclaim and detract from them. http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies....

None of your arguments have justified why the media were, at the last minute, excluded from going out with the Senator.

The reason is political: "They said it was the Department of Homeland Security’s response-wide policy not to allow elected officials and media on the same 'federal asset,'" said Bryan Gulley, a spokesman for the senator. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/6/11/875154/-To...

My point that it wasn't a safety decision but a political one is well supported in that comment. I watched a number of news reports from reporters who went with elected officials to view the mess on government vessels. So why did Homeland Security really stop the NY Times from riding with Senator Nelson? We let the press into war zones but not out for a boat ride on a Coast Guard boat with a Senator. It smell fishy.


RE: Loving Obama
By YashBudini on 7/16/10, Rating: 0
RE: Loving Obama
By knutjb on 7/17/2010 2:14:19 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
See the problem is the eye holes of the white sheet over his head aren't lining up correctly.
Besides being below the belt it is factually wrong. Conservatives were not the primary group bringing those funny white clothes into style and prominence. Many early 20th Century Progressives were responsible for that. Woodrow Wilson brought DW Griffith to the White House to show his twisting of history as if fact, The Birth of a Nation. Wilson also segregated the Military and some government agencies that had never been officially segregated before. Those events are believed by many to be the driving force in the resurgence of those horribly misguided ideas.

So before inserting your foot in your mouth know why you are placing it there. If you had you might not have done so...


"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?... So why the f*** doesn't it do that?" -- Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki