Toadfish Monastery

I just heard about this on BBC radio late this evening.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-04-23-deepwater-horizon_N.htm (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-04-23-deepwater-horizon_N.htm)

Quote

Oil rig sinks as 11 workers missing

NEW ORLEANS — An oil rig that exploded in one of the worst offshore drilling disasters in recent U.S. history sank into the Gulf of Mexico on Thursday, with still no sign of 11 missing crewmembers.

The Deepwater Horizon sank about 10 a.m. after burning for roughly 36 hours. Survivors of Tuesday night's explosion told company officials that some of the missing crewmembers were around the area of the explosion when the rig unexpectedly went up in flames.

Rescue teams scouring the wreckage site, about 42 miles off the Louisiana coast, have found no signs of the 11 workers, said Rear Adm. Mary Landry, commander of the U.S. Coast Guard's 8th District. Coast Guard crews recovered two of the rig's lifeboats, but both were empty, she said.

In all, 126 people were on board the rig when it exploded. Seventeen people were injured, four critically.

Expect deafening silence from the offshore oil drilling lobby on this.

I am actually surprised they were able to air the news.... :o

Spectacle beats sober business speculation I presume :mrgreen:

It has the makings of a tremendous environmental mess (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36683314/ns/us_news-environment/), too. We were watching it on the news last night and making comments about all the big oil propaganda we get here. They're always trying to convince us of how safe fossil fuels are. It's ridiculous.

It's the Gulf of Mexico, come on! :mrgreen:

I would actually be very very sad if they won't be able to margin the environmental disaster...

but I guess... Mother Earth is giving us many many signals she's had enough of us tormenting her...

Ayuh, that was the coffee chatter this morning.  Depending on what stage the drilling was at, and how much damage was done to the drill string/casing, this may be very very difficult to control, and almost impossible to actually clean up. :P

The Energy Tomorrow (http://energytomorrow.org/?gclid=CJXxkNLMn6ECFUtX2godTETHxw) ads drive me up the wall. It's terribly glossy propaganda and I am concerned about uneducated people falling for it. Every time I see that lady on their ads, I just wanna slap her! I know this is untaddy of me, but there she is in her business suit and high heels going down the mine shaft all pristine (just as we lost a bunch of guys in a mine collapse in West Virginia recently) and talking about how if we drill we'll have enough energy to last 50 years! 50 years?! Well, that's convenient for her, but what are her grandkids going to do for energy after she's hogged it all and prevented non-fossil fuel research? Hello? Who is actually thinking about tomorrow over there?

I don't know what to do to protest those people.

You can and you can't.

You can cut your energy bill. You can install solar panels for water heating or electricity. Fundamentally try to get the least amount of energy from the grid as possible, because 80% of our energy comes from that dirty coal.

As for how can you protest them in any other way, I don't know, even the poor sods that have to work in those mines fear a carbon free world because their (incredibly unsafe) jobs would go away.

Think electric cars are expensive now?  Wait until the oil runs out. :mrgreen:

The CEO of the company running the WV mine belongs impaled on a stake with a rounded head.
By now he has to employ bodyguards fulltime. That alone says a lot.

[diatribe]Expect to see more electricity produced from natural gas in the future.  I suspect that the US administration's push for electric cars has much to do with the recent technological advances in extracting shale gas and coalbed methane (y'know, if they'd recover the damned methane in the first place, those coal mines might be a little less prone to explosion).  These wells go in extremely fast using coil tubing rigs (sometimes in a single day compared to weeks of drilling for an on-shore oil well or deep formation gas), get on production quickly, and can get gas in nearly every state, I suspect.  Tends to be hell on groundwater resources, but eh...  sort that out later when the water crises hits fully. :P

Natural gas hasn't caught on in vehicles directly*, and doesn't have quite the greenwashed appeal of electrics, so using gas power stations to fuel cars is ideal. 

^{*Safety issues with pressure vessels in parkades maybe? wiki suggests storage tanks take up too much room and the existence of issues with infrastructure for filling stations, but in Canada domestic natural gas is ubiquitous for home furnaces, so it should work here easily - that said, I know of exactly one nat-gas filling station.  Propane is occasionally used for vehicles here, but not CH_4.}

This specifically frees up oil supplies for what I suspect is the largest consumer in the US (barring transportation, perhaps) - the military.  I'd be loath to discount the role of the military's need for oil in the promotion of alternative fuels for the consumer market.
[/diatribe]

very very interesting but short article here. (http://www.theatlantic.com/special-report/the-climate-report/archive/2010/04/replacing-coal-with-natural-gas/39257/)

Quote from: Aggie on April 25, 2010, 03:42:42 AM
[diatribe]Expect to see more electricity produced from natural gas in the future....

Back in the 80's (or 90's? I forget) the current Oklahoma governator was a huge fan of Oklahoma's abundent natural gas supply, and pushed it big-time.

He used influence and had a nat-gas resupply station put in at the midway gas station on I44 between Oklahoma City and Tulsa-- you needed, as pure nat-gas vehicles needed the pit-stop 1/2 way along.

He had all state vehicles converted to nat-gas alternate-energy vehicles, and mandated they could switch back to gas only in emergencies.

He even had a program where local police vehicles were dollied-up as nat-gas and gasoline cars.  There was a cool processor installed, that if the driver stomped the pedal (as in beginning of a high-speed pursuit) the computer automatically switched over from nat-gas, to gasoline for optimum performance.  Or the officer could opt to hit a switch manually.

After the chase was over, hit the switch again, and for normal cruising around, it ran on nat-gas-- a huge cost savings for the cities that had these.

Alas, when that governator moved on, with nobody pushing the technology, they were quietly and without fuss, put away-- the police cruisers were naturally replaced as they wore out, and a few years after he left, the owners of the midway gas station quietly shut down their nat-gas refueling pump.

Nat Gas vehicles are still popular, though-- for fleets and delivery vans.  They carry enough fuel for the day's route, then are slowly refilled overnight at their garages, from the regular natural gas mains, and a slow pumping machine-- takes about 4 to 6 hours to re-compress the tanks to full.   

Nothing preventing a homeowner from buying one of these rigs on their own; except the cost.  The conversion takes several thousand dollars, and usually voids the factory engine warranty--even though nat-gas is far less harsh than gasoline of any stripe.  The pumping machine is several hundred dollars more.  And, in the case of cars, you give up your trunk space (boot) ... the compressed tank now fits where your luggage used to go.

Range is typically 2/3 that of a gasoline tank, or less if the trunk was small.

But.  Your engine will outlast the car by a long many miles--- nat gas is sulfur-free, and burns at much lower combustion temps, so it produces much less NOx too.  And since it does that, your catalytic converter lasts longer as well.

Due to much less carbon/soot, the engine oil lasts longer, too.

But, the power is only 2/3 that of gasoline.  And I already mentioned the range problem.

If someone would only engineer from the ground-up, one of these natural gas autos, these wouldn't be an issue at all... you could even eliminate all the liquid fuel stuff to save weight.   A pure natural-gas designed engine could be changed radically as well-- less need for cooling for example, use of less exotic alloys (less stress).

<shrug> Nobody's buying it, as far as I can tell.

You'd think, here in Oklahoma the land with some of the largest nat-gas reserves, we'd be up to our ears in this tech.

I get the tank-storage issues with a conversion, but wouldn't one at least in theory be able to replace the gasoline tank with cylinders (agree that a purpose-built design would be better)?  The power problems can easily be solved by stepping up to a larger engine - my car is a four-cylinder 2.4L base model, which has adequate if not impressive power, in theory the standard 3.6L six-cylinder used in the model would give similar output with natural gas.

Such vehicles are supposed to exist in many parts of the world.  I really don't get why Canadians would not embrace this, especially as gas is cheap, domestically produced and gasoline is expensive at the moment (and in many cases imported from the US, from refining Canadian oil ::)).  If you want to sell them up here, build in a mini-furnace (more practically, a catalytic heater) that will produce hot air as soon as the car is started - there'd be one in every driveway. ;) 

I can tell you that many public service vehicles in Colombia use gas instead of gasoline and the savings are substantial, although according to the driver of one of those vehicles they actually tend to wear out the engine and should be used alternated with gasoline to avoid problems (1 tank of gasoline for each 8 from gas). The usage is more common in the cities at sea level because the power output is lower and in the mountains with less O₂ there is already a hit with regular gasoline. The cabbie telling me this said that despite a shortened life of the engine (about 20%) it made perfect economic sense.

Odd, I'd always heard that natgas engines lasted longer-- much longer than gasoline ones.

I suppose the lack of lubricating chemicals is the culprit, here.  But I'd like to see some actual studies comparing the two.

The US military is looking for alternatives to petroleum derived oil too. Currently they are testing F18s with biofuels (it was on Rachel Maddow this week).

Quote from: Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith on April 25, 2010, 08:00:44 AM
Odd, I'd always heard that natgas engines lasted longer-- much longer than gasoline ones.

I suppose the lack of lubricating chemicals is the culprit, here.  But I'd like to see some actual studies comparing the two.

Perhaps if the engine is designed for natgas? All the cars in Colombia using it are converted gasoline engines, so that may account for lubrication and residuals in the cylinders.

Double post to get back on topic:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/24/oil-rig-deepwater-horizon_0_n_550849.html

The rig is leaking 1000 barrels a day now.
>:( >:( >:( >:(

Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on April 25, 2010, 05:42:54 PM
Double post to get back on topic:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/24/oil-rig-deepwater-horizon_0_n_550849.html

The rig is leaking 1000 barrels a day now.
>:( >:( >:( >:(

That's..... not good.  Not good at all-- it was a deepwater well, as far as I know, and it'll be nearly impossible to cap that sucker... really, really specialists will be required, I'm afraid.

:'(

[untaddy] We had a thread some time back about what to do with [evil] public figures who profit so handsomely from their actions. Perhaps *they* could be used to cap this disaster? [/untaddy]

Quote from: pieces o nine on April 26, 2010, 01:10:24 AM
[untaddy] We had a thread some time back about what to do with [evil] public figures who profit so handsomely from their actions. Perhaps *they* could be used to cap this disaster? [/untaddy]

Whereas I agree with your sentiment?  Lacking a backbone or other solid internal structures, such public figures would likely melt as soon as they were brought into contact with water.  Never forget the lesson of Oz.

::)

1000 bbl/day is certainly not good, but actually not as bad as I might have feared.  At least any brine should disperse reasonably well (says the guy cleaning up a much more modest salt & oil spill ATM - salts are worse and more persistent in soils than crude), although it still may play merry hell with any life on the sea floor in the area.

I have a pretty good idea of what 1000 bbl looks like - it's a big freakin' tank of oil.

It will be especially difficult to even get to the hole because all the wreckage of the oil rig is likely to lie on top of it.

I watched a story about the spill on NBC last night. Sadly, the mess is headed for good ol' New Orleans (as well as several other coastal states- it's HUJE) and may wipe out all ready threatened gulf wildlife as well as the fishermen who depend on the shrimp and other fish for a living. It's really bad news.

Drill here!  Drill now! :mrgreen:

That's such BS.  They closed down a bunch of wells in Oklahoma because it just wasn't profitable.  In other words they're just waiting for the price to go high enough to reopen later.

That oil should wash up on the beaches that have $40,000,000 homes behind them.  That would be poetic justice.

From a PDF that was forwarded to me (hence the muddled formatting):

QuoteThe rig belongs to Transocean, the world's biggest offshore drilling contractor. The rig was originally contracted through the year 2013 to
BP and was working on BP's Macondo exploration well when the fire broke out. The rig costs about $500,000 per day to contract. The full
drilling spread, with helicopters and support vessels and other services, will cost closer to $1,000,000 per day to operate in the course of
drilling for oil and gas. The rig cost about $350,000,000 to build in 2001 and would cost at least double that to replace today.

The rig represents the cutting edge of drilling technology. It is a floating rig, capable of working in up to 10,000 ft water depth. The rig is
not moored; It does not use anchors because it would be too costly and too heavy to suspend this mooring load from the floating
structure. Rather, a triply-redundant computer system uses satellite positioning to control powerful thrusters that keep the rig on station
within a few feet of its intended location, at all times. This is called Dynamic Positioning.

The rig had apparently just finished cementing steel casing in place at depths exceeding 18,000 ft. The next operation was to suspend the
well so that the rig could move to its next drilling location, the idea being that a rig would return to this well later in order to complete the
work necessary to bring the well into production.
It is thought that somehow formation fluids – oil /gas – got into the wellbore and were undetected until it was too late to take action.

With a
floating drilling rig setup, because it moves with the waves, currents, and winds, all of the main pressure control equipment sits on the
seabed – the uppermost unmoving point in the well. This pressure control equipment – the Blowout Preventers, or 'BOP's" as they're
called, are controlled with redundant systems from the rig. In the event of a serious emergency, there are multiple Panic Buttons to hit,
and even fail-safe Deadman systems that should be automatically engaged when something of this proportion breaks out. None of them
were aparently activated, suggesting that the blowout was especially swift to escalate at the surface. The flames were visible up to about
35 miles away. Not the glow – the flames. They were 200 – 300 ft high.

All of this will be investigated and it will be some months before all of the particulars are known. For now, it is enough to say that this
marvel of modern technology, which had been operating with an excellent safety record, has burned up and sunk taking souls with it.
The well still is apparently flowing oil, which is appearing at the surface as a slick. They have been working with remotely operated
vehicles, or ROV's which are essentially tethered miniature submarines with manipulator arms and other equipment that can perform work
underwater while the operator sits on a vessel. These are what were used to explore the Titanic, among other things. Every floating rig
has one on board and they are in constant use. In this case, they are deploying ROV's from dedicated service vessels. They have been
trying to close the well in using a specialized port on the BOP's and a pumping arrangement on their ROV's. They have been unsuccessful
so far. Specialized pollution control vessels have been scrambled to start working the spill, skimming the oil up.

In the coming weeks they will move in at least one other rig to drill a fresh well that will intersect the blowing one at its pay zone. They will
use technology that is capable of drilling from a floating rig, over 3 miles deep to an exact specific point in the earth – with a target radius
of just a few feet plus or minus. Once they intersect their target, a heavy fluid will be pumped that exceeds the formation's pressure, thus
causing the flow to cease and rendering the well safe at last. It will take at least a couple of months to get this done, bringing all available
technology to bear. It will be an ecological disaster if the well flows all of the while; Optimistically, it could bridge off downhole.

So... we're screwed?  :(

Na, there gonna fix it but they're gonna have to burn the oil off.

Betchya we'll be paying for it, though.

Today, NPR mentioned that the burn-off has started.

I just heard the spill may be five times larger than thought.

Spill here!  Spill now! :mrgreen:

Another rig had an accident today:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63T55Q20100430

On one end Obama finally made a moratorium (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/30/new-offshore-drilling-pro_n_558313.html) on off coast drilling, on the other Mrs Palin thinks all is fine, accidents happen, you know? Keep drilling (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/04/30/sarah_palin_drill_spill/index.html)...
>:( >:( >:(

She actually remembered the Exxon disaster!  That's amazing.  Of course she hasn't learned any lessons from it, but hey, she remembered it.  :mrgreen:

Now, now all we know is the the person who writes her speeches remembers the Exxon disaster. And witht he wonder that is Google we can't even be sure of that.

Every time she appears in the news I am just the little bit happier that the democrats won that election. That woman terrifies me.

The bit that really makes me ::) is the company pointing out how good the safety record of this model of rig has been up till now and some times accidents happen.

Yeah it had a wonderful safety record right up until it caught fire, exploded and sank killing part of its crew and unleashing an ecological disaster which will have ramifications for years to come.

Some people don't understand that sometimes you only need one accident; the Concorde was the safest plane on record until the accident when it became the worst (excluding the Shuttle which should've been grounded indefinitely after the Challenger).

But nuance isn't precisely her forte, which BTW is the whole point, things have to be very simple so that the electorate can vote on issues.

I heard recently that the oil industry actually predicted (publically!) that one major oil spill per year would have to be expected, if offshore oil drilling was expanded as wished. The 'major' was probably expected to be far smaller than what we have now but in general there was (and is) that no-omelette-without-breaking-some-eggs mentality. At least if it is somebody else's eggs while the omelette is yours.

This is the problem with offshore; small spills may not appear at surface in a form that can be cleaned up, and large ones get out of control much too easily.  Spills always happen in the petroleum industry - my job depends on it - but at least on land, provided the site is not on the banks of a river, there's a limit to how large of an area can be impacted by a single event.

According to SkyTruth (http://blog.skytruth.org/2010/05/gulf-oil-spill-new-spill-rate.html) the spill is now 26.000 barrels per day, surpassing the Exxon Valdez.
>:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on May 02, 2010, 07:18:44 PM
According to SkyTruth (http://blog.skytruth.org/2010/05/gulf-oil-spill-new-spill-rate.html) the spill is now 26.000 barrels per day, surpassing the Exxon Valdez.
>:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

That was inevitable:  the misbegotten oil tanker had a finite limit of oil onboard.

The sub-oceanic well head does not, for all practical purposes-- and as typical in super-deep wells, it's under more pressure than even the deep ocean water, so out it comes under high pressure.

Until it's capped, obviously.

I strongly suspect they are looking for ways to cap it, and maintain a later re-entry, rather than just stopping the oil flow:  which would be simple enough, I suspect.

In fact, dropping a very high explosive near to the well, would crush the ground beneath, and the pipestem as well, effectively blocking the flow, but completely ruining the well for future use. 

Since their first priority is to get oil, and protecting  environment is a distant last, behind several other conflicting priorities, they will piddle about with something easily reversible.

Okay, so I'm cynical...  >:(

I don't doubt the capacity for selfserving behavior much less from an oil company, but I'm not that sure that an explosion would necessarily stop the flow, the pressure from the reservoir has to be incredibly high to pump that amount of oil at that depth, and an explosion might complicate things by creating cracks that would be impossible to seal. Besides the damage potential is incredibly high and the government already said that BP would have to pay the full bill*, without counting with the obvious class action lawsuits from the fishing and tourist industries in the gulf.

*I doubt they'll pay all, Exxon did all in it's power not to do so and to this day I seriously doubt they paid a quarter of the damage made.

Was discussing this on site today; the best option we could come up with was to run a larger casing down over top of the wellhead and up to surface, which would not stop the flow but at least allow it to be mostly captured (in tankers, etc).

That'd be pretty difficult, although if you could guide it with ROVs, not impossible.

That's what they are talking about doing is drilling a relief well. 

That will take, in all likelihood, a month or two to get online. :P

Even an inland well of any significant depth takes time, and they are attempting to hit the actual well pipe in the formation, three miles away.  It's like....  dunno, don't want to do the conversions, but somewhere along the line of trying to place an extra-long straw into the little hole on the top of a fast-food soda cup on the goal line, from the top row of the opposite side of a football stadium.  They have the technology to do it, but it'll still be damned lucky if it works on the first go.   

In the meantime, something is needed to control the oil that keeps coming out.  Booms don't work for a 25 x 50 km slick. :P

It sickens me to no end-- a quick-and-dirty reduction of the flow by even 50% would be a desirable thing, IMO.

And, the below-ground pool is bigger than all that, in a few years, they could simply re-drill nearby to tap into it-- these things are typically miles in extent.

I think the ~#)%*^ simply don't want to spend any money they are not forced to spend...

... capitalism.

Just a fancy $64 word for "greed".

<gag>

-----------------

And in complete disclosure and honesty, I am forced to admit that I drive a petrol fueled car.... ::)

And no, the irony is not lost on me either...

Quote from: Aggie on May 03, 2010, 03:22:30 AM
Was discussing this on site today; the best option we could come up with was to run a larger casing down over top of the wellhead and up to surface, which would not stop the flow but at least allow it to be mostly captured (in tankers, etc).

To my knowledge that is pretty much what they're trying to do and claim that it could be there sometime next week.

All the need is a sonic screwdriver.

Quote from: Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith on May 03, 2010, 07:49:29 PM
It sickens me to no end-- a quick-and-dirty reduction of the flow by even 50% would be a desirable thing, IMO.

To be fair, the relief well is NOT a cheap option, and between the lost production and clean up costs I think they'd be looking for any quick and dirty method available.

Not defending the blaggards, but even cheap-arse midsize companies in the patch will throw quite a few dollars at a spill up front, especially if it's getting any degree of publicity (day-to-day operations and constant small losses are a different story,  mind).  BP would probably like this to stop any way possible, ASAP.

They should not have been drilling way out there where they could not control a spill, anyway. They were very irresponsible.

President Obama said this today:

"For too long, for a decade or more, there has been a cozy relationship between the oil companies and the federal agency that permits them to drill. It seems as if permits were too often issued based on little more than assurances of safety from the oil companies. That cannot and will not happen anymore."

It is too bad it took an environmental disaster for this to be brought up, but here it is. We can't let them forget this.

Quote from: Opsanus tau on May 14, 2010, 09:14:50 PM
They should not have been drilling way out there where they could not control a spill, anyway. They were very irresponsible.

President Obama said this today:

"For too long, for a decade or more, there has been a cozy relationship between the oil companies and the federal agency that permits them to drill. It seems as if permits were too often issued based on little more than assurances of safety from the oil companies. That cannot and will not happen anymore."

It is too bad it took an environmental disaster for this to be brought up, but here it is. We can't let them forget this.

It is my fondest wish that the President was not making political hay with this statement, and will put into place stringent executive orders enforcing it.   It is within his area of control after all; there are plenty of laws he could utilize in extending the police powers of the executive branch to do exactly what he promised.

I agree, it's tragic:  but alas, such is human nature that we do not put up the stoplight at the dangerous intersection until after someone is killed....

... the vast majority of government is reactive.

Watching the Rachael Maddow Show (TRMS) the other night, they said that under current US law, BP can not be held liable for more than $75 million.  That is on top of the cost of clean up, which is a separate deal.

So all the damage, physical and economic, won't cost BP more than that, which is a drop in the bucket for them.  TRMS pointed out that BP's profits for the first quarter this year were over $5 billion.

Some congresscritter was wanting to up the liability cap to $10 billion, but I don't see how that can be grandfathered to cover this disaster.

The local fishing industry alone is going to suffer billions in losses over this, and it looks like they are just going to have to suck it up.

If I got that correctly the move already failed. Congressbeings, esp. senators, are corporatists first and foremost.
The most laughable argument against it was: That could hurt small companies! ("all those poor mom&pop rigs out there" to channel Keith Olbermann)
And a new law will on the one hand give states veto power for drilling off their coast but one the other give large tax credits to companies that want to drill where not vetoed.

BP aren't trying to use the $75M limit, but maybe Transocean (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/7806200/Gulf-of-Mexico-oil-spill-Transocean-silent-as-BP-bears-the-brunt-of-anger.html) are.

Poor poor BP:

Quote from: TorygraphYet while lambasting BP for even seeking to defend its reputation, Mr Obama has showed no apparent interest in directing similar wrath at Transocean - fuelling suggestions that as a foreign company, BP is simply a convenient whipping boy and a politically easier target.

Halliburton is also less vilified although considering that BP was responsible of cancelling a safety test by Schlumberger a few hours before the spill and that they have 700+ safety incidents in their refineries (as opposed to 1-5 from Exxon, Sunoco and Valero in the same period), plus two large incidents in refineries in recent times, it is perfectly clear that safety has never been a priority in their American operation.

Incredibly they seemed to be serious about safety in their Colombian operation while I worked there 15 years ago, but then again I wasn't in the wells and the safety hazards were/are more political than technical.

The article made me wonder if the Torygraph shareholders are BP shareholders too, not that think Transocean or Halliburton are free of blame, but the orders were coming from BP.

Pretty much everyone in the UK is a BP shareholder (at least everyone with some sort of pension), They account for a significant part of the FTSE 100, and similarly of companies which pay dividends.

I think the Torygraph's gripe is that when the American Occidental's Piper Alpha rig blew up in the North Sea here (killing 167) there wasn't the political grandstanding that we're seeing now, but that may be more that Mrs T was less into emotional reactions than is expected of politicians these days.

Different times, different incident, those were still Cold War days so politically there would have been pressure not to raise too much noise, and despite a higher body count, the incident didn't provoke an environmental disaster that could potentially be the 3rd largest spill today and on it's way to the first position (BP has systematically understated the rate of the spill [read: lied]).

Also consider the nationalistic and reactionary movements in the past years, and blaming a "foreign" company becomes far easier.

In any case, at this point there are very few excuses for BP and their operation. If it were up to me the three companies (BP, Halliburton and Transocean) should be banned from further exploration and exploitation of oil in the US, and subjected to a very detailed and aggressive auditory on their remaining operations with the option of closing or reassigning them, and the execs that allowed or authorized the mismanagement should be criminally charged and imprisoned.
:guillotine:
After that unicorns would fly towards the rainbow while herding pigs in the sky...
:flyingpig: :flyingpig: :flyingpig:

Here  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AAa0gd7ClM) is the whole story, filmed by a mole on the inside.

Loved the 1^st comment:

QuoteThis video is so fake. Theres no way BP tried that hard to fix it.

Apparently they're going to kill the well tonight.