Fox news anchors: “We can’t trust BP”

Posted on  

"Fox news anchors: “We can’t trust BP”"

Five weeks into the worst environmental catastrophe in the history of the United States, even the right-wing Fox networks are turning on BP, the foreign oil behemoth responsible for the undersea oil volcano now fouling the shores of Louisiana.  Brad Johnson has the story in this TP repost.

On Monday, Fox News anchor Shepard Smith challenged top White House adviser David Axelrod why the administration continues to trust BP, whose CEO Tony Hayward bet the disaster will have a “very very modest” impact on the Gulf of Mexico, claimed BP had “contained” the spill, and complained that Americans are too litigious:

And this is the chief executive of the company that’s in charge of cleaning up this disaster now? Who calls us litigious? Who makes comments about the comparative volume of oil and then says the environmental impact is very minimal? And this is the guy we as Americans are supposed to entrust with the largest ecological disaster in American history? Tony Hayward?

On Wednesday, Fox Business Network anchor Liz Claman interviewed John Williams, executive director of the Southern Shrimper Alliance, whose industry is threatened with extinction by the millions of gallons of dispersed oil contaminating the Gulf Coast. Claman noted that “we can’t trust BP”:

I think one thing we do know is that we can’t trust BP with information at this point. They were the ones, absolutely, you’re correct, who said, “Oh, don’t worry, the oil will not reach the beaches.” Oh, come on!

Watch a compilation:

This righteous anger at big oil is a remarkable turnaround for the networks that lied about the oil spills caused by Hurricane Katrina, deny the threat of oil pollution to the planet, and shilled for offshore drilling during the “Drill, Baby, Drill” summer of 2008.

Update: Various media outlets are reporting that BP’s “top kill” procedure has apparently halted the flow of oil and gas from the well.
Think Progress repost by Brad Johnson.
« »

55 Responses to Fox news anchors: “We can’t trust BP”

  1. Doug Bostrom says:

    Various media outlets are reporting that BP’s “top kill” procedure has apparently halted the flow of oil and gas from the well.

    As of this moment when focused on the leaks seemingly of most interest to ROV operators the video appears exactly the same as it did yesterday, prior to what we’ve been told was successful injection of mud.

    I’m not an expert but I don’t think the top kill is a method that can “half work”; failing an infinite supply of mud unless the flow is entirely arrested mud introduced into the borehole will be carried away by escaping fluid and gas and eventually be depleted allowing the leak to resume full flow.

  2. Jeff Huggins says:

    Well then, can we “trust” ExxonMobil and etc. regarding the same issues?

    After all, ExxonMobil drills at this depth and deeper, I suspect. And, if they knew the “fix” for the present problem, they would (or should) be helping BP on the present matter.

    So, I think it’s fair to assume that ALL of the oil companies that are drilling at these depths are risking the same disasters in one way or another. To be sure, the claim that “nothing will go wrong” is not a responsible claim. Some companies may be more careful than others, but none of them can apparently remedy these sorts of problems when they do happen, and we know that they do.

    So, what is Fox News’ view on whether we can “trust” ExxonMobil? ConocoPhillips? Chevron? Royal Dutch Shell?

    And, what is Fox News’ view on whether we can trust them — that is, Fox News? After all, their reporting on climate change is in stark disagreement with the views of virtually all major bona fide scientific organizations. Does that not seem to be a problem to Fox News?

    Be Well,

    Jeff

  3. I don’t know whether Shephard Smith is liberal or not, but he is certainly not conservative. He is outspoken, and I’m not surprised he would say something like this about BP. I don’t really watch him, but from what I’ve seen is that he plays things pretty much down the middle, but he will speak his mind.

    Smith is, after all, the same guy who makes fun of Glenn Beck: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkMqvy-D5hM

    [JR: He interviewed me once. Not an anti-science guy at all.]

  4. PSU Grad says:

    Does anyone know if Brit Hume has corrected his earlier “where’s the oil?” comment?

  5. Joe,

    Self-righteous FAUXNEWS is using “righteous” anger to reposition its message and shift blame for oilmageddon to President Obama & Big Government.

    We can’t trust FAUXNEWS.

    ~IANVS

  6. dhogaza says:

    I’m not an expert but I don’t think the top kill is a method that can “half work”; failing an infinite supply of mud unless the flow is entirely arrested mud introduced into the borehole will be carried away by escaping fluid and gas and eventually be depleted allowing the leak to resume full flow.

    Well, the procedure uses two mud feeds, the upper “choke” and lower “kill” feeds.

    The idea is that you pump mud in the “choke” feed at high enough pressure to counterbalance the pressure of the oil column. It comes streaming out of the leak but they’re pumping it in fast enough to hold the oil in the pipe and BOP. Or they’re attempting too.

    Then, mud is pumped into the “kill” feed. Since the pressure from the well is (ideally) counterbalanced by the pressure from the mud pumped through the “choke” feed, the “kill” feed mud, which is much denser than oil, is free to flow down the well, filling it.

    One risk is that the BOP can’t take the pressure resulting from the “choke” feed, and blowing it up would make things worses. Apparently that was what the tues delay for testing was all about. Then, of course, saying is one thing, doing another, in other words actually getting the “choke” feed pumping enough mud to cause enough backpressure to balance the pressure of the oil column coming from the well perhaps isn’t as easy as it might sound.

    They might not have an “infinite” supply of mud, but I imagine they’re confident they can get as much as needed. The idea behind the “junk shot” combined with this is that if you can constrain the flow out of the leaks, you increase the amount of backpressure caused by shooting mud into the “choke” feed (assuming density of mud and rate of pumping is constant). Or you can reduce the amount of mud you’re pumping while maintaining the same backpressure.

    If they weren’t able to counterbalance the pressure, you’d see oil mixed with mud coming out the top. The fact that it’s mostly/all mud is why they’re talking about the attempt appearing to work as planned.

    Now the question is how successful the “kill” feed is in filling up the well, and whether or not they can pump enough in to keep the oil from pushing its way out while they cap it with concrete.

    I, at least, am crossing my fingers that they’ll be successful.

  7. Doug Bostrom says:

    Thanks for that information dghoza. My personal experience w/all this was confined to wireline logging and to a lesser extent with general drilling operations not (thankfully) concerning blowouts.

    I see two distinct colors of material emanating from the leaks, in discrete streams, same as yesterday, one I assume being oil and one mud.

    What bothers me is the identical appearance in terms of volume and rate of these streams today as compared to 24 hours ago.

  8. Leif says:

    Thank you for the informative post, dhogaza, #6. Clear and concise. I was curious to understand what is going on. It does appear however that they are not out of the woods as yet. Lots that can still go wrong.

  9. Doug Bostrom says:

    And I should add, I don’t want to sound pessimistic, not that what I sound like makes any difference to the world. I’m wondering why we’re hearing announcements of changed and improved conditions when the video feed today is indiscernible from that fed 24 hours ago.

  10. dhogaza says:

    And I should add, I don’t want to sound pessimistic, not that what I sound like makes any difference to the world. I’m wondering why we’re hearing announcements of changed and improved conditions when the video feed today is indiscernible from that fed 24 hours ago

    My understanding is that they were able to counterbalance the pressure, or come close to it, fairly quickly. Having done so, you’d expect them to keep pumping as much mud through the “choke” feed until the “kill” feed fills enough of the bore hole to significantly reduce the pressure of the well.

    My concern has been that before starting, there were confident sounds coming out like “we’ll know in a matter of hours”, which then quickly changed to “twenty-four hours”. But that might just be the technical people telling the PR people something like “no, no, wait, we might get the pressure in balance quickly but the damn thing might still blow up or the leaks may expand due to the dense mud flowing through them or or well lots of things could go wrong before we get the well filled with mud, so be more cautious”.

  11. Karen S. says:

    Watch and wait–if Fox really means what they say now, and cleanup is soon federalized, then they won’t shift the blame any more than they already have. It could increase the odds for positive movement toward redefining our legal and political relationship with Big Oil. And maybe our dependence on it.

    This is just BP’s turn on the scaffold, with Shell, Chevron and the others mopping their brows in relief it’s not them. BP has managed to pillory its own reputation by listening to their lawyers rather than their consciences. I have yet to see a single oil and gas corporation (or coal, or mining, sadly) behave honestly when no one’s looking. It’s rather telling about this country that it takes a spill of this magnitude to transcend political differences enough to get people agreeing on something. If Fox stays on message without repositioning toward political blame, I will be impressed and somewhat encouraged–but still wary.

  12. dhogaza says:

    Oh, regarding the quantity of mud they’re going through and whether they might run out, the oil drum (the blog I referenced above), has this comment:

    The operation has already used all the mud on one of the supply boats, and has moved to the second (there is a third standing by so they won’t run out).

    Sounds like they have enough on hand for a couple of days of this, if necessary.

    Also, apparently prep work on the BOP took a couple of weeks … reworking fittings, undoing couplings, etc using the ROVs is extremely slow work apparently.

  13. Doug Bostrom says:

    Jeebers, usually vanishing mud is a really, really bad. Here it is blowing out of the whole like Old Faithful stuck on “impress.”

    I shouldn’t watch.

  14. Doug Bostrom says:

    Drat.

    Fresh NY Times lede:

    BP had to temporarily stop its effort to plug the well when engineers saw that too much of the fluid they were injecting into the well was escaping along with the leaking crude oil.

  15. PSU Grad says:

    “Also, apparently prep work on the BOP took a couple of weeks … reworking fittings, undoing couplings, etc using the ROVs is extremely slow work apparently.”

    dhogaza, thank you so much for the information and putting this in perspective. I think everyone is watching too many shows where the crimes get solved in an hour. Or where MacGyver plugs a gushing oil well using rolled up newspaper, duct tape, and a straight pin. All that prep work takes time, especially at that depth. Had everything been rushed, the problem might well be worse by now.

    I’m not defending BP at all. Their actions before the explosion were atrocious, and their estimates of the amount of oil gushing was irresponsible, if what’s being reported is accurate. But once everything literally blew, it couldn’t get fixed in a couple of hours.

  16. dhogaza,

    A 60 to 70% chance of success does not sound very confident.

    This morning, the Captain of the Deepwater Horizon & Transocean’s IOM (Offshore Installation Manager) testified before a joint investigation panel of the U.S. Coast Guard and Minerals Management Service about what went on before & during the explosion.

    ~IANVS

  17. Doug Bostrom says:

    More on halt:

    BP had to halt its ambitious effort to plug its stricken oil well in the Gulf of Mexico on Thursday afternoon when engineers saw that too much of the drilling fluid they were injecting into the well was escaping along with the leaking crude oil.

    A technician at the BP command center said that pumping of the fluid had to be stopped temporarily while engineers were revising their plans, and that the company hoped to resume pumping by midnight, if federal officials approved.

    The technician, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to brief reporters, said the problem was not seen as serious. “We’re still quite optimistic,” he said, but cautioned: “It is not assured and its not a done deal yet. All of this will require some time.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/us/28spill.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

    I think BP was shining us on but perhaps I’m being too suspicious. Or perhaps I’m being too gullible even to give them the benefit of the doubt. As I said, I’ve been checking the video frequently since early yesterday and I never saw the slightest difference in the appearance of leak the entire time. Same apparent distribution of streams, same colors, same rate, same everything.

    If there was mud being pumped in the hole and it was ending up in remotely the right place, why do things look -exactly- the same now, when the pumping has ceased? I’m now wondering if they’ve got a problem with the mud escaping into a formation downhole, which can happen ( but that much? surely not?), or if it’s gone up the side of the casing and is emerging somewhere else nearby, which can also happen. But, that would surely have caused at least a temporary variance in the appearance of the leak streams?

    Time will tell.

  18. dhogaza says:

    dhogaza, thank you so much for the information and putting this in perspective.

    I’ve been doing a lot of reading the last couple of days, and am just summarizing, i.e. I’m just an armchair quarterback.

    But I was curious as to why it took so long to set this up. Having done some amateur logistics work myself (9 ton helicopter water, food, and other supply lifts to a mountain field biology project site) I know firsthand that even when you’re able to lay hands on stuff planning and execution is difficult.

    So I’m not really surprised given its all being down 5,000 feet down.

    I’m not defending BP at all. Their actions before the explosion were atrocious

    Me neither. If the depth makes fixing things harder and more complex, far more disaster planning should be in place before they ever start drilling, and that’s not at all hard to figure out.

  19. dhogaza says:

    A 60 to 70% chance of success does not sound very confident.

    No, but “60-70% and we’ll know in hours” and then – after they start -”we won’t know for about 24 hours” sounds less confident, to my ears at least.

  20. dhogaza says:

    Doug Bostrom:

    BP had to halt its ambitious effort to plug its stricken oil well in the Gulf of Mexico on Thursday afternoon when engineers saw that too much of the drilling fluid they were injecting into the well was escaping along with the leaking crude oil.

    Ugh …

    I think BP was shining us on but perhaps I’m being too suspicious.

    I don’t see any benefit for them if it’s the case.

  21. fj2 says:

    Now if Fox would only responsibly cover the accelerating environmental crisis, global warming, climate change, or whatever they want to call it.

  22. Raul says:

    Does putting mud into the well constitute admittance
    that the mud was supposed to be there?

  23. dhogaza says:

    More interesting news …

    “We have not yet pumped today,” Suttles said. The light-brown material that’s been seen flowing out of the well throughout Thursday was the previously pumped fluid mixed with oil.

    So this means they’ve been getting some mud down the well, at least. Essentially we’re seeing an oil and mud mixture blowing back up the pipe, and the only way the mud got there was through the pumping operation. So it was working … I think Doug had the right idea talking about “infinite amounts of mud”, though. They had three ships full of it out there and as best as I can find out, pumped about half of it during those 16 hours.

    Still crossing my fingers …

  24. dhogaza says:

    OK, Doug, they’re bullshitting us, or they’ve been bullshitting each other …

    “Nothing has actually gone wrong or unanticipated,” [BP CEO] Suttles said. He said engineers have been monitoring the process for the past 24 hours, and determining adjustments to the mud-like fluid being injected into the line to counter to flow of oil.
    He said the next step will be to restock the drilling fluid and restart in the evening.

    Then in the same article, a quote from earlier today, the one that led to such optimism and that many of you probably read, or at least read or heard a report based on it:

    BP’s effort to suppress the oil spill by pumping heavy drilling fluid into the breach could take another 24 to 48 hours to complete, Bob Dudley, its managing director, reported earlier Thursday. At that time, the “top kill” attempt had so far been successful, and the company planned to start pumping more fluid down a second line in hopes of clogging the underwater well, he said.

    This statement was made after they stopped pumping mud.

  25. dhogaza says:

    Sorry about the horrible formatting, I messed up my html tags apparently.

  26. Leif says:

    Well If they are pumping ships full of mud thru the system and it is only coming out one way by definition then finally we are starting to get some verifiable numbers of the spill volume. Otherwise 5000 barrels a day would do it. Even less as the mud would be more viscous than the oil-stuff. IMO

    Thank you for being so forth coming BP.

    Woops, more news black out in store.

  27. dhogaza says:

    Well If they are pumping ships full of mud thru the system and it is only coming out one way by definition then finally we are starting to get some verifiable numbers of the spill volume. Otherwise 5000 barrels a day would do it. Even less as the mud would be more viscous than the oil-stuff. IMO

    Someone at the Oil Drum ran the numbers and came up with 17,000 barrels of mud a day pumped through it.

  28. Mike #22 says:

    Is there still drill pipe (or whatever it was that the annular seal failed on) in the BOP? Mud pumped into the BOP may not be able to flow into that.

  29. Leif says:

    dhozaga, yo’ da’ man. And since at least some of that gush is still oil-stuff we how have a lower limit of ~20,000 barrels a day fully 4 times the reported amount. Imagine that. I am shocked that BP would misrepresent the gush amount by 630,000+ gallons a day. Shocked!

    Or at least 40 million gallons since the beginning or three EXXON Valdez spills and counting. Oh well what is a supper tanker or two among friends.

  30. dhogaza says:

    And since at least some of that gush is still oil-stuff we how have a lower limit of ~20,000 barrels a day fully 4 times the reported amount. Imagine that.

    The highest “official” estimate at the moment seems to be 19,000 but I wouldn’t bet against it being higher.

    Or at least 40 million gallons since the beginning or three EXXON Valdez spills and counting.

    Highest “offical” estimate is 39 million gallons, but we won’t quibble. :)

    Oh well what is a supper tanker or two among friends.

    Supper tanker? Is that to hold the beer one drinks with supper? :)

  31. Leif says:

    Spelling has never been a strong point. Senior moments have not helped. If it was not for spell check none of my posts would be legible.

    It does appear that we can safely give up the 5,000 barrel wishful thinking number and start reporting the upper estimate.

    Again, thank you, dhogaza, for all your efforts on this sight.

    Leif

  32. Doug Bostrom says:

    BP officials, who along with government officials created the impression early in the day that the strategy was working, disclosed later that they had stopped pumping the night before when engineers saw that too much of the drilling fluid was escaping along with the oil.

    This is getting to be a little bit ridiculous, but it sure makes me appreciate Salazar for insisting that video be available.

    Nothing has changed appearance-wise about the visible leakage shown in BP’s video for over 24 hours. I’m sorry, I simply do not believe that turning on/off a mud flow of the volume they’re claiming would result in -no- visible difference. Something’s seriously not right and they’re now scrambling to keep their story straight, as dghoza points out.

    Embarrassing, really, no other word for it. Time to call in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or some other higher power, such as a serious public ass-kicking by other industry members. BP’s taking the whole bunch to bottom.

  33. Doug Bostrom says:

    dhogaza says: May 27, 2010 at 5:56 pm

    I don’t see any benefit for them if it’s the case.

    It’s the same old sad story, fostering a diversity of opinions when facts don’t look good. Same deal as insisting for weeks there were “only” 5,000BPD leaking, giving in really slowly on more accurate figures.

    Some significant portion of people are walking around imagining that the 5,000BPD leak was stopped this morning. Some of those will staunchly defend BP if pressed. “The size of the leak was exaggerated and anyway they’ve stopped it.”

    No, it makes no sense, but you’ve got to remember the mentality of those excreting the BS and those eating it. They really don’t deal in facts, only opinions; there’s no difference in some minds. Industrial deceit, a refined art.

  34. dhogaza says:

    Leif…

    Spelling has never been a strong point. Senior moments have not helped. If it was not for spell check none of my posts would be legible.

    Oh, I was just teasing, a supper tanker or two of beer might be a good thing tonight, pondering the disaster in the gulf.

  35. mike roddy says:

    I don’t see Fox having an epiphany over this. Their feedstock comes more from the US companies, anyway- Exxon, Chevron, and Conoco Phillips.

    Besides, it’s convenient to demonize a company and its managers when something like this happens. This event was predictable, due to lack of oversight and short term greed, both standard in the fossil fuel industry.

    Fox will impress me when O’Reilly and Beck admit that people are causing the earth to warm, and that we need to cut back on fossil fuels in a big way. Highly unlikely.

    And my thanks too to dhoghaza for the tech support.

  36. Leif says:

    All is cool. Writing does not come natural either. No offense taken.

  37. catman306 says:

    What’s this about another leak, or is BP just covering their butts.

    Prominent Oil Industry Insider: “There’s Another Leak, Much Bigger, 5 to 6 Miles Away”

    this was from a link at oildrum.com

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/05/prominent-oil-industry-insider-theres.html

  38. Doug Bostrom says:

    How rumors about successful leak halts propagate:

    BP’s ‘top kill’ mission halts the oil gush

    A delicate “top kill” operation by BP tentatively halted the gush of oil and gas from its ruptured Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico yesterday, although experts warned that the underwater leak was still far from being permanently fixed.

    See? Bizarrely, within the very same article we see the cognitive rot that creeps through the public mind when confronted with a confusing array of stories rapidly changed over the course of 24 hours, laced with false promise:

    Doug Suttles, BP’s chief operating officer, insisted that the operation was going to plan, but admitted: “What we do know is that we have not yet stopped the flow.”

    Ok, so the flow is halted but not stopped. Perfectly clear. Stopped, but moving; alive, but dead; true but false; honest but deceitful. No problem.

    From here:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/27/bp-oil-spill-top-kill

  39. dhogaza says:

    Well, actually, the knowledgeable people at the oil drum blog think they did manage to fill, or largely fill, the hole, but that the column weight of mud wasn’t enough to overcome the pressure from the well. Or perhaps they weren’t able to fill the column entirely and were going through mud so fast they decided to abort.

    So they stopped pumping, let the well clear (a vast quantity of mud, mixed with oil, did spew out of that thing all day yesterday, even though they’d stopped pumping at midnight, it had to come from *somewhere*, i.e. the well, not thin air), tried the junk shot to try to reduce the amount of back pressure needed, and are trying to fill the thing again.

    That’s the working hypothesis from the oil people over there, anyway. If BP would just let one of their engineering managers talk rather than pipe everything through the CEO, where the PR flacks are undoubtably scripting every word and spinning as much as possible, we’d get real information. I think BP’s really doing themselves long-term damage by, well, lying.

  40. Mike #22 says:

    The live feed is now showing a lot of oil and chunks of rock and or cement. Something has changed dramatically.

    http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6520#more

  41. Mike #22 says:

    At about 9:15 the live feed (which was probably the same camera that has been on the riser leaks) showed (was coming from inside of)billowing turbulent clouds of oil mixed with chunks of light colored material. The ROV has backed off.

  42. Doug Bostrom says:

    I don’t see any change in appearance from Wednesday morning. Last night it was pretty obvious there was a lot of what I take to be mud emerging, clearly something was being forced into the hole.

    I’d hate to be the technical person trying to make this work; stomach-twisting tension. Awful.

    Dghoza, normally the desired hydrostatic balance is performed with the opportunity to start at the bottom of the hole. Without a drill string in place they need to fill the hole from the top as opposed to the bottom. Again I’m not an expert but I don’t think there’s any way they could “fill the hole” w/mud while still having oil and gas emerge from the well; the continued emergence of oil and gas ipso facto means no hydrostatic balance or overload has been achieved, unless they’re pushing mud -around- the casing which they’d stop doing as soon as it became evident. If they were going around the casing, had indeed filled the hole, the flow of material should stop as soon as pumping ceases and the column of mud from the surface found its hydrostatic level.

    Helps to remember, the technicalities of this are complicated but the basic physics are not. Sort of like climate change, heh!

  43. Doug Bostrom says:

    I oversimplified. It is actually possible that we’re seeing -nothing but mud- emerging from the hole, the idea being that the possible weight of mud in the borehole itself is inadequate to control formation pressure yet even with leakage it is still possible to get a sufficient mud column and thus opposing pressure in place using the available height to the surface. Then we’re left with “just” the leaking riser to shut off, assuming BP does not want a semi-permanent train of support vessels transporting mud to the site.

    Again, however, if there are significant amounts of hydrocarbon entrained in the mud we’re seeing and those do not swiftly taper off, no actual balance has been achieved.

    Nothing more for me to say that’s even remotely useful.

  44. Doug Bostrom says:

    Yay! Having ceased my handwaving and resorting instead to the world of facts, I see in the NY Times that indeed they’re in a state of simply dropping enough mud into the hole to achieve balance and accepting a massive loss of mud at the riser.

    Very good news indeed.

  45. Mike #22 says:

    Someone recorded the live feed event at 9:15 by pointing a video camera at their monitor. “Monitoring Plume on LMRP”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AadjMspXMAA

  46. Leif says:

    Off the wall thought. Now that they appear to have the presumably hot oil flow stopped can they follow the mud with something that may have a freezing point about that of the sea bottom, thus freezing the top and thus giving them a bit of a breathing spell for something permanent.

  47. dhogaza says:

    Yay! Having ceased my handwaving and resorting instead to the world of facts, I see in the NY Times that indeed they’re in a state of simply dropping enough mud into the hole to achieve balance and accepting a massive loss of mud at the riser.

    I wouldn’t trust that, the thing spewed mud and oil for hours after they stopped pumping midnight Thursday, and that could only come from one place: down the pipe. Which means they did manage to partially fill the pipe.

    Again I’m not an expert but I don’t think there’s any way they could “fill the hole” w/mud while still having oil and gas emerge from the well; the continued emergence of oil and gas ipso facto means no hydrostatic balance or overload has been achieved

    When they were pumping, it was only mud coming out. When they stopped, oil, gas, mud all came out of the hole.

    This morning, something blew into chunks, and there’s no news as to what’s going on. Also, the ROVs are busy doing all sorts of work and monitoring of the BOP. They’re still showing the riser spewing mud so it wasn’t the riser that came to pieces.

    Notice how now BP says it will be two more days before we know if it’s working? In the beginning, Wednesday, they said “hours”, then “24 hours”, now “two or more days”.

    Not promising IMO.

  48. Doug Bostrom says:

    Something’s emerging from behind the usual ROV station now.

    Yeah, dghoza, the thing has never actually stopped spewing. And I’ve never seen any particular difference in color or general appearance the entire time I’ve been checking in (I missed the “blowing chunks” part of the regurgitation).

    I’d like to be optimistic, trying to find a way.

  49. Doug Bostrom says:

    I just love this:

    When the Today programme presenter Evan Davis picked up the line to a Florida-based oceanographer yesterday, he only wanted to get the latest on the environmental effects of the oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico. But in an astonishing display of public contempt for one of the energy industry’s biggest players, his interviewee stunned Davis with his own line of enquiry.

    “Listen, now that I have a knowledgeable British person on the line, could you just clear something up for me?” Professor Ian MacDonald asked. “This Tiny Hayward person, this head of BP, is he a lord or a duke or a knight? My knowledge of aristocracy is pretty vague.”

    MacDonald went on to suggest that “Tiny” must be “very important” because of his “astonishing” attempts to play down the true scale of the spill and its effect on the Louisiana coastline. “So where does he sit in your firmament, Lord Tiny Hayward?” MacDonald asked.

    An “astonishing display of contempt”, for a creature who has managed to worm his way to the top of a Byzantine mega-corporation. How dare MacDonald speak thus?

    More:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/tony-hayward-right-in-the-thick-of-it-1986232.html

  50. Doug Bostrom says:

    More to the point, Hayward seems to have fostered a profit culture where for the saving of $550,000 BP has dumped $1 billion and counting in direct costs, let alone lost market capitalization, and has turned the Gulf into a pool of emulsion. That’s not a very impressive performance so “Lord Tiny” seems quite appropriate.

  51. J4zonian says:

    There is still gushing going on, and not just out in the Gulf. The right, including Rove on your other post today, and Faux News, will pursue various strategies to preserve their position–they will turn on a few scapegoats inside and outside the right, they will blame environmentalists, (dirty hippies, always a good target) they will stir up arguments about all kinds of tangential issues to distract attention from the overriding issues.

    After every disaster or scandal, Business As Usual calls for a sequential program of denial, minimizing, scapegoating, firing the scapegoat/s, shuffling a few people or agencies, then waiting for the next news item to come along and make people forget. Then any damages awarded are whittled away while no one is looking, delay after delay in court allows them to continue making enormous profits while the injured parties die off, and any laws passed are also whittled away, loopholed and ground down into uselessness.

    BAU.

    Focusing on one company or one person or one administration aids them in this process.

    The problem is larger and a more complete revolution is called for.

  52. Doug Bostrom says:

    Now instead of the top of the riser, we see what appears to be a large crater in the seafloor with oil emerging from it. Hmmm. Sidewall blowout, traveling up the side of the casing now?

    All we can do is speculate. Astonishing that we’re supposed to depend on BP for a blow-by-blow description of what’s going on.

  53. Doug Bostrom says:

    And rover altitude now 1.3′ where it was previously at the top of the riser, 27′.

  54. Troy says:

    Why cant they just close the rams on the stack? Use the ROV probe to inject the closing fluid. I used to work as a sub sea engineer on a semisubmersible similar to the Horizon. What is the problem with the BOP? Is the well pressure to strong to close the rams? I know its a 15K stack. With more information I could evaluate the problem better.