Oil spill apocalypse?

Why are people retarded?

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/05/gulf-dispersants/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29

my gut says some senator or Coast guard officials nephew is on the board at Corexit.

I know how this will play out, I saw Creepshow II

GameboyRMH wrote: Why are people retarded? http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/05/gulf-dispersants/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29

Lisa: But isn't that a bit short-sighted? What happens when we're overrun by lizards?

Skinner: No problem. We simply release wave after wave of Chinese needle snakes. They'll wipe out the lizards.

Lisa: But aren't the snakes even worse?

Skinner: Yes, but we're prepared for that. We've lined up a fabulous type of gorilla that thrives on snake meat.

Lisa: But then we're stuck with gorillas!

Luke wrote:

GameboyRMH wrote: Why are people retarded? http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/05/gulf-dispersants/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29

Lisa: But isn't that a bit short-sighted? What happens when we're overrun by lizards? Skinner: No problem. We simply release wave after wave of Chinese needle snakes. They'll wipe out the lizards. Lisa: But aren't the snakes even worse? Skinner: Yes, but we're prepared for that. We've lined up a fabulous type of gorilla that thrives on snake meat. Lisa: But then we're stuck with gorillas!

And once it's all said and done, we'll be here:

Hotlinked, of course.

16vCorey wrote: And once it's all said and done, we'll be here:

After I ate those snakes and washed them down with that oil slick, my poop was this long:

HiTempguy wrote: In case anybodies wondering (so far) this is actually only the 10th worst oil spill evar. Somewhere around numero uno is when Saddam started pumping metric E36 M3 tons (barrels?) of oil into the Gulf so you crazy 'merikuns couldn't land.

Does that include WWII?

Update: Experts confirm that global extinction is a possibility. Unfortunately the article's being slashdotted right now, but here's the summary:

http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/10/05/13/1953208/Gulf-Gusher-Worst-Case-Scenario?from=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Slashdot%2Fslashdot+%28Slashdot%29

Edit: Got to the article, things are looking SO much worse than the earlier worse-case scenario estimates. 330k barrels per day is a conservative estimate of how much is spilling right now, and 1m barrels/day is the new worse-case scenario estimate. If that thing isn't plugged quick it's curtains for life on Earth

Pretty much my thoughts exactly... We've been off-shore drilling for decades and there's never been a plan for something like this? wtf...

cwh wrote: It appears that there was no "Plan B" for the possibility of this. How can that be? Drilling 5000' down, and you don't plan on Bad Things happening? Blow outs happen. Explosions happen. You plan for it, right? This is going to take years to play out, the Gulf coast is toast, the Keys, East coast how far up? I wonder if BP people are consulting with Exxon on how to handle this. At least they won't go bankrupt, but price of gas will certainly go up.

This is one of those times where I'm ashamed to be human.

Been reading through the Slashdot article, these guys have shot a lot of holes in the story.

• The 1 trillion barrel total is way off - that's about the planet's current estimated total reserve of oil.
• The 1 million barrel per day worst-case estimate is a wild guess
• A few independent calculations are estimating the current flow at 20-25k barrels a day, which is pretty freakin' bad but not "certain death" bad like the story suggests.

Edit: 'nuther update: Some scientists are estimating a current flow of 56-84k barrels per day, worse than the "worst case scenario" estimates of the leaked government report:

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/05/14/gulf.oil.spill/index.html?hpt=T2

Moar:

BP's gonna try two approaches today:

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/05/14/gulf.oil.spill/index.html

I've got a beach house booked near Appilachicola (sp?) next month. Worst case I guess I wouldn't have to buy firewood. for the beach bonfire.

Lesley said: This is one of those times where I'm ashamed to be human.

The position for dodo bird is wide open. All you gotta do is avoid getting eaten by Australian sailors.

I wouldn't put it past the environmentalists wackos to do something like this, but unless they are more sophisticated than I think, it's pretty unlikely. More likely is that there was some sort of equipment failure of some type, at those depths, there are a lot of things that can happen. I suppose someone working there could have been a plant, but who knows.

I do think the libs were salivating at this though, finally they get an I told you so and probably let it go a bit longer than they could have to make a point. The more devastation that happens the better for them. They want to make sure it's in the news daily and the proper people are punished on a consistant basis.

racerdave600 wrote: I wouldn't put it past the environmentalists wackos to do something like this, but unless they are more sophisticated than I think, it's pretty unlikely. More likely is that there was some sort of equipment failure of some type, at those depths, there are a lot of things that can happen. I suppose someone working there could have been a plant, but who knows. I do think the libs were salivating at this though, finally they get an I told you so and probably let it go a bit longer than they could have to make a point. The more devastation that happens the better for them. They want to make sure it's in the news daily and the proper people are punished on a consistant basis.

Calm down with that--the ignorance of your last sentences is agonizing. As a moderate liberal, the first thing I see is an already depressed area that's been ruined once (New Orleans) taking another hit to a major industry of theirs (fishing).

As much of an "I told you so" this is regarding further offshore drilling, no one who considers himself "green" is happy about this--I'm sickened by it. No one should be happy about this at all. Destruction of a habitat is nothing to be happy about--period.

It should be on the news daily because a) it's still happening and b) the fallout is going to be an issue for years to come.

I LOATHE how any environmental concern is turned political. This isn't a liberal/conservative issue. A failsafe failed. Calamity ensued. There you go.

Let the Bullspit end and the fix ensue

All those pointed fingers and none are in the dike

Finally some good news:

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/05/16/gulf.oil.spill/index.html?hpt=T2

And here I'd been telling people, "Relax, what could happen? It's never going to be like Santa Barbara or Exxon Valdez, they're more attentive than that..." Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...

This well is in what 5000 feet of water then how many feet of earth to get to the oil? Does anyone know the history of offshore oil drilling enough to answer the question of water depth of new wells vs. year? I am willing to bet that the offshore wells from 30 years ago in the Gulf were in a lot shallower water. I think this is a result of the fact that we've already recovered most of the easy to get oil in the world and to feed our demand we are forced to go after oil that was once too difficult to recover.

drill baby drill

http://www.google.com/crisisresponse/oilspill/ <-- cool map

http://paulrademacher.com/oilspill/ <-- put the oil spill over your home town. So you really can Drill here Spill Now.

gamby wrote: I LOATHE how any environmental concern is turned political.

+1

As if we live on a different planet.

TJ wrote: This well is in what 5000 feet of water then how many feet of earth to get to the oil? Does anyone know the history of offshore oil drilling enough to answer the question of water depth of new wells vs. year? I am willing to bet that the offshore wells from 30 years ago in the Gulf were in a lot shallower water. I think this is a result of the fact that we've already recovered most of the easy to get oil in the world and to feed our demand we are forced to go after oil that was once too difficult to recover.

You would be right, but really for the history of deepwater (>1000feet) you only need to go back 10-15 years. Now, some of the areas Obama is proposing to open up are shallower, but they're also less prospective possibly than what we have found now. And breakeven point for deepwater is much more expensive than onshore ($40-$80/bbl vs. $10-$30/bbl).

The future is less oil, greater cost and alot of head scratching as to how we increase the overall energy capacity of the world (and improve energy efficiency)

I haven't had the opportunity to look this up but the top level of the oil spill is not where we need to be concerned, the "dispersants" that BP was using is keeping a bulk of the oil at about 1500ft bsl ant there is a huge amount of oil involved in this sublevel slick. The dispersants are making the oil heavier that the upper level water and it is possible that it is responsible for the "tar" like substances found surfacing on the beaches.

Good news on the dispersants:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/05/epa-oil-dispersant/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29

Ummm... not really. Yes they have 72 hours to switch but the million or so pounds of dispersants that have already hit the water.