Beautiful. Thanks, Kate.

Boy, talk about needing more sleep. The original headline I posted was "Liberal tanker"...

Thanks for the correction Kate. I thought I was too dense to get it.

Syncro

@Kate

No doubt that would have been one of those CSL tankers spilling cocaine over the Great Lakes! :)

Cheers

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief

1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North"

I did the mental math a couple of days ago and came up with 50 days until it matches the Exxon Valdez, but the chart gives some good perspective. Thanks.

No, you mean you blame Rush!

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_050410/content/01125109.guest.html

One down, two to go . . .

"BP declared a partial victory today in its battle to control a spreading oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico, after the company said it had succesfully capped one of three leaks from a pipe by applying a valve.

The oil giant, which is under mounting pressure from the US government to stop the leak, admitted that the operation would not reduce the overall rate of flow of the oil. But it claimed it was nevertheless a positive step because it “reduced the complexity of the situation being dealt with on the seabed”.

BP said the half-tonne valve had been installed on the end of a broken drill pipe last night using remote-controlled sub sea robots.

The robots first cut the end of the pipe to leave a clean end and the valve was then placed in position on the seabed. "

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7116995.ece

What I find interesting is how nuclear power and the oil sands are called bad.

The oil sands are messy, but these messes can be cleaned-up and they are not threatening to wipe-out an ecosystem. And, the oil sands do use a lot of energy to mine, but most of the greenhouse gas issues come from burning the final product - like regular sourced-oil - not the manufacturing.

And then nuclear, well . . . . .

My question would be: in all the think tanks and oil disaster strategy scenario meetings, did nobody have a clue about this being a very real possibility? Would the brainiacs not have implemented some guidelines for such a disaster? Would they not have some equipment ready in a local port for stemming the oil flow?

Looks like the R&D departments have been spending too much time on the golf courses and not enough at the drafting tables.

Somebody's got some 'esplainin' toooo dooooo!!

It is unbelievable how a very small amount of detergent can disperse oil on water.

Saw it at a marina. A little oil was spilled and instantly formed a slick a few feet in diameter. The worker used a one litre (windex) spray bottle with a weak mixture of Ivory soap. A few squirts and the slick disappeared as fast as it formed. "disappeared", as in sank, I guess. (Microbe food)

The numbers would be interesting;

[ The unprecedented use of dispersant chemicals at the source of the leak a mile under water “seems to be working very effectively”, he said, describing an armada of surface ships working with an “air force” of aircraft spraying similar chemicals. “I’m using military rhetoric because that’s what we’re fighting, a battle, and we’re going to win,” he said. ]

Yes, it's about time we find a cleaner source of energy.

Japanese Company Turns Adult Diapers Into Energy Source

A Japanese company called Super Faith has developed a new machine that turns used adult diapers into a clean fuel source in about 24 hours.

For additional comparison:

1 Super Tanker VLCC: 250-350,000 tonnes
1 Aframax: 105,000 tonnes

General size numbers, there are smaller tankers, but who cares, those are the common ocean going ones.

Note the VLCC cannot dock loaded onthe East coast of North america, they have to tranship or unload at a place called LOOP ( Louisiana Offshore Oil Platform)

Amount of oil to cover a harbour on a calm day - less than a litre.

Most tanker operations spill, FAR, far less than that...all year.

This is bad leak, no question, but let's wait to assign blame until AFTER the forensics are in.

Most of the platforms have excellent damage control, this leak is quite astonishing to the people I know in the oil business.

When I read liberal tanker I assumed you meant Paul Martins CSL!

At the risk of being a whiny baby this is in my backyard and Louisi-yana's oyster and shrimp season is gona take a major hit, possibly for several years.

I am not a happy camper, seeing as how the present Administration and the last 4 Administrations loosened up Offshore Drilling Regulations for Campaign Contributions, not to mention; the boot licking media refuses to cover this disaster. I reckon they don't want the Messiah to look bad.

But then again, these are the same media who watched a video of a Pakistani Muslim Terrorist trying to blowup NY Times Square and come up with a fly-over-country white boy tea partier who hates Obamacare.

Now that, defies all reasoning.
,

Hmmm ... could it be that the new and unfavorable
Obama tax regime for foreign offshore oil workers
has resulted in an exodus of well-trained,
experienced Brits from the Gulf? Could that play
a role in the disaster? Could the influx of workers
from Mexico have played a role? I have absolutely
no idea, just asking.

From the article:

"BP and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their money going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Donations come from a mix of employees and the company’s political action committees — $2.89 million flowed to campaigns from BP-related PACs and about $638,000 came from individuals."

Hope, change and oil spills!
I guess the (clean) waters DID recede under his administration.

The ITOPF article shows that oil spills from all sources has dramatically dropped over the last 40 years. Technological advancements are always the key to improvement in worker safety and environmental protection.

To me, the most surprising part of the oil spill disaster is the $75M liability cap for off-shore oil producers. Making the oil companies pay the full cost of the damages is one of the best ways of ensuring ongoing research into improving equipment and procedures, prevention and operating permit compliance.

You should use litres instead of barrels, the larger numbers sound so much more impressive and horrifying.
So what if oil is normally measured in barrels?

And I missed some of the early coverage of this, but I did catch the sob stories of how the shrimp fishermen are screwed and the pictures of the dead turtles and all, but I don't recall seeing any CNN reporters showing the grieving family members of the 11 men who were killed on the rig.
Maybe I missed it or were they oil workers and therefore not worthy of the media's sympathy?

The 'cleanup' from the Exxon Valdez did more damage to the environment/ecosystem than just leaving Nature take it's course. Life returned YEARS sooner to those areas not touched by cleanup crews. Oil is natural. Nature has a way to deal with it. Let Gaia heal herself, she doesn't need Man to apply even more "chemicals" (shudder at evilness of CHEMICALS!)

Ok now lets not be putting this into historical perspective so we can have an objective view.

This is deeply personal and intense because its all you can eat shrimp night at Red Lobster for 5.99. Maybe, just maybe, a couple of seasons of not dredging all life out of the Gulf might help as the Shrimp will find new beds free of oil and multiply like uhmm shrimp? (my green based sustainable fishing and harvesting argument that you need to reconcile with the stop oil drilling mantra).

The situation I point out is that several points of view exist, so lets see what unfolds before we start folding up the tent city and claim "Worst Disaster EVER" and then shoot our neighbour in the head for not having a hybrid (translate into over-react, not actually shooting anyone).

For an even more shocking comparison, between Jan and May 1991 during the Gulf War - 11 million barrels were spilled (or dumped). That would 2,200 days, or about 6-yeras, of the current flow-rate in the Gulf of Mexico.

Re: Posted by: Stan at May 5, 2010 2:41 PM

Your comment makes me want to go back to university and spend millions of taxpayer dollars studying which units of measure have the most impact. At some point the psychological punch of the magnitude of the number has to be offset by the smallness of the unit of measure. "Oh no! Trillions of millilitres!"

Determining the exact point where this happens is worth at least a few theses.

I am not a happy camper, seeing as how the present Administration and the last 4 Administrations loosened up Offshore Drilling Regulations

So you already know what caused the Deepwater Horizon accident? Please share. Transocean and BP might want to hear from your expert opinion too.

So you already know what caused the Deepwater Horizon accident? Please share. Transocean and BP might want to hear from your expert opinion too.

Posted by: Waterhouse at May 5, 2010 4:16 PM
-----------------------

Hmmm,, don't recall stating in my post what caused the accident, let me read it again. Nope, not one mention of what caused the accident. I DID SAY I was not happy with the cleanup. Do you have anything smarky to say about that ?

You know, I don't have a problem with Drill Baby Drill Waterhouse, but let's share this and start drilling off your %$%#@#$% coast.
,

don't recall stating in my post what caused the accident

You whined that you weren't a happy camper, and then whined that the government loosened up offshore drilling regulations. If you weren't implying that those "loosened regulations" were at fault, why mention them?

And you didn't mention the cleanup at all in your original comment. Try reading what you actually type. Or typing what you actually think. Or something.

but let's share this and start drilling off your %$%#@#$% coast.

I don't live on any coast, and if I lived on a coast off of which oil was drilled, and reaped all the benefits from it, I wouldn't be shocked if an accident occurred once every 30 years or so. I certainly wouldn't be complaining about a cleanup which appears to be progressing about as well as could be expected, given the conditions. But I'm positive you're a huge oil spill cleanup expert too in addition to being a world-renowned offshore drilling regulation expert so be sure and educate us all on what should be being done that isn't.

Eric Anderson 1:38 - I heard the previous CEO (IIRC) of Nexen talk about the oilsands. The things he said were very thoughtful. He said "nobody gets mad if we produce too much of our product" - because then the price goes down. He also mentioned what you did, that most of the CO2 was related to consumption, not production.

Let's face it - oil production is 100% consumer driven.

And - nuclear - I've said enough here before about that subject! Environmentalists who oppose nuclear power are incorrigable hypocrites.

Could you provide some sort of legend to explain the blue, green and red colors in the bar graph?

Ed Anger's prostate,

The colors are just a way of breaking out individual contributions to the total, where that's useful and/or appropriate. For instance, on the 1989 bar the red is from Exxon Valdez, the green is from Kharkov, and the blue is all other sources. Anywhere it's all blue it's just the sum of all spills.

Regards,
Ric

Frankly .... I care about as much ... when it comes to the Gulf Fisheries as it seems most of those same southern gentle folk .... care about our lumber and wood products industries.

No schadenfreude to be indulged in ..... just pathetic to hear all the whining and BS being generated over this incident and the potential fallout.

The worst of it right now is the efforts to stick this on the POTUS .... as bad as Barry Soetero is ... it's got no more to do with his office than the hurricanes had to do with GWB.

The whole point of this post IMO is that there is ZERO perspective being offered in the media or in the political swamps. The failing in this matter is just once again the failing of the MSM to present the facts as they are without hyperbole, spin and fabrication.

And thanks once again to the internet and the scores of people who actually give a crap about finding out what the facts are and offering what the pols and the media will not.

I heard a report on the radio today that BP was moving in a "dome" by barge.
Because the oil is lighter than the water---the oil can be contained inside and taped off safely....and repairs can be done inside.

Obviously, this critter was already fabricated, and ready....how is that for planing against the improbable.

The Greenies will have to figure out a way to sabotage that.....it's ruining a good crisis.
Don't be fooled by the whining...the Greenies are dancing in their heads like Palestinians.

The graph doesn't go back far enough to show how much oil was lost on the ocean by tankers sunk during world war two. And all the other nasty stuff that polluted the seas - including bodies. Just a few years after the war all that was visible were (and in some cases are still) hulks of sunken ships and planes.

Sasquatch; no, it wasn't. TV coverage over the past few days has followed the amazingly rapid fabrication of the dome, from scratch.
Material, on the other hand, may well have been stockpiled.
Sort of makes one wonder why it's necessary for NA companies to go offshore for manufacturing; we do it so well when we have to.

Just read that 7,960,000 tons of allied shipping was torpedoed in WWll. A lot of those ships were oil/petrol tankers and a lot of them were sunk along US east coast and gulf of St. Lawrence.

Q: Who did the cleanup?

Q: Who washed the birds?

Q: Who gave a sweet @#%!

DaninVan

That explains the delay.

My most reliable source is the internet---with a connection I time with a calendar---no cable or SAT TV.....hence the TV is a piece of furniture.

What you report reminds me of the British shipyard and workers during the Falklands "misunderstanding".

The Invincible's sister ship was under construction but not due to be launched for 3 1/2 years. Such notions as "work to rule", union rules were deemed unpatriotic by the work force and the carrier showed up in the Falklands just prior to the last days of the war---complete, fitted out, trial, modified....(civilian contractors were still aboard indicating some work was completed during a fast/short passage.

It's arrival doubled the available air fleet, enhanced air defence with the latest version of the SEA WOLF(SAM) and provided organic AWAC.

My associates in the NA ship-building business are still amazed. They estimate the productivety jumped by perhaps a factor of 10, including amazing quality control....

Some folks do work well under pressure.

That's interesting information from, basically, the ship owner's. It does provide some assurance that things are getting relatively safer, which is good news.

I still don't think we should allow drilling of the Canadian Pacific Coast, and Gov Schwarzennegger and Pres Obama think the same thing for their West Coast. Schwarzennegger was going to support some drilling near Santa Barbara but changed his mind as a result of the Gulf spill. And the whole matter of the Enbridge pipeline is still going to be a justifiably hard sell where tanker traffic is concerned. Tanker accidents may have declines, as per the chart, but they have not been eliminated, and traffic along the BC north coast in narrow channels may be higher than average risk, as the loss of the BC Ferry Queen of the North illustrates.

In fact, the only people who do think we should allow drilling is the BC Liberal Govt., and of course, MP Gary Lunn of Saanich-Gulf Islands.

Good observation by L.C. Bennett.
The result of the Exxon Valdez disaster was the development of regulations for oil transport, worker safety, and environmental protection. This resulted in new technologies (especially hull design) and oil containment on these ships, etc. I am pretty sure that most of not all of the tankers nowadays are double hulled, etc. as the older tankers were retired. That's why you see the dramatic decline in amounts of oil spilled as presented in the graph.
I also agree with this liability thing - it's a joke.

The result of this will be new regulations which will no doubt drive new technologies to safely cap these wells. It is my understanding that this oil well had finished drilling and the crew were in the process of insalling/building a permanent cap. This is the most dangerous part because it has long been known that there is a risk of methane escape (which is what happened) when you stop drilling and start building a permanent cap around a well. Something needs to be improved here and mandated to be improved.