DC Tom Posted April 30, 2010 Share Posted April 30, 2010 Nice At least he has an excuse. For the record, I am curious what BP and Transocean communicated to the Feds in the first few days of this incident. It certainly seems they did their best to conceal what was going on from the media. With that said, WTF, why didn't the feds conduct their own investigation? Assuming they were clueless that is. One final observation, this pic was uploaded on the laughingstock Wikipedia at 23:03, 23 April 2010. Pity the Feds didn't google it. I would be completely unsurprised to find out that they didn't know what was going on. They have a broken, twisted "stump" (in as much as a 5000 foot length can be called a "stump") of drill pipe snapped off underwater, in such a way that all safeguards including the dead-man's switch did nothing. They've got to rent a submersible and get it on site (24-hour lead time, at least) before they can even inspect what's going on underwater...and they don't do that until they've figured out that the oil bubbling to the surface isn't residual oil from the original platform sinking but actually coming from underground (probably another 24 hours, minimum). I don't think it's even possible to know you've got a major leak at a deep-ocean wellhead until about two days after an accident like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted April 30, 2010 Share Posted April 30, 2010 I would be completely unsurprised to find out that they didn't know what was going on. They have a broken, twisted "stump" (in as much as a 5000 foot length can be called a "stump") of drill pipe snapped off underwater, in such a way that all safeguards including the dead-man's switch did nothing. They've got to rent a submersible and get it on site (24-hour lead time, at least) before they can even inspect what's going on underwater...and they don't do that until they've figured out that the oil bubbling to the surface isn't residual oil from the original platform sinking but actually coming from underground (probably another 24 hours, minimum). I don't think it's even possible to know you've got a major leak at a deep-ocean wellhead until about two days after an accident like this. So when do you think the Feds found out and how long to trickle up to Obama? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 30, 2010 Share Posted April 30, 2010 So when do you think the Feds found out and how long to trickle up to Obama? Found out that there was a bad leak? Probably 3-4 days. Speed of bureaucracy and all. Hell, it probably takes a day to figure out which department to inform (DHS? Interior? Commerce? Energy?) When Obama found out? Who cares. All he's going to do is make statements and look serious on TV. He's the President; by definition he's not going to do anything useful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted April 30, 2010 Share Posted April 30, 2010 Found out that there was a bad leak? Probably 3-4 days. Speed of bureaucracy and all. Hell, it probably takes a day to figure out which department to inform (DHS? Interior? Commerce? Energy?) When Obama found out? Who cares. All he's going to do is make statements and look serious on TV. He's the President; by definition he's not going to do anything useful. Okay 3-4 days from the date of the initial explosion is the 23rd or the 24th. I consider that an incredibly slow response time. So let's say they find out on the 24th there is a huge leak, where are the ships to help contain the oil? Piss poor response by the feds IMO. April 22nd story on CNN. Butler said oil was leaking from the rig at the rate of about 8,000 barrels of crude per day. The Coast Guard is also preparing for possible leaks of up to 700,000 gallons of diesel fuel, she said, but can do little to protect the environment until the fire is out. Perhaps we need several new Cabinet level positions. Wiki dude, TV News guy, and Google Minister. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 1, 2010 Share Posted May 1, 2010 Damned is he does, damned if he don't. Comes with the territory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 1, 2010 Share Posted May 1, 2010 Damned is he does, damned if he don't. Yeah, but that's only because people are stupid. I'd rather the president do his job properly instead of pandering to the people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted May 1, 2010 Share Posted May 1, 2010 Yeah, but that's only because people are stupid. I'd rather the president do his job properly instead of pandering to the people. I get your point. Ultimately, this isn't Obama's fault per se. However, overall he is the guy in charge. Either he or an underling undoubtedly botched this. I am either routinely told or tell someone to keep an eye on a situation as it could impact future plans. How did this not make the radar of someone important enough to do something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 1, 2010 Share Posted May 1, 2010 Okay 3-4 days from the date of the initial explosion is the 23rd or the 24th. I consider that an incredibly slow response time. So let's say they find out on the 24th there is a huge leak, where are the ships to help contain the oil? Piss poor response by the feds IMO. April 22nd story on CNN. Perhaps we need several new Cabinet level positions. Wiki dude, TV News guy, and Google Minister. Actually, your timeline should probably start with the 21nd, judging by some of the statements in the story (they didn't know the scope or source of the leak, but had an ROV on site investigating). 3-4 days puts it at a minimum of the 24th or 25th - over the weekend. And that's a minimum, not a maximum. And don't forget that BP spent two days trying to fix the leak themselves - and it's not unreasonable for the government to stand aside and let them, since when the government steps in, how do you think they're going to do the job? Contract it to an oil services company. Probably Halliburton. Probably on a no-bid basis. Rather ironically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted May 1, 2010 Share Posted May 1, 2010 Actually, your timeline should probably start with the 21nd, judging by some of the statements in the story (they didn't know the scope or source of the leak, but had an ROV on site investigating). 3-4 days puts it at a minimum of the 24th or 25th - over the weekend. And that's a minimum, not a maximum. And don't forget that BP spent two days trying to fix the leak themselves - and it's not unreasonable for the government to stand aside and let them, since when the government steps in, how do you think they're going to do the job? Contract it to an oil services company. Probably Halliburton. Probably on a no-bid basis. Rather ironically. See above, but I grant you the start of the 21st. Question, could they have deployed CG ships and US Navy vessels with booms in any reasonable sort of time in your opinion? The deployment seems easy, not sure about the booms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 1, 2010 Share Posted May 1, 2010 See above, but I grant you the start of the 21st. Question, could they have deployed CG ships and US Navy vessels with booms in any reasonable sort of time in your opinion? The deployment seems easy, not sure about the booms. Probably not. It's not like they stock them. Or that most Navy ships would be equipped to deploy them, for that matter. And I doubt the government just has them laying around, either. Again...it's the kind of thing they'd subcontract. My brother used to work for one of those companies, years ago. And you're forgetting, too...the weather's been rough enough that the booms they have haven't been effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted May 1, 2010 Share Posted May 1, 2010 Probably not. It's not like they stock them. Or that most Navy ships would be equipped to deploy them, for that matter. And I doubt the government just has them laying around, either. Again...it's the kind of thing they'd subcontract. My brother used to work for one of those companies, years ago. And you're forgetting, too...the weather's been rough enough that the booms they have haven't been effective. All day. step away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted May 1, 2010 Share Posted May 1, 2010 Probably not. It's not like they stock them. Or that most Navy ships would be equipped to deploy them, for that matter. And I doubt the government just has them laying around, either. Again...it's the kind of thing they'd subcontract. My brother used to work for one of those companies, years ago. And you're forgetting, too...the weather's been rough enough that the booms they have haven't been effective. Didn't think of the engineering requirements to be able to deploy them, and I do recall the weather issue. I was in favor of drilling offshore, now, not so sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted May 1, 2010 Share Posted May 1, 2010 All day. step away. So you agree with Tom that we shouldn't drill as we may have need with it in the future? I assume you also agree that the Federal government is fairly blameless in this due to the usual bureaucracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted May 1, 2010 Share Posted May 1, 2010 So you agree with Tom that we shouldn't drill as we may have need with it in the future? I assume you also agree that the Federal government is fairly blameless in this due to the usual bureaucracy. Jesus. No. We need to explore ALL avenues to help our thirst for oil, Its not that simple. Yes we need to come up with alternitives. Yes we need to explore more oil revenue sources. Please dont assume. JA has that down pat. Also, I'm not so sure that Tom would say dont drill at all..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted May 1, 2010 Share Posted May 1, 2010 Jesus. No. We need to explore ALL avenues to help our thirst for oil, Its not that simple. Yes we need to come up with alternitives. Yes we need to explore more oil revenue sources. Please dont assume. JA has that down pat. Also, I'm not so sure that Tom would say dont drill at all..... All day. step away. So your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted May 1, 2010 Share Posted May 1, 2010 So your point? That Tom may need to leave this go? Please dont make me call you an idiot. In addition, my post had no support of his wrt to not drilling. catch up.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Blizzard Posted May 1, 2010 Share Posted May 1, 2010 . . . He's the President; by definition he's not going to do anything useful. Good one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted May 1, 2010 Share Posted May 1, 2010 That Tom may need to leave this go? Please dont make me call you an idiot. In addition, my post had no support of his wrt to not drilling. catch up.......... Ah thought it a shot across my bow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted May 1, 2010 Share Posted May 1, 2010 Ah thought it a shot across my bow. You'd know it if I did. I have a good history of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 1, 2010 Share Posted May 1, 2010 So you agree with Tom that we shouldn't drill as we may have need with it in the future? I assume you also agree that the Federal government is fairly blameless in this due to the usual bureaucracy. The government is blameless because they got in their own way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts