7 ms·

'Top kill' method 'slows BP oil leak' in Gulf of Mexico

32 points by pierrefar 16y ago

gjm11 16y ago
The actual headline says "slows", not "stops". (Has it changed?)
- snissn 16y ago
  (yes) edit: no seriously it said stop at first, and the bbc ninja edited it
- pierrefar 16y ago
  Yes it has. When I submitted it, I just removed the "BBC News" prefix in the title and nothing else.
mawhidby 16y ago
Here's a link to Adm. Allen's talk with NPR referenced in the article. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/05/there_are_indications_top_kill.html http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/05/there_are_indica...
aero142 16y ago
So, BP wouldn't allow anyone other than them to inspect the leak and give an estimate of the flow rate, the 5,000 number is "unreliable", but they know for sure that it is less than before. I hope it's true but mark me down as skeptical.
_delirium 16y ago
The short slideshow at the bottom of the article is one of the better concise explanations I've seen of the process.
marltod 16y ago
queue Fox News to say that Obama should have insisted that this be done 4 weeks ago.
- jonknee 16y ago
  Which if he had would have meant instantly calling him a socialist for interfering with a corporation's business.
- Tichy 16y ago
  I must admit, I don't understand this. What do US presidents, or for what it's worth, US governments, know about how to stop oil spills 5000 feet below the surface of the sea? What reason is there to assume that BP is not trying the best it can to stop the spill, and to them being the best experts on the subject? Also, hasn't the government called in a panel of independent experts already?
  - jbooth 16y ago
    It's simple. When things are going well, everybody spends all their time calling government the problem, cutting funding, shredding regulations and defanging any government enforcement agencies. Then when things go bad, everyone's pissed that the government isn't omnipotent.
    - sigzero 16y ago
      "Then when things go bad, everyone's pissed that the government isn't omnipotent." That, my friend, is a true statement.
      - jbooth 16y ago
        For bonus points, it's usually the same people who were loudest about shredding regulations and disempowering government in the first place. Related examples include the NIMBY a-holes who lobby against cell phone towers in their town while having a family plan, and of course people who insist on tax cuts while demanding better services.
    - anamax 16y ago
      > It's simple. You're forgetting that Obama and the Dems campaigned on "we're far more competent than Bush and the Repubs. If you elect us, sea levels will fall, [etc]." It's sort of like the "huge financial firms aren't giving money to Obama, that money comes from their executives" argument. While true, you never hear it about money going to Repubs.
jackfoxy 16y ago
If this story in WSJ is proves accurate, BP has a lot of culpability. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704717004575268302434395796.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_news http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870471700457526...
- joezydeco 16y ago
  There's some other unsubstantiated stories that Schlumberger pulled their guys off the rig just before it blew up: http://adropofrain.net/2010/05/rumor-schlumberger-exits-deep-horizon-hours-before-blowout/ http://adropofrain.net/2010/05/rumor-schlumberger-exits-deep...
  - bradgessler 16y ago
    Yeah, I haven't seen reports of this from any major news outlets. I'm not sure how much I'd trust that source.
    - joezydeco 16y ago
      I'm sure this is a sensitive topic among ALL of BP's contractors. Nobody is going to be verifying any of this until Congress in investigating.
      - jackfoxy 16y ago
        Let us hope it is a responsible investigatory body, say the FBI, not Congress that does the investigating. Politicizing this can be another way of burying it.
  - gruseom 16y ago
    That's interesting. I worked for Schlumberger for a couple of years. They are a good company in their core business of oil services (their software division is horrible, but that's another story). They particularly emphasize safety. I have no idea whether the story you linked to is true, but if the chief SLB person on site made a decision that his people were at risk, it would be consistent with the company's culture to get them out of there at their own expense.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
AndrewO 16y ago
Anyone know why this wasn't tried earlier? Lower estimated chance of success than other previous strategies? Would have precluded other options if it failed? Some other kind of complication?
- dasht 16y ago
  I'm not an expert. I'm just passing along what I hear Prof. Bea of UC Berkeley saying (and that makes intuitive sense to me). One of the big risks of the top-kill procedure is a kind of "you push in here, it pops out there" problem. There's a big pipe down into the ground, right? It's constructed in segments. We have limited amounts of information about what condition it's in. There is risk that they throw mud down, that does indeed slow or stop the current flows, but the flows find a new path busting through the pipes or the joints between segments - and the net result is a flow just as bad or worse as before the top kill but even harder to fix. That they've only so far "slowed" the flow doesn't give me much encouragement yet. Both plots ("it works" and "it fails and makes things worse") start that way.

32 points by pierrefar 16y ago

gjm11 16y ago

The actual headline says "slows", not "stops". (Has it changed?)

snissn 16y ago
(yes) edit: no seriously it said stop at first, and the bbc ninja edited it
pierrefar 16y ago
Yes it has. When I submitted it, I just removed the "BBC News" prefix in the title and nothing else.

mawhidby 16y ago

Here's a link to Adm. Allen's talk with NPR referenced in the article. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/05/there_are_indications_top_kill.html http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/05/there_are_indica...

aero142 16y ago

So, BP wouldn't allow anyone other than them to inspect the leak and give an estimate of the flow rate, the 5,000 number is "unreliable", but they know for sure that it is less than before. I hope it's true but mark me down as skeptical.

_delirium 16y ago

The short slideshow at the bottom of the article is one of the better concise explanations I've seen of the process.

marltod 16y ago

queue Fox News to say that Obama should have insisted that this be done 4 weeks ago.

jonknee 16y ago
Which if he had would have meant instantly calling him a socialist for interfering with a corporation's business.
Tichy 16y ago
I must admit, I don't understand this. What do US presidents, or for what it's worth, US governments, know about how to stop oil spills 5000 feet below the surface of the sea? What reason is there to assume that BP is not trying the best it can to stop the spill, and to them being the best experts on the subject? Also, hasn't the government called in a panel of independent experts already?
- jbooth 16y ago
  It's simple. When things are going well, everybody spends all their time calling government the problem, cutting funding, shredding regulations and defanging any government enforcement agencies. Then when things go bad, everyone's pissed that the government isn't omnipotent.
  - sigzero 16y ago
    "Then when things go bad, everyone's pissed that the government isn't omnipotent." That, my friend, is a true statement.
    - jbooth 16y ago
      For bonus points, it's usually the same people who were loudest about shredding regulations and disempowering government in the first place. Related examples include the NIMBY a-holes who lobby against cell phone towers in their town while having a family plan, and of course people who insist on tax cuts while demanding better services.
  - anamax 16y ago
    > It's simple. You're forgetting that Obama and the Dems campaigned on "we're far more competent than Bush and the Repubs. If you elect us, sea levels will fall, [etc]." It's sort of like the "huge financial firms aren't giving money to Obama, that money comes from their executives" argument. While true, you never hear it about money going to Repubs.

jackfoxy 16y ago

If this story in WSJ is proves accurate, BP has a lot of culpability. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704717004575268302434395796.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_news http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870471700457526...

joezydeco 16y ago
There's some other unsubstantiated stories that Schlumberger pulled their guys off the rig just before it blew up: http://adropofrain.net/2010/05/rumor-schlumberger-exits-deep-horizon-hours-before-blowout/ http://adropofrain.net/2010/05/rumor-schlumberger-exits-deep...
- bradgessler 16y ago
  Yeah, I haven't seen reports of this from any major news outlets. I'm not sure how much I'd trust that source.
  - joezydeco 16y ago
    I'm sure this is a sensitive topic among ALL of BP's contractors. Nobody is going to be verifying any of this until Congress in investigating.
    - jackfoxy 16y ago
      Let us hope it is a responsible investigatory body, say the FBI, not Congress that does the investigating. Politicizing this can be another way of burying it.
- gruseom 16y ago
  That's interesting. I worked for Schlumberger for a couple of years. They are a good company in their core business of oil services (their software division is horrible, but that's another story). They particularly emphasize safety. I have no idea whether the story you linked to is true, but if the chief SLB person on site made a decision that his people were at risk, it would be consistent with the company's culture to get them out of there at their own expense.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

AndrewO 16y ago

Anyone know why this wasn't tried earlier? Lower estimated chance of success than other previous strategies? Would have precluded other options if it failed? Some other kind of complication?

dasht 16y ago
I'm not an expert. I'm just passing along what I hear Prof. Bea of UC Berkeley saying (and that makes intuitive sense to me). One of the big risks of the top-kill procedure is a kind of "you push in here, it pops out there" problem. There's a big pipe down into the ground, right? It's constructed in segments. We have limited amounts of information about what condition it's in. There is risk that they throw mud down, that does indeed slow or stop the current flows, but the flows find a new path busting through the pipes or the joints between segments - and the net result is a flow just as bad or worse as before the top kill but even harder to fix. That they've only so far "slowed" the flow doesn't give me much encouragement yet. Both plots ("it works" and "it fails and makes things worse") start that way.