Lol.

Since you are walking back your hyperbolic "it be raining oil" statement, would you care to amend the equally ludicrous supposition that the resevoir [sic] will be depleted before they ever "cap" it. It's over... ?

Incidentally, the reservoir is estimated at 50mm barrels; so even if we accept your claim (a big if) of 70k barrels per day, ceterus parabis, it would take two full years for the reservoir to be depleted.

Ummmm No! If the federal or state governments or private sector spend millions or billions on the cleanup, it falls under an expense claim. And those claims are limited to the $75 mil cap. Thus the $1 billion reserve trust fund (Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund) was set up for cleanups and established under that same act. Nowhere is it stated that the liable party will pay for an entire cleanup no matter the cost.

http://www.epa.gov/emergencies/conte...gs/opaover.htm

so, because BP and the drilling company or whatever are powerful, neither is responsible?

if this thing keeps up, and there's billions in damages, what happens?

No, BP is responsible, but they are limited as to what they legally have to reimburse. That is why the U.S. govt. (Obama's crew) are trying to get BP to give them a formal statement saying they will cover all the cost. All BP said at the hearings were that they would pay all legitimate claims. Hey, that sounds great until you realize that any claims (once the $75 mil cap is reached) are no longer legitimate.

The liability for tank vessels larger than 3,000 gross tons is increased to $1,200 per gross ton or $10 million, whichever is greater. Responsible parties at onshore facilities and deepwater ports are liable for up to $350 millon per spill; holders of leases or permits for offshore facilities, except deepwater ports, are liable for up to $75 million per spill, plus removal costs.

Again, that doesn't say they will pay the entire cleanup costs. It says removal costs, not all removal costs. Once again that is why the oil spill trust fund was setup. The funds for cleanup come out of that fund if need be, then the NPFC goes after the liable party through debt collection. And tries to get back as much as they can. That's all it is. We will see soon enough. If BP pays for ALL the cleanup costs, and gets this well capped by the end of June, and has all this cleaned up and paid for by the end of this year and no tax dollars are used for this in any way. I'll come back here and admit how wrong I was.

Oh please. It explicitly says they pay for removal costs. But nice goalpost shift anyways.

If it is so cut and dry, and no loopholes exist, then why is the Obama Admin. so wanting BP to clarify their intentions?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100516...20100516105233

Time will tell.

Ah, my stalker, replete with typo correction smarminess. Cool.

I didn't make a "raining oil" statement, in fact I denied the question put to me that it would happen. It's still the most humid part of the country, and the air quality is going to be monitored very closely.

Not that it isn't a common practice of yours to make up things I never said, but where did I claim it was leaking at a rate of 70K per day? Also, your link is fail. Fix it, or provide another. I saw 30 million barrels in one estimate.

You realize that even if the Macondo Prospect has 50 million barrels, the pressure steadily diminishes as it empties.

Years to deplete? Perhaps... Fact is, they have no idea what to do.

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/...100363874.html

“We don’t have any idea how to stop this,” Matthew Simmons, retired chair of the energy-industry investment banking firm Simmons & Company International said of the Gulf leak.

Some of the proposed strategies-such as temporarily plugging the leaking pipe with a jet of golf balls and other material-are a “joke,” he added.

“We really are in unprecedented waters,” he said

If the oil can’t be stopped, the underground reservoir may continue bleeding until it’s dry, Simmons suggested.

The most recent estimates are that the leaking wellhead has been spewing 5,000 barrels (210,000 gallons, or 795,000 liters) of oil a day.

And the oil is still flowing robustly, which suggests that the reserve would take years to deplete.

FWIW, "President Obama's new plan to fix the Gulf oil spill is so crazy it just might work..."

Theres an epic speech from Jurassic park that seems pretty applicable in this thread.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ni6ZALg2BeQ
cool music too

They're asking for clarification on BP's statements that they will pay for all 'legitimate' liability claims. The gov't believes it will go over 75M$ and they don't want them to just shut it down and use the cap as an excuse to stop paying people for economic loss. Its unrelated to clean up costs.

Here's a link to the 70k barrels a day estimate:

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may...asure-20100514

The professor who made the claim says his method is accurate to within 20%.

"Last week BP officials told members of Congress in closed-door briefings that the spill could amount to 60,000 barrels a day in a worst-case scenario."

I will leave it to the audience to decide. Here is the quote in question:


Which is why I wanted to give you a chance to walk back the rest of the hyperbole fail in your quote.

Yes, becuase this is obviously the inference a reasonable person would draw from this statement:
Or not.

See above. Also see, things that are not relevant to your statement.

Ah, your old standby the baseless assertion.

It could be that 70k barrels a day is the absolute worst case semi-plausible estimate out there, ergo, I assumed it was your default position. Or, it could be you quoted Skeletori where he made the announcement itt and you expanded on his quote (implying agreement with his assertion; post #412 btw) with your drivel about the well never being capped and life in the Gulf as we know it over. Take your pick.

Here is another. Its the NY Times citing Tony Hayward, who by the way is the CEO of BP. I suppose I could dredge some other expert in geology, drilling, or perhaps investment banking rofl, if that would suit your fancy better.

Which is why I qualified my statement with the phrase ceteris parabus. Here is a (working) link so you can understand fully what I was saying.

As an aside, the slowing rate of leakage actually makes your assertion that it will never be capped worse. So you pwn you. Good job.

And we are back to the old reliable.

there is nothing "fail" nor "hyperbole" about anything I said, regardless of your incessant, unsolicited pissiness.

if or when the spill spreads and combines with the height of summer down there, and there are meteorological affects and air quality concerns, we can revisit this. Well, strike that, you'll certainly disappear rather than admit you were being a clown. While it won't "rain petroleum" and I never said that, some particles will evaporate and it's obvious the EPA is concerned about air quality in a region that endures precipitation every day.

"baseless," and yet in the next breath below, you admit you might have misquoted me, and then follow-up by misrepresenting what I said yet again. I didn't say "life was over" liar, I said any feasible initiative to cap it is over. In other words, the damage is already done.

yeah, you assumed... but my assertion is "baseless." ... grow up.

Or you could keep making up any explanation to yourself that seems to support your lazy argument. Take your pick.

What's funny is that when I link to experts in geology, you dismiss their claims as well. As for the Matt Simmons, he's far more than an "investment banker." Get a clue.

Wrong again, semantics king. I never said it would never be capped. I said the damage was done. In your obnoxious obsession to take issue with every post I make, you either can't follow, or can't be honest.

Yes, perhaps now you'll attribute a quote from yet another poster to me and argue with your newest straw man.

I will say that if video of the leak is that steady and constant, it's far more than 70,000 per day.

Team of Nuclear Physicists sent to gulf, charged with coming up with possible solutions to the leak.

Quote:

The five-man team – which includes a man who helped develop the first hydrogen bomb in the 1950s – is the brainchild of Steven Chu, President Obama's Energy Secretary.

...

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Mr Hayward said the five-hour meeting involved a "very deep dive" into the situation at hand, with "lots of nuclear physicists and all sorts of people coming up with some quite good ideas actually."

Pressed further about the meeting, he said they had "come up with one good idea" but declined to elaborate.

Gonna get nuked, IMO.

more like u not realizing i am making fun of the guy

Maybe ;P

Jiggs,

It is apparent that you will twist any set of circumstances to to fit your ongoing agenda and worldview, and for some reason feel the need to constantly highlight why every event relates to your Malthusian ideology. I believe that constructive dissent is healthy and in fact should be encouraged; however, your discourse in this thread and others is nearly, if not precisely, the inverse of healthy constructive debate, for reasons I have previously outlined. The only reason I point out the sheer lunacy of some of your posts is for the benefit of other readers, more specifically those who do not have the time or ability to question the veracity of the outrageous claims you constantly make in the forum, as your beliefs are apparently more grounded in religion and ideology than empirical evidence and rational deduction. I am done playing games with you itt. Maybe one day you will start to observe issues in a more objective manner. Lastly, if you take nothing else from our exchange I want you to take this: Words matter. That is all.

look at you, all switching gears. very well.

what could possibly be "grounded in religion" about the simple acceptance of known geology? i'm quite agnostic, sir.

get over yourself.

"observe issues in a more objective manner." ... that's some unfortunate irony.

A footnote I should have added earlier:

For those needing a clue who Matthew Simmons is, aside from being the head of a Houston based investment bank which specializes in energy, he also is the author of Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy and purportedly a, wait for it, peak oil expert. I can't make stuff like this up folks, so by all means verify what I am telling you.

Further, and this is pretty awesome if you follow the Cornucopian vs. Malthusian debate at all, Mr. Simmons, in a commendable effort of putting his money where his mouth is, bet New York Times op-ed columnist John Tierney 5,000 dollars that a barrel of oil would average greater than 200 dollars a barrel during the calendar year 2010. Tierney immediately called the widow of Julian Simon to inform her of the bet he had made and she promptly took half of his action, with the blessing of Mr. Simmons of course. I don't have to tell anyone here that the odds of Mr. Simmons prevailing in the wager are slim and none, and worse it was not even close.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/us...l?ref=business

Good "the Google" work. I'm sure you scrambled to find anything you could. You're proud and think you've found something to anxiously try and discredit the man. ... Lame. ...

Simmons would also tell you that oil price isn't ultimately what matters, and that with short price shocks comes certain and immediate demand destruction.

He would remind you that what matters are the wells, and the fact that capacity from scant new finds are not keeping up with skyrocketing demand and depletion of existing pools ... That's what Simmons has always maintained.

nice plug on his book, however... it's excellent.

google "bumpy plateau"... it's fleshed out abundantly by retired petrol geologists. ... perhaps then you can then find an irrelevant allusion to one of Colin Campbell's petty wagers also.

I haven't been keeping up with this thread so don't know if my pony is slow here.

But has anyone heard the idea to nuke the oil spill?

YPTS