SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: cnyndwllr who wrote (40229)3/22/2004 4:30:03 PM
From: Raymond Duray  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
9/11 STAND DOWN,

While the Kean Commission will most likely engage in more of its cover-up work tomorrow, here at SI we are furthering the real investigation into 9/11:

deceptiondollar.com

Anyone who can fly to San Francisco for this event will be flabbergasted at how much we already know, and how little the silly little Kean Commission is really doing to get at the truth.

****
Here's an excellent synopsis of the currently available research on how NORAD and the USAF stood down on 9/11:
911research.wtc7.net

Like Ritter, O'Neill, now Clarke, maybe there is someone who will come forward with the truth about 9/11 - if they're still alive: NORAD Stand-Down
The Prevention of Interceptions of the Commandeered Planes
It is standard operating procedure (SOP) to scramble jet fighters whenever a jetliner goes off course or radio contact with it is lost. Between September 2000 and June 2001, fighters were scrambled 67 times. 1
There are several elements involved in domestic air defense. The air traffic control system continuously monitors air traffic and notifies NORAD of any deviations of any aircraft from their flight-paths or loss of radio contact. NORAD monitors air and space traffic continuously and is prepared to react immediately to threats and emergencies. It has the authority to order units from the Air National Guard, the Air Force, or other armed services to scramble fighters in pursuit of jetliners in trouble.

Routine interception procedures were not followed on September 11th, 2001. This can be seen clearly by comparing incidents.

A Case for Comparison
An example of how the air defense network normally responds to domestic emergencies is illustrated by the well-reported 1999 case of Payne Stewart's Lear jet. When the golfer's jet failed to respond to air traffic controller communications, F-16 interceptors were quickly dispatched. According to an Air Force timeline, a series of military planes provided an emergency escort to Payne's stricken Learjet starting about 20 minutes after contact with his plane was lost. 2

This contrasts with the long periods of time apparently hijacked planes roamed the skies of the Northeast on September 11th without any interceptions. 83 minutes elapsed between the time that Flight 11 veered off course and the Pentagon was hit, and 112 minutes elapsed between the time that contact was lost with Flight 11 and Flight 93 crashed. According to the official story, not a single fighter was scrambled in time to intercept any of the four jetliners. At least 28 air stations were easily within distance to protect New York City and Washington DC. 3 None of them did. Note that, if anything, intercept times for the four jetliners should have been far shorter than for Payne Stewart's jet:

Stewart's jet merely failed to respond to communications. Each of the four jetliners, in addition to going silent, veered dramatically off course and switched off their transponders.
Stewart's jet went off course in the South, which has fewer air defense stations than the NorthEast corridor.
Air traffic controllers more carefully monitor large passenger aircraft in crowded air corridors than small private aircraft.
Stewart's jet went off-course at 45,000 feet, 10,000 feet higher than jetliners fly.
After the first hijacking, the air traffic controllers, the FAA, and NORAD should have been prepared to respond immediately to subsequent off-course aircraft.

Layered Failures
The air defense network had, on September 11th, predictable and effective procedures for dealing with just such an attack. Yet it failed to respond in a timely manner until after the attack was over, more than an hour and a half after it had started. The official timeline describes a series of events and mode of response in which the delays are spread out into a number of areas. There are failures upon failures, in what might be described as a strategy of layered failures, or failure in depth. The failures can be divided into four types.

Failures to report: Based on the official timeline, the FAA response times for reporting the deviating aircraft were many times longer than the prescribed times.
Failures to scramble: NORAD, once notified of the off-course aircraft, failed to scramble jets from the nearest bases.
Failures to intercept: Once airborne, interceptors failed to reach their targets because they flew at small fractions of their top speeds.
Failures to redeploy: Fighters that were airborne and within interception range of the deviating aircraft were not redeployed to pursue them.
Had not there been multiple failures of each type, one or more parts of the attack could have been thwarted. NORAD had time to protect the World Trade Center even given the unbelievably late time, 8:40, when it claims to have first been notified. It had time to protect the South Tower and Washington even given its bizarre choice of bases to scramble. And it still had ample opportunity to protect both New York City and Washington even if it insisted that all interceptors fly subsonic, simply by redeploying airborne fighters.

Failures to Report
Comparing NORAD's timeline to reports from air traffic control reveals inexplicable delays in the times the FAA took to report deviating aircraft. The delays include an 18-minute delay in reporting Flight 11 and a 39-minute delay in reporting Flight 77. The delays are made all the more suspicious given that, in each case, the plane failed to respond to communications, was off-course, and had stopped emitting its IFF signal.

Failures to Scramble
No plausible explanation has been provided for failing to scramble interceptors in a timely fashion from bases within easy range to protect the September 11th targets. Fighters that were dispatched were scrambled from distant bases. Early in the attack, when Flight 11 had turned directly south toward New York City, it was obvious that New York City and the World Trade Center, and Washington D.C. would be likely targets. Yet fighters were not scrambled from the bases near the targets. They were only scrambled from distant bases. Moreover there were no redundant or backup scrambles.

New York City
Flight 11 had been flying south toward New York City from about 8:30 AM. Yet no interceptors were scrambled from nearby Fort Dix or Laguardia, or from Langley, Virginia. Numerous other bases were not ordered to scramble fighters.

Washington D.C.
No interceptors were scrambled from Andrews Air Force Base to protect the capital, at least not before the Pentagon was hit. Andrews Air Force Base had two squadrons of fighters on alert, and is only 10 miles from the Pentagon.

Failures to Intercept
Even though the interceptors were not dispatched from the most logical bases, the ones that were scrambled still had adequate time to reach their assigned planes. Why didn't they? Because they were only flying at a small fraction of their top speed. That is the conclusion implicit in NORAD's timeline.

Otis to the WTC
The first base to finally scramble interceptors was Otis in Falmouth, Massachusetts, at 8:52, about a half-hour after Flight 11 was taken over. This was already eight minutes after Flight 11 hit the North Tower, and just 9 minutes before Flight 175 hit the South Tower.

According to NORAD, at the time of the South Tower Impact the two F-15s from Otis were still 71 miles away. Otis is 153 miles east-northeast of the WTC. That means the F-15s were flying at: (153 miles - 71 miles)/(9:03 - 8:52) = 447 mph
That is around 23.8% of their top speed of 1875 mph.
At 9:11 the F-15s finally reached the World Trade Center. Their average speed for the trip was: 153/(9:11 - 8:52) = 483 mph
That is around 25.8% of their top speed.

Langley to the Pentagon
The F-16s from Langley reached the Pentagon at 9:49. It took them 19 minutes to reach Washington D.C. from Langley AFB, which is about 130 miles to the south. That means the F-16s were flying at: 130 miles/(9:49 - 9:30) = 410.5 mph
That is around 27.4% of their top speed of 1500 mph.

Andrews to the Pentagon
Andrews Air Force Base, located on the outskirts of the capital, is just over 10 miles from the Pentagon. One would have expected interceptors to be scrambled to protect the capital within a few minutes of the 8:15 loss of contact with Flight 11. Instead, no fighters from Andrews reached the Pentagon until 9:49, several minutes after the assault.

Failures to Redeploy
Fighters that were in the air when the attack started were not redeployed to intercept the deviating planes. When fighters scrambled to protect Manhattan arrived there too late, they were not redeployed to protect the capital even though they had plenty of time to reach it before the Pentagon was hit.

Long Island to Manhattan
Two F-15s flying off the coast of Long Island were not redeployed to Manhattan until after the second tower was hit. 4

WTC to the Pentagon
By the time the two F-15s from Otis reached Manhattan, the only jetliner still flying with its IFF transponder off had just made a 180-degree turn over southern Ohio and had been headed for Washington D.C. for 12 minutes. It was still 34 minutes before the Pentagon was hit. Had the fighters been sent to protect the capital, they could have traveled the approximately 300 miles in: 300 miles/1875 mph = 9.6 minutes
They even could have made it to the capital in time to protect the Pentagon if they had continued to fly at only 500 mph.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1,AP,8/12/02
2,Dallas Morning News,10/26/99
3,StandDown.net,
4,Cape Cod Times,8/21/02

911research.wtc7.net



To: cnyndwllr who wrote (40229)3/22/2004 5:38:38 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
The Wrong Target
________________________

The newly created intelligence commission is supposed to find out how we blew it so badly on Iraq. It wants to focus on the spooks, but the real culprits here are the pols

prospect.org



To: cnyndwllr who wrote (40229)5/26/2007 11:58:49 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
A Drive for Global Domination Has Put Us in Greater Danger
______________________________________________________________

By Al Gore
The Guardian UK
Thursday 24 May 2007

Moral authority, which is our greatest source of strength, has been recklessly put at risk by this wilful president.

The pursuit of "dominance" in foreign policy led the Bush administration to ignore the UN, to do serious damage to our most important alliances, to violate international law, and to cultivate the hatred and contempt of many in the rest of the world. The seductive appeal of exercising unconstrained unilateral power led this president to interpret his powers under the constitution in a way that brought to life the worst nightmare of the founders. Any policy based on domination of the rest of the world not only creates enemies for the US and recruits for al-Qaida, but also undermines the international cooperation that is essential to defeating terrorists who wish to harm and intimidate America. Instead of "dominance", we should be seeking pre-eminence in a world where nations respect us and seek to follow our leadership and adopt our values.

With the blatant failure by the government to respect the rule of law, we face a great challenge in restoring America's moral authority in the world. Our moral authority is our greatest source of strength. It is our moral authority that has been recklessly put at risk by the cheap calculations of this wilful president.

The Bush administration's objective of attempting to establish US domination over any potential adversary was what led to the hubristic, tragic miscalculation of the Iraq war - a painful misadventure marked by one disaster after another, based on one mistaken assumption after another. But the people who paid the price have been the American men and women in uniform trapped over there, and the Iraqis themselves. At the level of our relations with the rest of the world, the administration has willingly traded respect for the US in favour of fear. That was the real meaning of "shock and awe". This administration has coupled its theory of US dominance with a doctrine of pre-emptive strikes, regardless of whether the threat to be pre-empted is imminent or not.

The doctrine is presented in open-ended terms, which means that Iraq is not necessarily the last application. In fact, the very logic of the concept suggests a string of military engagements against a succession of sovereign states - Syria, Libya, North Korea, Iran - but the implication is that wherever the combination exists of an interest in weapons of mass destruction together with an ongoing role as host to, or participant in, terrorist operations, the doctrine will apply. It also means that the Iraq resolution created the precedent for pre-emptive action anywhere, whenever this or any future president decides that it is time. The risks of this doctrine stretch far beyond the disaster in Iraq. The policy affects the basic relationship between the US and the rest of the world. Article 51 of the UN charter recognises the right of any nation to defend itself, including the right to take pre-emptive action in order to deal with imminent threats.

By now, the administration may have begun to realise that national and international cohesion are indeed strategic assets. But it is a lesson long delayed and clearly not uniformly and consistently accepted by senior members of the cabinet. From the outset, the administration has operated in a manner calculated to please the portion of its base that occupies the far right, at the expense of solidarity among all Americans and between our country and our allies. The gross violations of human rights authorised by Bush at Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo Bay and dozens of other locations around the world, have seriously damaged US moral authority and delegitimised US efforts to continue promoting human rights.

President Bush offered a brief and halfhearted apology to the Arab world, but he should make amends to the American people for abandoning the Geneva conventions, and to the US forces for sending troops into harm's way while ignoring the best advice of their commanders. Perhaps most importantly, he owes an explanation to all those men and women throughout our world who have held high the ideal of the US as a shining goal to inspire their own efforts to bring about justice and the rule of law.

Most Americans have tended to give the Bush-Cheney administration the benefit of the doubt when it comes to its failure to take action in advance of 9/11 to guard against an attack. Hindsight casts a harsh light on mistakes that should have been visible at the time they were made. But now, years later, with the benefit of investigations that have been made public, it is no longer clear that the administration deserves this act of political grace from the American people. It is useful and important to examine the warnings the administration ignored - not to point the finger of blame, but to better determine how our country can avoid such mistakes in the future. When leaders are not held accountable for serious mistakes, they and their successors are more likely to repeat those mistakes.

Part of the explanation for the increased difficulty in gaining cooperation in fighting terrorism is Bush's attitude of contempt for any person, institution or nation that disagrees with him. He has exposed Americans abroad and in the US to a greater danger of attack because of his arrogance and wilfulness, in particular his insistence upon stirring up a hornet's nest in Iraq. Compounding the problem, he has regularly insulted the religion, the culture and the tradition of people in countries throughout the Muslim world.

The unpleasant truth is that Bush's failed policies in both Iraq and Afghanistan have made the world a far more dangerous place. Our friends in the Middle East, including most prominently Israel, have been placed in greater danger because of the policy blunders and sheer incompetence with which the civilian Pentagon officials have conducted this war.

We as Americans should have "known then what we know now"- not only about the invasion of Iraq but also about the climate crisis; what would happen if the levees failed to protect New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina; and about many other fateful choices that have been made on the basis of flawed, and even outright false, information. We could and should have known, because the information was readily available. We should have known years ago about the potential for a global HIV/Aids pandemic. But the larger explanation for this crisis in American decision-making is that reason itself is playing a diminished, less respected, role in our national conversation.

--------

Al Gore is a former US vice-president; this is an edited extract from his new book, The Assault on Reason, published this week by Bloomsbury.

truthout.org



To: cnyndwllr who wrote (40229)5/3/2010 1:26:06 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Drilling, Disaster, Denial
______________________________________________________________

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Op-Ed Columnist
The New York Times
May 3, 2010

It took futuristic technology to achieve one of the worst ecological disasters on record. Without such technology, after all, BP couldn’t have drilled the Deepwater Horizon well in the first place. Yet for those who remember their environmental history, the catastrophe in the gulf has a strangely old-fashioned feel, reminiscent of the events that led to the first Earth Day, four decades ago.

And maybe, just maybe, the disaster will help reverse environmentalism’s long political slide — a slide largely caused by our very success in alleviating highly visible pollution. If so, there may be a small silver lining to a very dark cloud.

Environmentalism began as a response to pollution that everyone could see. The spill in the gulf recalls the 1969 blowout that coated the beaches of Santa Barbara in oil. But 1969 was also the year the Cuyahoga River, which flows through Cleveland, caught fire. Meanwhile, Lake Erie was widely declared “dead,” its waters contaminated by algal blooms. And major U.S. cities — especially, but by no means only, Los Angeles — were often cloaked in thick, acrid smog.

It wasn’t that hard, under the circumstances, to mobilize political support for action. The Environmental Protection Agency was founded, the Clean Water Act was enacted, and America began making headway against its most visible environmental problems. Air quality improved: smog alerts in Los Angeles, which used to have more than 100 a year, have become rare. Rivers stopped burning, and some became swimmable again. And Lake Erie has come back to life, in part thanks to a ban on laundry detergents containing phosphates.

Yet there was a downside to this success story.

For one thing, as visible pollution has diminished, so has public concern over environmental issues. According to a recent Gallup survey, “Americans are now less worried about a series of environmental problems than at any time in the past 20 years.”

This decline in concern would be fine if visible pollution were all that mattered — but it isn’t, of course. In particular, greenhouse gases pose a greater threat than smog or burning rivers ever did. But it’s hard to get the public focused on a form of pollution that’s invisible, and whose effects unfold over decades rather than days.

Nor was a loss of public interest the only negative consequence of the decline in visible pollution. As the photogenic crises of the 1960s and 1970s faded from memory, conservatives began pushing back against environmental regulation.

Much of the pushback took the form of demands that environmental restrictions be weakened. But there was also an attempt to construct a narrative in which advocates of strong environmental protection were either extremists — “eco-Nazis,” according to Rush Limbaugh — or effete liberal snobs trying to impose their aesthetic preferences on ordinary Americans. (I’m sorry to say that the long effort to block construction of a wind farm off Cape Cod — which may finally be over thanks to the Obama administration — played right into that caricature.)

And let’s admit it: by and large, the anti-environmentalists have been winning the argument, at least as far as public opinion is concerned.

Then came the gulf disaster. Suddenly, environmental destruction was photogenic again.

For the most part, anti-environmentalists have been silent about the catastrophe. True, Mr. Limbaugh — arguably the Republican Party’s de facto leader — promptly suggested that environmentalists might have blown up the rig to head off further offshore drilling. But that remark probably reflected desperation: Mr. Limbaugh knows that his narrative has just taken a big hit.

For the gulf blowout is a pointed reminder that the environment won’t take care of itself, that unless carefully watched and regulated, modern technology and industry can all too easily inflict horrific damage on the planet.

Will America take heed? It depends a lot on leadership. In particular, President Obama needs to seize the moment; he needs to take on the “Drill, baby, drill” crowd, telling America that courting irreversible environmental disaster for the sake of a few barrels of oil, an amount that will hardly affect our dependence on imports, is a terrible bargain.

It’s true that Mr. Obama isn’t as well positioned to make this a teachable moment as he should be: just a month ago he announced a plan to open much of the Atlantic coast to oil exploration, a move that shocked many of his supporters and makes it hard for him to claim the moral high ground now.

But he needs to get beyond that. The catastrophe in the gulf offers an opportunity, a chance to recapture some of the spirit of the original Earth Day. And if that happens, some good may yet come of this ecological nightmare.

Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company



To: cnyndwllr who wrote (40229)5/3/2010 2:49:23 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
BP Spill Threatens Gulf of Mexico Oil & Gas Operations (Update2)

By Asjylyn Loder and Jessica Resnick-Ault

May 3 (Bloomberg) -- The growing oil slick fed by an underwater leak in a BP Plc well in the Gulf of Mexico may threaten production, shipping and refining of oil and natural gas in Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana.

Those three states account for 19 percent of U.S. refining capacity as of 2009, according to data from the U.S. Energy Department’s Energy Information Administration.

“Traders are nervous about how fast the slick could grow,” and whether it could have a significant effect on oil and natural-gas production, said Andy Lipow, president of Lipow Oil Associates LLC in Houston.

The oil spill followed an April 20 explosion on a drilling rig leased by BP Plc that killed 11 workers. The rig, owned by Transocean Ltd., sank two days later.

President Barack Obama called the leak a “massive and potentially unprecedented” disaster that could affect the economy of the Gulf states and the jobs of those who depend on the Gulf for their livelihood.

The spill could drift west toward New Orleans, hindering ships entering and leaving the Mississippi River or deliveries of cargoes to the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port, Lipow said in a telephone interview yesterday.

Fire Danger

Oil in the water could ignite another fire and the slick could emit dangerous fumes, putting offshore workers at risk, said Steve Rinehart, a spokesman for BP and the multiagency Joint Information Center coordinating the federal response.

Ships face the same potential hazards, and have the additional risk of interfering with clean-up efforts or tracking oil on their hulls into the Mississippi River, he said. So far, the Coast Guard hasn’t restricted commercial traffic, Rinehart said in a telephone interview today.

Three natural gas platforms have been affected by the explosion. One has been evacuated and production shut, another has been shut-in without being evacuated and the third was evacuated without being shut-in, he said. Rinehart wouldn’t identify the companies involved.

Approximately 6.2 million cubic feet of gas, or less than one-tenth of one percent of daily gas production, has been shut in, Rinehart said.

Operations Evacuated

Air Logistics, which has 93 helicopters operating in the Gulf of Mexico, evacuated one drilling rig and two gas platforms since the blowout, said Danny Holder, manager of the company’s North American business. He declined to say which companies the platforms belonged to.

Neither Holder nor Rinehart could clarify if they were talking about the same evacuated platforms. Rinehart said overall platform impact throughout the Gulf is being tracked by the U.S. Minerals Management Service and the Joint Information Center.

The Coast Guard has set up two clean-up stations near the entrance of the Mississippi River, the biggest waterway for U.S. commodity shipments, for vessels that move through the spill. BP will be held accountable for the cleaning cost, according to Ted Knight, executive assistant at Port of New Orleans. No commercial vessels have used them, he said.

The Southwest Pass, the main channel to the river, isn’t affected by the spill, said Chris Bonura, spokesman for the Port of New Orleans. The river has 5,000 to 6,000 ship calls a year, he said.

Ship Traffic Normal

“Everything is clear and the forecast is clear through Tuesday,” Bonura said. “We haven’t had any ships canceled or delayed.”

All operations were normal at the LOOP, a deepwater port off of Louisiana that provides tanker offloading and receives oil from underwater pipelines, said Barb Hestermann, a spokeswoman, in a telephone interview.

The LOOP handles about 10 percent of the nation’s imports and 10 percent of domestic production via pipelines in the Gulf of Mexico operated by Shell and BP, she said.

“We don’t anticipate being impacted,” Hestermann said. “We’re quite a bit west of the oil spill.”

If the slick moves east, crude deliveries could be interrupted to Chevron Corp’s 330,000-barrel-a-day Pascagoula refinery in Mississippi and to a Shell Chemicals refinery near Mobile, Alabama, Lipow said.

“We continue to supply products to our customers,” said Lloyd Avram, a Chevron spokesman.

Pascagoula Traffic Normal

Ship traffic isn’t restricted at the Port of Pascagoula, which serves Chevron’s refinery, BettyAnn White, a spokeswoman for the port, said in a telephone interview.

Royal Dutch Shell Plc operates refining joint ventures with partners at four Gulf Coast refineries. The company also has Gulf of Mexico drilling operations, and recently started production at the deepest offshore Gulf platform, Perdido.

Shell is monitoring the situation, including the “trajectory and quantity of oil released to determine any potential impact on our operations,” Ted Rolfvondenbaumen, a company spokesman, said in an e-mailed response to questions.

So far, refiners have not indicated to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve that there is any shortage of crude, Stephanie Mueller, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Energy Department, said in an e-mail today.

No Crude Shortages

“We continue to be in touch with refiners and to date they indicate there are no shortage issues,” Mueller said. “We will consider all requests for loans, which are initiated at the request of the company.”

Valero Energy Corp., the largest U.S. independent refiner, operates five refineries on the Gulf Coast.

“At this time, we’re not expecting any disruptions to supply,” Bill Day, a Valero spokesman, said in a telephone interview. “We have prepared equipment and expertise in case we’re asked to assist with cleanup along the Gulf Coast since we have oil-spill response equipment.”

There has been no effect on Marathon Oil Corp.’s platform in the Gulf of Mexico, and no disruption to its Garyville, Louisiana, refinery on the Mississippi River, said Lee Warren, a company spokeswoman.

There is no effect on production at Exxon Mobil Corp. facilities in the Gulf of Mexico, said David Eglinton, a company spokesman.

Koch Industries doesn’t comment on potential supply disruptions, said Katie Stavinoha, a spokeswoman. Flint Hills, a unit of Koch Resources LLC, operates a refinery in Corpus Christi, Texas.

Seeking Solutions

BP is seeking ways to plug the leaks 5,000 feet under the water’s surface. The company plans to drill a second well to take pressure off of the current gusher. The U.S. Coast Guard said it has been unable to get an accurate estimate of how much oil is leaking and is preparing for a worst-case scenario.

More than 2,000 people have been deployed to protect the shoreline and coastal wildlife, according to a statement from the Joint Information Center. The U.S. Coast Guard said today that the spill is five to 10 miles off the shore of Louisiana.

Surface estimates of the size of the slick and skimming efforts were hindered as the Coast Guard ordered boats and aircraft back to port because of stormy weather. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration previously estimated the well is spewing 5,000 barrels of oil a day. At that rate, the volume of the spill would exceed Alaska’s 1989 Exxon Valdez accident by the third week of June.

Investor Caution

Paul Sankey, an analyst at Deutsche Bank, said uncertainty over the size and severity of the spill should give investors caution about adding to holdings in large oil companies.

“We need some kind of limit to this spill before stepping up exposure to oil,” Sankey said today in a note to clients.

The oil spill will affect the political debate on expanding offshore drilling, Goldman Sachs said an April 30 report.

“Depending on how bad the spill proves to be and how serious the public reaction is, we believe the most likely potential implications are” slower progress approving new leases and a smaller chance of lifting the moratorium on drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, Goldman Sachs said.

-To contact the reporters on this story: Asjylyn Loder in New York at aloder@bloomberg.net.; Jessica Resnick-Ault in New York at jresnickault@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: May 3, 2010 10:37 EDT



To: cnyndwllr who wrote (40229)5/4/2010 2:58:23 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
This was posted on The Oil Drum discussion board in the last 24 hours...

A forward on political action...

There is no verbal hyperbole sufficient to express the magnitude of
the environmental catastrophe now known as Deepwater Horizon. It is
nothing short of an Armageddon of Oil. Assuming we even survive this
one, we must immediately mobilize a crash program for truly renewable
alternative energy resources.

Action Page: peaceteam.net

Despite the gusher of lies we've heard trying to minimize the
planetary scale disaster now in progress in the Gulf, the terrifying
truth is available for those who will hear it. First they told us the
"leak" was only 1,000 barrels a day, when in fact it is at least 5
times that much. Of course it's hard to pretend an oil slick the size
of New Jersey isn't there. And it could easily blow out to 50,000
barrels a day (2,000,000 gallons) in a heartbeat, according to a "not
for public" NOAA emergency report.

This is not just a leak, it's a monster underwater oil geyser, under
upwards of 100,000 pounds per square inch of pressure, enough force
to lift 50 tons with your thumb. And unless it is somehow stopped, it
may spell the end of all marine life on the planet. We are not
talking about just one Exxon Valdez size tanker spill, we are talking
about one of largest oil fields ever discovered completely venting
its entire contents into the ocean, thousands and thousands of
tankers. It's THAT cataclysmic.

But assuming we miraculously dodge the literal end of the world this
one time, we need to finally do what should have been done 20 years
ago, and throw everything we've got into a crash program for
alternative renewable energy, and stop burning fossil fuels before
they kill us all.

Action Page: peaceteam.net

And after you submit the action page, please consider picking up one
of the timely "350 ppm or catastrophe" caps from the return page,
emphasizing the urgency of immediately reducing worldwide carbon
dioxide emissions. It is not as if we have not had every warning
already. Or you can get one directly from this page.

350 PPM Or Catastrophe Caps:
peaceteam.net

It should have been done twenty years ago. Stop all new oil
exploration. Forget about insanely expensive nuclear plants. End
immediately the lunatic military occupations that have cost us
trillions. And put everything we've got into an all out push to
develop and bring on line truly renewable alternative energy sources.

The burning of fossil fuels was already slowly killing the planet,
causing inexorable rises in greenhouse gas levels that have done
nothing but accelerate, despite the rampant disinformation campaign
waged by oil industry toadies pretending to be real scientists. Now
unless we find some way to stop the venting of the entire contents of
a gigantic oil field in the Gulf, under 100,000 pounds per square
inch of pressure, we may be looking at the end of all marine life on
this planet. We have literally punched a hole into hell.

Please add whatever personal comments of your own you like, and
emphasize it is time for our politicians to stop serving only oil
company and nuclear lobbyists paying them off to continue to pursue
bad energy policy, but to start doing something to save our country
and our world instead.

And here is the Facebook link for the Crash Alternative Energy action
page further above.

[Facebook] Action Page:
apps.facebook.com



To: cnyndwllr who wrote (40229)5/4/2010 3:10:03 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 89467
 
Mother of all gushers could kill Earth's oceans

pesn.com



To: cnyndwllr who wrote (40229)5/4/2010 4:15:56 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Here's a potential explanation of what may have happened in the Gulf -- from an industry dude on The Oil Drum discussion board...

theoildrum.com

by Mad Dog on May 4, 2010 - 3:41pm

I received the same info. Today I got a slightly different version but very similar which I've attached:

I continue getting calls asking what happened on this problem so here’s a response from a friend in the oil business with possible inside info on the blowout. Please keep in mind this is an “UNOFFICIAL” report so this may or may not be factual. However, the scenario as written makes reasonable sense as far as I am concerned. The focus needs to be on well control now and not speculation as to what may or may not have happened. BP, the MMS and most likely a third party will certainly provide a very in-depth investigation which will be the official report. Having said that I would certainly not look forward to a copy of that report as it will be furnished only to those in need due to the possible liabilities of the findings.

Details as conveyed to me:

This well had been giving some problems all the way down and was a big discovery. Big pressure, 16ppg+ mud weight. They ran a long string of 7" production casing - not a liner, the confusion arising from the fact that all casing strings on a floating rig are run on drill pipe and hung off on the wellhead on the sea floor, like a "liner". They cemented this casing with lightweight cement containing nitrogen because they were having lost circulation in between the well kicking all the way down.

The calculations and the execution of this kind of a cement job are complex, in order that you neither let the well flow from too little hydrostatic pressure nor break it down and lose the fluid and cement from too much hydrostatic. But you gotta believe BP had 8 or 10 of their best double and triple checking everything.

On the outside of the top joint of casing is a seal assembly - "packoff" - that sets inside the subsea wellhead and seals. This was set and tested to 10,000 psi, OK. Remember they are doing all this from the surface 5,000 feet away. The technology is fascinating, like going to the moon or fishing out the Russian sub, or killing all the fires in Kuwait in 14 months instead of 5 years. We never have had an accident like this before so hubris, the folie d'grandeur, sort of takes over. BP were the leaders in all this stretching the envelope all over the world in deep water.

This was the end of the well until testing was to begin at a later time, so a temporary "bridge plug" was run in on drill pipe to set somewhere near the top of the well below 5,000 ft. This is the second barrier, you always have to have 2, and the casing was the first one. It is not know if this was actually set or not. At the same time they took the 16+ ppg mud out of the riser and replaced it with sea water so that they could pull the riser, lay it down, and move off.

When they did this, they of course took away all the hydrostatic on the well. But this was OK, normal, since the well was plugged both on the inside with the casing and on the outside with the tested packoff. But something turned loose all of a sudden, and the conventional wisdom would be the packoff on the outside of the casing.

Gas and oil rushed up the riser; there was little wind, and a gas cloud got all over the rig. When the main inductions of the engines got a whiff, they ran away and exploded. Blew them right off the rig. This set everything on fire. A similar explosion in the mud pit / mud pump room blew the mud pumps overboard. Another in the mud sack storage room, sited most unfortunately right next to the living quarters, took out all the interior walls where everyone was hanging out having - I am not making this up - a party to celebrate 7 years of accident free work on this rig. 7 BP bigwigs were there visiting from town.

In this sense they were lucky that the only ones lost were the 9 rig crew on the rig floor and 2 mud engineers down on the pits. The furniture and walls trapped some and broke some bones but they all managed to get in the lifeboats with assistance from the others.

The safety shut ins on the BOP were tripped but it is not clear why they did not work. This system has 4 way redundancy; 2 separate hydraulic systems and 2 separate electric systems should be able to operate any of the functions on the stack. They are tested every 14 days, all of them. (there is also a stab on the stack so that an ROV can plug in and operate it, but now it is too late because things are damaged).

The well is flowing through the BOP stack, probably around the outside of the 7" casing. As reported elsewhere, none of the "rams", those being the valves that are suppose to close around the drill pipe and / or shear it right in two and seal on the open hole, are sealing. Up the riser and out some holes in it where it is kinked. A little is coming out of the drill pipe too which is sticking out of the top of the riser and laid out on the ocean floor. The volumes as reported by the media are not correct but who knows exactly how much is coming?

2 relief wells will be drilled but it will take at least 60 days to kill it that way. There is a "deep sea intervention vessel" on the way, I don't know if that means a submarine or not, one would think this is too deep for subs, and it will have special cutting tools to try to cut off the very bottom of the riser on top of the BOP. The area is remarkably free from debris. The rig "Enterprise" is standing by with another BOP stack and a special connector to set down on top of the original one and then close. You saw this sort of thing in Red Adair movies and in Kuwait, a new stack dangling from a crane is just dropped down on the well after all the junk is removed. But that is not 5,000 ft underwater.

One unknown is if they get a new stack on it and close it, will the bitch broach around the outside of all the casing??

In order for a disaster of this magnitude to happen, more than one thing has to go wrong, or fail. First, a shitty cement job. The wellhead packoff / seal assembly, while designed to hold the pressure, is just a backup. And finally, the ability to close the well in with the BOP somehow went away.

A bad deal for the industry, for sure. Forget about California and Florida. Normal operations in the Gulf will be overregulated like the N. Sea. And so on.



To: cnyndwllr who wrote (40229)5/4/2010 4:40:38 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Gulf Gusher -- how bad can it be?

dailykos.com



To: cnyndwllr who wrote (40229)5/4/2010 5:39:45 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
As oil leaks into the Gulf, pondering the worst-case scenario

washingtonpost.com

By Joel Achenbach
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 4, 2010; 4:04 PM

The urgent question in the polluted Gulf of Mexico: How bad will this get?

No one knows, but with each day, as the leaking oil well a mile deep remains uncapped, industry observers and scientists are crafting scenarios that range from bad to worse to worst, with some forecasting a calamity of historic proportions.

Scientists said Tuesday that the "loop current" of the gulf, a powerful conveyor belt that extends some 3,000 feet deep, will almost surely take the oil down through the eastern gulf to the Florida Straits between the Keys and Cuba. The oil would then ride the Florida Current directly into the Gulf Stream, which could carry it up the East Coast to Cape Hatteras and beyond, the scientists said.

"I think it is inevitable at this stage because we're seeing it creep slowly toward the loop current," said University of Miami oceanographer Nick Shay. "If this thing keeps going for two to three months, it'll be catastrophic."

Once the oil is caught up in the current it will travel in deep water for about one week until it reaches the Florida Straits, said Robert Weisberg, a University of South Florida oceanographer. In another week or so it would be near Miami and then in another week at the Outer Banks, he said. Local winds will determine if the oil slathers any beaches, he said.

He said a filament of the current is currently drifting north toward the oil slick.

"The loop current is actually going to the oil versus the oil going to the loop current," Weisberg said.

The oil spill crisis is shot through with unknowns, rough estimates, murky figures. The oil slick itself has been elusive and enigmatic, lurking offshore in the gulf for many days as if choosing its moment of attack. In rough, churning seas, the visible slick at the surface has shrunk in recent days.

The oil by its nature is hard to peg: It's not a single, coherent blob, but rather an irregular, amoeba-shaped expanse that in some places forms a thin sheen on the water and in other locations is braided and stretched into tendrils of thick, orange-brown gunk. There may be a large plume of oil in the water column, unseen. A BP executive said Monday that the company is treating the oil at the gulf bottom with dispersant chemicals sprayed from a wand on a robotic submarine. Oil can vary from one well to another, and oil from very deep wells can be thicker and heavier than that from shallow wells.

No one is sure how much oil is leaking. The Coast Guard initially said there was no leak, then said there was a leak of 1,000 barrels a day, then upped the estimate to 5,000 barrels. Adm. Thad W. Allen, the leader of the federal response and commandant of the Coast Guard, has cautioned against putting too much credence in any estimate.

Ian MacDonald, a professor of oceanography at Florida State University, has calculated the amount of oil based on satellite imagery and established models of oil dispersion and believes that the quantity is already greater than that dumped in Alaska by the Exxon Valdez in 1989. He estimated last week that 9 million gallons of oil are already in the water, compared with 10.8 million gallons in the Valdez disaster.

But he acknowledged that the real amount could be different. In any case, he said, the comparison to the Valdez spill is misguided, because the coastal gulf is far more economically significant than the sparsely populated coast of Alaska.

Despite his bleak estimate of the spill, MacDonald said the rough weather has been a blessing. In heavy surf, the oil has been breaking up, and toxic volatiles in the oil have been evaporating.

"It chews up the oil; some of it sinks," MacDonald said.

The good news ends there.

"What remains forms what's called mousse, which is like chocolate mousse. It's an emulsion, which is an emulsion of oil, air and water, in a thick, gelatinous layer, and that's nasty stuff," he said.

The crisis began April 20 with a tragic explosion and fire on the Deepwater Horizon, a huge rig owned by Transocean and leased by BP. Eleven workers died. The South Korean-built rig, insured for $560 million, sank two days later; the riser, the pipe leading to the rig, collapsed. Three leaks have developed, the largest being at the end of the drill pipe that extends from the end of the riser.

Robotic submarines have tried to activate a structure called a blowout preventer that sits atop the wellhead and has multiple tools for clamping the flow of oil in an emergency. So far those efforts have failed.

"It's really, really devastating," said Greg McCormack, director of the Petroleum Extension Service at the University of Texas. "On the political front, are we going to be allowed to drill in the deep water again? That's going to be more devastating to society than to the industry. We're going to have much higher oil prices because of that."

Few people are more apocalyptic than Matt Simmons, retired chairman of the energy investment banking firm Simmons & Company International, and a veteran of 41 years in the industry. Simmons, who will speak at the Offshore Technology Conference in Houston this week, has been famous in recent years for warning that the industry is running out of oil. Now he sees a disaster on an epic scale as the pressurized subterranean reservoir known as the Macondo field, estimated to hold 50 million barrels of oil, continues to vent into the gulf.

"It really is a catastrophe," Simmons said. "I don't think they're going to be able to put the leak out until the reservoir depletes. It's just too technically challenging."

He said BP's cleanup costs could mean financial ruin for the company.

"They're going to have to clean up the Gulf of Mexico," he said.



To: cnyndwllr who wrote (40229)5/20/2010 8:26:09 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
who really is responsible for the historic BP oil spill in the Gulf...??

biologicaldiversity.org

<<...WHO IS RESPONSIBLE?

1. The Bush administration. The oil-drilling lease was sold to BP by the George W. Bush administration in 2007 under its 2007-2012 Five-Year Offshore Oil Drilling Plan.

2. The Obama administration. The actual exploratory drilling was approved by the Obama administration on April 6, 2009.

Within days of the 2009 approval, the Center for Biological Diversity and its allies won a court order vacating the Bush Five-Year Offshore Drilling Plan. Rather than use the court order as a timeout on new offshore oil drilling to develop a new plan, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar filed a special motion with the court to exempt approved oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. He specifically identified BP’s operation as one that should be released from the vacature.

In July 2009, the court agreed to Salazar’s request, releasing all approved offshore oil drilling — including the BP operation — from the vacature.

3. BP. BP has the worst environmental and safety record of any oil company operating in America. Even after the 2005 Texas City Refinery blast that killed 15 people, BP has continued to rack up safety violations. Despite the dangerous nature of all offshore oil drilling and BP’s own egregious safety record, BP’s exploration plan downplayed possibility of a spill, repeatedly asserting that it was unlikely or virtually impossible. Amazingly, Secretary Salazar’s Minerals and Management Service approved BP’s exploration plan without any consideration of the environmental consequences of an oil spill.

4. The oil industry and its political backers. The Gulf crisis shows that the glib safety claims of the oil industry cannot be trusted.

There’s no way to guarantee that a massive oil rupture will not occur. And if one does occur, there’s no way to contain it quickly and fully enough to avert unacceptable environmental damage. Ultimately, it’s the inherently dangerous nature of offshore oil drilling that led to this disaster. That’s why the Center is calling on the Obama administration to 1) revoke its 2010 decision to open up Alaska, the eastern Gulf of Mexico, and the Atlantic Coast to offshore oil drilling, 2) cancel Shell Oil’s permit to start oil drilling in Alaska’s Chukchi Sea immediately, 3) not permit any new offshore drilling anywhere, and 4) transition the nation away from fossil fuel so the pressure to continue offshore oil drilling dissipates...>>