[Shadow]

Originally Posted by als2052

The dispersants work much dishwashing liquid...they break up oil and settle to bottom which is very detrimental to sealife and plants...Like Shadow says, our only hope is the weather...Lets pray for no TS's or hurrican until this mess is over with...Marine biologist cannot say at this time what is worse, the oil itself or the dispersants proposed...Lets all keep our fingers crossed...what else could possibly happen now?

als-Thanks for handling that
I've been out most of the day and just got back.

He's absolutely correct:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/bp-...ill-2010-05-04

The technique is intended to efficiently mix the oil and dispersant, breaking up and dispersing accumulations of oil and allowing it to degrade naturally and reduce surface impact," BP added.

In coming days, the oil major plans to lower a 40-foot containment canopy over the leak site and channel the flow of oil to a specialized vessel.

Dispersants, which act like soap breaking up grease, are made by Nalco Holding Co. /quotes/comstock/13*!nlc/quotes/nls/nlc (NLC 25.54, +0.08, +0.31%) , a chemical firm that ranks as one of the many publicly traded companies affected by the oil spill.

"We have provided [to BP] everything in our inventory," Nalco Chief Executive Erik Fyrwald said in an interview Monday. "We are ramping up production."

Separately, the company said the sale of dispersants has not yet had a material financial impact, but Nalco added: "It's impossible to predict at this time how long this incident will last or the magnitude of the response needed."

(*Hint-Now would be good time to invest in Nalco and other suppliers*)

Response crews used a remotely operated underwater vehicle to dispense subsurface dispersant at a rate of 9 gallons per minute -- "with encouraging results so far," according to BP.

Nearly 3,000 gallons of subsea dispersants were applied. Meanwhile, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is evaluating the tests to determine the feasibility of continued use of subsea dispersants.

In total, more than 156,000 gallons of dispersant have been deployed; an additional 230,000 gallons are available.

A Nalco spokesman declined to say how much the dispersants cost.

Environmental lawyer Alfred Kuffler of Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads in Philadelphia said the legal implications of using the dispersants are difficult to determine.

(sure-lets let the frealing lawyers in on it!)

Some of the solvents and other chemicals in the dispersants are toxic, but the materials are widely seen as a lesser evil than allowing oil to reach the shore. "BP is a target, or anybody who may have a liability in the case, including the government," Kuffler commented.

A fisherman may be able to attempt to recover damages if dispersants are proven to hurt his catch, but oil companies in the spill may be able to blame the government for using the chemicals, since the U.S. Coast Guard holds a lead position in the operation, he elaborated.

(This will play a HUGE part in coming lawsuits!)

Kuffler said he's not aware of any major lawsuits over exposure to oil-spill dispersants, but cleanup crews at the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989 sued for injuries related to handling crude.

My additions are in red above.

Although no matter what we do at this point, somebody and something is going to get hurt Marinelife, vegitation, coral, all are going to suffer as will fishing and certain forms of recreation.

However, coagulating the oil, dropping it to the bottom to "eventually" bio degrade naturally, will likely be much less financially devastating to less people than having it come ashore in huge amounts. It may also make clean up a bit easier. The environmental impact can be limited (we in damage control now, not prevention), and the impact to land based operations can be controlled.

As to the attorneys', any time they get involved, it's usually for the $$$$ (cHA-cHING) > They tend to have thier own best interest at heart while appearing to "care" for the "victims"(sorry-a bit too jaundiced. Guess I've spent too much time around some real slime balls!)

Anyway, the company can only be held financially liable for a certain amount (I forget now but the #'s out there). It's a fairly low number....UNLESS....they can be shown NEGLIGENT~

At that time, all bets are off.

That's the angle the Feds are working and you can bet your arse that's what the attorney's will be looking at

The fact is, things like this, regarless of the sophisitcation of the rig, are going to happen! It'll happen again.
If we want to depend on fossil fuel sources, then we MUST have better contingency plans in place to deal with them!!!

The fact is, BP waited too long trying to damage control the damned media!

Quicker work and quicker response would have necessarily had a different impact at least short term.

Now, if the weather cooperates, they may be able to get a grip on this mess.

Originally Posted by Rich Z

How about a Gulf of Mexico completely engulfed in flames?

Suppose they CAN'T shut off the flow of crude coming out of the ground? How much is really down there? Seriously they are proposing a fix that will take three months to implement. How many gallons will be in the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic ocean by that time?

As for BP paying the bill, yeah right. Just how much do you think a REALISTIC bill for that will wind up being? You can bet that right now they have their attorneys scrambling like crazy to try to hide and shield their assets.

Rich-The fiscal liability will hinge on "negligence." What I can guarantee you the attorney's for BP ( and the contract company) are doing at present, is turning this nightmare every which way they can, looking for a liability loophole....a scape goat if you will.
Frankly, if they weren't, and they were my counsel, I'd fire them on the spot!

As for the time it takes to close it off, it is what it is. NOt much you can do about it

The plan to drill and "block" the flow is probably the quickest and best option if the ROV's can't cut/cap it. Not a lot of choices here.

How many gallons? A hell of a lot!!!

As for setting it afire... give me a lighter and stand back

I'd rather see the oil burned off the water than hit the shore. Again, we're talking damage control, not prevention....we're way past all that chit!