Read Oliver Houck's article in July 12, 2010 issue of The Nation,
http://www.thenation.com/article/36610/who-will-pay-fix-louisiana

Everyone in the country should read it for its discussion of the disgraceful complicities among Louisiana politicians and the oil industry as well as for its knowledgeable analysis of ecological effects of longstanding oil activity in the region.  Houck is well-versed in the economics of this situation as well.  Be warned--it will turn your stomach, anger you, and (it is to be hoped) rouse you to action.  If you are in Louisiana and make your living on oil, please read carefully.

Professor Houck is the premier authority on this subject in the country.  He has written a number of more detailed and equally disturbing analyses published in legal journals and elsewhere.  Any one of them is well worth your time.  To see Houck's publications, go to his faculty homepage:
http://www.law.tulane.edu/tlsfaculty/profiles.aspx?id=430&vpubcat=Books#menu

Today local officials in the Gulf region are expressing concern that BP will pull back to do the minimum it has to once the well is sealed.  They are concerned that the clean up effort will be minimized.

No doubt they are right.  Why?

Anyone who is counting on BP to "do the right thing" in the Gulf doesn't understand how capitalism works.  BP management is beholden to BP shareholders:  anything the managers do with the shareholders money--UNLESS MANDATED BY LAW--is up to the shareholders.  You can be certain that BP will not spend one penny more than required by law to clean up the Gulf.  NOT ONE PENNY--because if they did so, their shareholders would sue them. 

And who are these shareholders?  People from all over the world who have no (financial) incentive to care what happens in the Gulf except as it affects their bottom line. 

If the idea of BP "doing the right thing" on its own sounds familiar, that's because it is the mantra of corporate welfarists in this country.  Don't force them to do the right thing, don't make it law:  count on them to police themselves.  Uh-huh.

You want BP and any other corporation to do the right thing?  Make Congress accountable.  Make your voice heard and your vote count.  GET INVOLVED.   The problems we have in this country--financial debacle, unregulated energy companies, deficits--are due to the lack of regulation of corporations.  

It starts with campaign finance reform and the populace--on the right and on the left--standing up for people over corporations. 

If you buy the ideology that regulation keeps corporations from making money, you're part of the problem. Every good economist will tell you that the markets thrive when there is more certainty:  regulations provide a more secure environment.

From McClatchy:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20100714/sc_mcclatchy/3566425

For those of you following the spill, there are some resources on this site, and links to others.  Gulf Restoration Network has been working in the Gulf Region for years, linking a number of nonprofit and research organizations.  Not the only source you should be looking at, but an interesting one.  Check out the YouTube videos.

http://www.healthygulf.org/blog/

Check it out
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20100629/pl_mcclatchy/3552432

This ought to be the nail in the coffin for the rightwing meme about the Jones Act in the Gulf.  Of course, knowing the level of idiocy that's out there, I'm sure we will continue to be treated to more of this nonsense even on this site.  Thank you McClatchy for putting this all together. 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20100630/pl_mcclatchy/3553364

Jamie Friedlander's  terrific analysis of Judge Feldman's rulings came under attack this past week from bloggers who thought he was unfair to Feldman.  Here is the latest on Feldman's oil investments--conflict of interest?  You be the judge.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100625/ts_ynews/ynews_ts2856

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100617/cm_csm/307466

Those of you who follow my infrequent blogs know that I ask for help from the community in addressing problems.  Today I am asking for information about a movement to turn every building into a power station.   I know that for about $200 one can build effective solar/wind power units for residences (see http://best-honest-reviews.com/renewableenergy.html, click on Earth4Energy). 

So first question--for science/engineer/analyst types:  does it make sense to push for every house to have a solar/wind unit to return power to the grid (or simply use the power instead of grid power--[A caveat:  the technology at Earth4Energy can be used to directly power appliances, but if you want to send energy back to the grid, you will need a licensed electrician to connect to your breaker panel.])?  What would be the savings involved in terms of oil usage or coal usage, for example?  Does anyone know of an analysis of this type already out there? 

Second question for social activist types:   it seems to me that this could be a great "think global/act local" activity for volunteer organization, nonprofits, churches/syngagogues/ashrams/mosques, community centers, etc.,  especially now that the oil spill has provided new impetus for such efforts.  If the analysis for question #1 above is promising, what would be the most effective way to get such a movement off the ground?  Aren't people hungry for something that they can do to keep from feeling so helpless in the face of our energy consumption and beholdenness to multinational energy corporations?  What about an EHAPS or  "build your own power station" national day?    Some of us have good national and local media connections and lots of us have eco-organization connections we could use to get the word out.  Those  involved with efforts like Susan G. Komen and AIDS awareness efforts could be helpful here.  Every community that has to rebuild after a tornado or flood should be targeted for contributions to put a solar/wind unit on each rebuilt home, right? Earth4Energy lets you take their technology, build solar units and re-sell them at a profit--a great fundraising opportunity.
 

  

The following is an anonymous posting from an engineer who works on deepwater oil rigs.  It has a lot of technical stuff, but each section has a bottom line--BP made bad decisions, knowing that they were flouting industry standards.  The last part sums it all up:

An anonymous commentator on DW Horizon tragedy. 

The following is my theory on what happened on April 20th.  I have listed factual information to the best of my knowledge, and base this theory on 33 years of experience working on these rigs, with 16 years working as a consultant worldwide. The contractor (Transocean in this case) typically does not do anything without direction and approval from the operator (BP in this case). I believe that there was nothing wrong with the BOP, or the conduct of the crews prior to the catastrophic failure. If any operator drills a similar well using the same flawed casing and cement program, the same results will be very possible.
 
The well was drilled to 18,360 ft and final mud weight was 14.0 ppg. The last casing long string was 16 inch and there were 3 drilling liners (13 5/8", 11 7/8" and 9 7/8") with 3 liner tops. A 9-7/8" X 7" tapered casing long string was run to TD. The bottom section of casing was cemented with only 51 barrels of light weight cement containing nitrogen, a tricky procedure, especially in these conditions.
 
The casing seal assembly was set in wellhead and pressure tested from above to 10,000 psi. Reportedly, a lock down ring was not run on the casing hanger. The casing string was pressure tested against the Shear rams, only 16.5 hours after primary cement job. A negative test on the wellhead packoff was performed.
The rig crew was likely lead to believe that the well was successfully cemented, capped and secured. Normally a responsible operator will not remove the primary source of well control (14.0 ppg drilling mud) until such conditions were met. However, the crews were given the order to displace heavy mud from riser with seawater, prior to setting the final cement plugs. They were pumping seawater down the drill string and sending returns overboard to workboat, so there was limited ability to directly detect influx via pit level. This is the fastest way to perform the displacement operation, and the method was likely directed and certainly approved by operator. There was a sudden casing failure during this displacement procedure that allowed the well to unload, with ignition of gas and oil. Evidently, the crew was able to get the diverter closed based on initial photographs, showing flames coming out of diverter lines.

It is likely that pressure built up between the 9 7/8" and 16" casing under the casing hanger, due to gas migration from the pay zone. Based on reported mud weight, the reservoir formation pressure is in excess of 13,000 psi. The pressure building in the cross sectional area below the casing hanger would have increased casing tension and caused casing to collapse and part (rapidly separate) at a connection, probably a joint or two (50' or 90') below wellhead. The collapse pressure for 62.8 ppf 9-7/8" casing is +/- 10,300 psi. However, the collapse resistance of casing is considerably reduced in presence of axial stress (i.e. tension). Engineers - see formula from API bulletin 5C3, section 2.1.5 and run the math. The well then came in violently through parted casing and caused the blowout. Without lockdown ring on hanger, the casing hanger and joint(s) were slingshot up into BOP. That would explain why all components of the BOP are unable to seal or shear. The parted casing section remains across all BOP ram cavities and probably all the way up into the riser.

Shortcut #1: Running a tapered long string rather than a liner with 9-7/8" liner top packer, followed by tieback string and pumping heavy cement all the way to seabed. Perhaps the original permits for this casing program were based on a planned appraisal well, and changed midstream to a producer well, then hastily approved by the complacent or under-staffed MMS. This tragic shortcut may have saved about 1.5 rig days.

Shortcut #2: Insufficient time was used to cure the mud losses prior to cementing the open hole reservoir section, depending instead on using lightweight cement to prevent losses to the formation.

Shortcut #3: The nitrified primary cement job. This is difficult to pull off, even under ideal conditions.

Shortcut #4: Hanger without lock ring may have used due to the previously unplanned long string, and to avoid waiting for hanger with lock ring to be fabricated or prepared.
.
Shortcut #5: No cement evaluation logs were performed after a job with known high calculated risk (mud losses to formation). This shortcut may have saved 8 hours of rig time.

Shortcut #6: Pressure testing casing less than 24 hours after cement in place can expand the casing before the cement is fully set. This shortcut can "crack" the cement and create a micro annulus which will allow gas migration.

Shortcut #7: Displacing 14 ppg mud from 8000 ft MDRT with 8.7 ppg seawater, less than 20 hours after primary cement is in place. How many tested and proven barriers can you count? I count zero satisfactory barriers. Industry standards dictate that at least two tested (to maximum anticipated pressure) barriers are in place prior to removing the primary source of well control (weighted mud or brine).

As someone who is subjected to the open primary system, I have come to understand that there are a variety of ways in which "open" primaries are conducted.  I don't have specific information about the SC process, but I think that the results are analyzable if we know the protocols.  So, for example, if a list of candidates of all parties is presented to the voters and each voter gets to vote for only one person in that list, then by analyzing the results from the rest of the vote (assuming there was more than one slate voted on that day), one ought to be able to get a sense of whether a large number of Republicans voted for Democratic candidates. 

And if a large number of Republicans voted for Democratic candidates, then one would want to know how they knew to vote for a Democrat in this election.  There should be some record, scuttlebutt, or paperwork somewhere that testifies to a concerted effort to get Republicans to vote Democratic.  In Louisiana the newspapers often report on such efforts.  Perhaps this is the usual strategy in SC, something that Republicans are brought up since childhood to do in that state.

In any event, it would be nice if someone would do some actual investigating down there instead of just speculating.  And surely someone can conduct the election analysis:  we do it all the time down here.

Those of you who are scientifically adept ought to post what you know about the climate changes that may result from the BP Gulf disaster.  Recall that one of the nightmare scenarios of global warming is that the Gulf currents may cease to operate because the salinity density gradient changes as fresh water from the poles enters the world's oceans.  The cessation of the Gulf currents, which control most of the weather in Europe, has the potential to destroy Europe's temperate climate.  What happens when massive amounts of oil affect the density of the Gulf's liquid mass and its absorption of heat from the atmosphere? 

Some science sites are reporting that the oil is affecting evaporation in the Gulf already, blocking cloud formation and rain production.   Has anyone read any analyses of these larger effects (as if the local disaster in the Gulf region isn't bad enough)?

Instead of talking about stopping the health care bill because it doesn't contain what we want (Arianna et al.) let's start talking about how to take our Congress back from special interests and how we can kill the filibuster (a holdover from the Southern slave state days) that makes a mockery of (non super) majority democracy.  We cannot expect the Congress to do either of these things.  We have to get campaign finance reform -- that is the only way the game is going to change.

So national referendum, constitutional amendment, whatever.  Let's get going on this.  Now is the time--and with the internet and mass communication we stand a chance of getting this done (remember how impossible it was to get the ERA passed? well, times have changed).  Without it, I think we are doomed to this do-nothing good Congress. 

Campaign finance reform now!  Forget party politics.  This is more important for us now than climate change bills (that will do little because the legislators won't let it) or any other agenda item.  This is the agenda.  Take back the power.

Yesterday I received a call from the DSCC asking for money.  Usually I just say that I support individual campaigns and hang up.  But it was the day of the House vote and I was on edge.  So I started berating the DSCC (with due apologies to the guy on the phone, who wasn't at fault).  I said unless the DSCC makes clear to the Senators who refuse to vote for the reform bill that they will not receive a dime from the DSCC and no support from the President in their next election, I couldn't give any money to them.  

Mary Landrieu is one of our senators.  She is smart:  she knows that she is in a position to extract promises in exchange for her vote.  But no matter what promises she extracts, she's not going to vote with the Democrats.  She is owned by the oil companies and the insurance companies.  It is probably a political reality for her that she would lose votes if she voted for the bill.  ( I don't know if she would lose the campaign funds from the oil companies.) But why should I give money to an organization that will turn money over to her just because she puts a D after her name and then continues to vote R?  The DSCC rep told me that we have to work to retain our majority.  I said we don't have a majority in the Senate except in name only.  When I asked who the new head of the DSCC was, he didn't know!  That's how visible the leadership in the Democratic party is right now. 

Maybe Rahm Emmanuel is putting the squeeze on the Dem Senators:  I hope so.  But we need everyone in the party to put the squeeze on them.  What can we do?

  Let's start by telling the DSCC that we won't give them any money unless they align their campaign funding with the party's agenda.

During the Bush years, when anti-science fervor was at its peak (or so I thought) I dreamed of a day when we could say to these ignoramuses, okay, you think that the Bible is the last word?  Then you are not allowed to take advantage of any invention or advance since that time.  You can eat roast goat, but you can't get it delivered by refrigerated truck to a grocery store.  You can't drive a car, use a lightbulb, get your water from a tap.  You can't use any modern medicine.

Now my dream seems within grasp.  Let's create a  single-payer, public insurance system that everyone EXCEPT Republicans  and their shills can use.  That's it.  I'm no longer for universal health care.  I'm for health care for everyone except anyone who stands in our way.  Go on record as against the public option (I'm talking to you, Landrieu) and you don't get to use any publicly funded medical services.  NOT ANY.  You don't get to go to a hospital that uses federal funds.   You don't get to use a doctor who took out student loans from the government.  You don't get to use any medications developed by scientists who took money from the government. 

Please make my dream come true.