13 Comments

  1. Nice. No easy solution… and the Right wants this over solar and wind power? Hey, Sarah Palin: How’s that “drill, baby, drill-y” thing workin’ out for ya?

  2. Dome seems to be the way to go whilst a more permanent solution is worked on. Is this from the Al Jazeera network (logo at bottom left)?

  3. I had a chuckle because I heard a report about how much it would cost to fix the “problem.” I stopped laughing when they talked about tax payers fitting a large part of the bill. I said “you’re joking right?”

    The cat just looked at me.

    1. From what I’ve read it’s a mixed thing: “each responsible party for a vessel or a facility from which oil is discharged” is responsible for cleanup and containment costs (Oil Pollution Act, 1990), so the companies should be covering that fully – though I’m not sure of the difinitions of cleanup. Liability for additional costs is limited, though – capped at 75 million for the rig operators plus a billion from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. And given that that should cover everything from lost business due to a tourism slump to destruction of wetlands to destroyed fisheries to – well, everything – it may not even come close.

  4. I love how the third solution involves drilling more wells.

    It’s like stopping the bleeding in someone with a chest wound by shooting them in the leg.

  5. So what’s the problem they’re having with the emergency shut-off valve? Seems they should have thought that one out a little more.

    I vote to use the bio-dome as long as Pauly Shore isn’t involved (“catCHin’ oillll!”).

  6. Seems like they could cut off the “riser” pipe right at the well-head, making the three leaks along the pipe into one leak right at the head. Then, they could use a much smaller, cheaper, and easily placed dome right over the well head itself.

Comments are closed.