See other National News Articles
Title: U.S. COAST GUARD THREATENED CBS NEWS CREW WITH ARREST FOR FILMING OIL SPILL
Source:
CBS News
URL Source: http://cryptogon.com/?p=15552
Published: May 20, 2010
Author: CBS News
Post Date: 2010-05-20 08:18:28 by randge
Keywords: BP, oil spill, Gulf of Mexico, Coast Guard
Views: 798
Comments: 44
Via: CBS: Kelly Cobiella reports that a CBS News team was threatened with arrest by Coast Guard officials in the Gulf of Mexico who said they were acting under the authority of British Petroleum. Poster Comment: The stinkin' police state attitude we currently suffer under is being imposed by fedcops not only on behalf of the state, but now at the behest of foreign corporations.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 32.
#1. To: randge (#0)
deleted
So it seems from what we see here that CBS turns off its video equipment and meekly submits to BP's muscle in the person of our paid public servants. What's with the newshounds of our courageous fifth estate? Catch a case of chickenshit or what?? A picture from NASA showing the spill two days ago:
deleted
I can only venture a guess. It might be because, in the areas remote from the source of the spill, there's not enough on the surface to maintain a burn. I don't think a "sheen" of a few thousands of an inch on the surface could even be lit. Close to the action, where there might be enough on the surface to flare off, it could well present a hazard to operations. My five cents on this.
Randge: I have sent a more definitive query about the "sheen" of oil and any hazards to a burn. I will post the answers when I have them.
I'll be eager to see what you come up with!
Question from one "expert" to another: I have not heard of a cut-off valve being 200’ below the floor of the ocean but yes there are Blow Out Preventers (BOP’s) installed at the sea floor. These BOP’s are stacked one on top of another. Each time a casing pipe is run in the well another BOP is added. The BOP consists of two systems: Pipe Rams and Blind Rams. The pipe rams are in 2 pieces with and when they are closed, they encompass the pipe keeping any fluid from escaping from the annulus. The blind rams are the last resort. They will actually shear anything in the hole and close the well off. The closing unit is mounted on the rig with numerous remotes scattered all over the platform. The closing unit uses Nitrogen to power the cylinders at the BOP. My guess is that the closing unit called an accumulator was damaged by the explosion or fire and the rams were never closed. Once the rig sunk, I have heard, all the iron wrapped itself around the well bore and BOP/Sub Sea Head in such a way the robots could not get to the BOP to activate them manually. This has been a travesty for the off shore drilling program’s safety and environmental record, previously impeccable. To shut down any future drilling would be grossly inappropriate in trying to make us independent of the middle east. Had this happened in shallower waters, it would have been resolved before the press ever got a hold of it. In 5000’ of water the challenges are greatly magnified. The attachment was written by a guy I worked with in the Oilfields. I do not know if he was actually out there but he brings his opinion to bear as well. ATTACHMENT: You might know the answer to this question. I thought it was a requirement that all offshore oil wells (maybe gas wells too) had to have an automatic (?) cutoff valve installed near the sea's bottom to stop outflow in catastrophic situations. Maybe this is not a requirement since BP did not have a cutoff valve on its well that is leaking or pouring into the Gulf presently. The question: is it a requirement for oil and gas wells in the Gulf or Oceans to have cutoff valves? The reason I am asking this question is that there is an ongoing debate about oil wells off shore here in Florida. I have said I thought it was a good idea based on safety measures. If the safety measures (cutoff valves) are not required I would not be in favor of oil wells in the Gulf off Florida shores. I have looked on the internet some but have not come up with an answer. Maybe you know. The address I found about the leak in general is at this address: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/us/04spill.html?pagewanted=1 I found the article from the NY Times about this matter that discusses the lack of shutoff valves but in little detail. This article, in part, says the following: Another worker familiar with the rig told the lawyers that the company had chosen not to install a deep-water valve that would have been placed about 200 feet under the sea floor. Much like blowout preventers, devices that are meant to seal leaks, this valve could have served as a cutoff of last resort in explosions, the lawyers said. “The company took their chances in not having the valve so they could save money,” said Mike Papantonio, one of the lawyers representing the shrimpers and fishermen.
Thank you for pinging me to this : )
You are most welcome. I am going to have a phone conversation with my friend this afternoon and hope to have even more information.
that jumped out at me...
I have been told that it is travelling very deep. Hopefully, it will stay there. I am sure I will hear more from one of these guys (one is located in Florida). I will let you know when I do.
Please bear with me on a question from a lay standpoint. Could the well itself be "pinched off" so to say, by a tremendous explosion "sub-seabed"? What's in my mind is a small nuke of the size we had when I was in the Army Art'y. We had 175mm rounds with, as I recall, .01 megaton (10,000 tons) TNT equiv. I'm thinking a "well" or casing could be drilled into the rock maybe 500- 1000 ft. into the seabed, near (?) the ruined well. Detonated (a "tactical nuke like our rounds) I believe the rock would be shifted laterally and "pinch off" the well. Plese answer if this sounds ever near reasonable.
I have send your inquiry off to my friend. I seem to remember some conversation about using nuclear power in previous emails. Will let you know as soon as I have a response.
#33. To: Phant2000 (#32)
Thank you. We shoulde keep this thread open for a while.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: Eric Stratton, All (#1)
[Images via Getty, Getty/NASA]
#3. To: randge (#2)
#6. To: Eric Stratton (#3)
#16. To: randge (#6)
#17. To: Phant2000 (#16)
#20. To: randge, wudidiz, F.A. Hayek Fan, ndcorup, RickyJ (#17)
As promised, more information ...
#21. To: Phant2000 (#20)
#22. To: wudidiz (#21)
Thank you for pinging me to this : )
#27. To: Phant2000 (#22)
I understand the oil has already entered into the current and is travelling towards the Keys and Cuba. It is then to turn north and possibly affect the eastern seaboard.
#29. To: christine (#27)
I understand the oil has already entered into the current and is travelling towards the Keys and Cuba. It is then to turn north and possibly affect the eastern seaboard.
#31. To: Phant2000 (#29)
#32. To: ndcorup (#31)
Plese answer if this sounds ever near reasonable.
Replies to Comment # 32.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 32.