Rockin' in the free world since 2005.

[Total: 34    Average: 3.1/5]
56 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 33342
Rating: 3.1
Category:
Date: 06/03/10 12:35 PM

56 Responses to BP Gulf Of Mexico Oil Spill: An Infographic [Pic]

  1. Profile photo of fancylad
    fancylad Male 30-39
    18499 posts
    June 3, 2010 at 12:32 pm
    Link: BP Gulf Of Mexico Oil Spill: An Infographic - Finally, the only way I-A-B can take in newsy current affairs: through infographics. Let the understanding begin!
  2. Profile photo of Kadinsky
    Kadinsky Male 18-29
    575 posts
    June 3, 2010 at 12:42 pm
    These infographs are getting so boring they turn something so interesting into the dulles thing ever.
  3. Profile photo of Fatninja01
    Fatninja01 Male 30-39
    25405 posts
    June 3, 2010 at 12:44 pm
    Yes it is bad but are they going to raise the cost of petrol to compensate for the loss!
  4. Profile photo of Hellioness
    Hellioness Female 18-29
    133 posts
    June 3, 2010 at 12:46 pm
    I`m slightly insulted by the implication that I can`t understand or "take in" news without pictures. Sorry my IQ is higher than that.
  5. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    June 3, 2010 at 12:51 pm
    Yes it is bad but are they going to raise the cost of petrol to compensate for the loss!
    Hardly. The US alone consumes around 20 million barrels a day. This is leaking around 5000 barrels a day. Ecological disaster sure, but in terms of global oil supply this is small beer.
  6. Profile photo of ApostleT
    ApostleT Male 18-29
    182 posts
    June 3, 2010 at 12:53 pm
    This is also outdated by this point. The total spill count is around 24 million gallons so far, which means it is already far and beyond the damage of the exxon valdez.
  7. Profile photo of SorasNobody
    SorasNobody Male 13-17
    80 posts
    June 3, 2010 at 1:13 pm
    @Davymid, this chart is obviously outdated, as Non-BP scientist are saying that theres actually leeking 70.000 barrels out a day
  8. Profile photo of Cashaviola
    Cashaviola Female 18-29
    108 posts
    June 3, 2010 at 1:43 pm
    This will be way bigger then Exxon ever was. Exxon Valdez was a ship carrying oil, we knew how much was on that ship when it crashed in to the reef. This current one is a disaster because its basically a big hole right where the oil comes from. No one can guess how much oil is in this oil pocket.
  9. Profile photo of puppies04
    puppies04 Male 18-29
    686 posts
    June 3, 2010 at 1:44 pm
    It makes me laugh, people keep saying this could mean the end of BP the absolute maximum the cleanup and associated costs could total is £4 billion and BP has just set asside £8 billion of spare cash they found down the back of the sofa (thats the profit they made in the first 1/4 of this year). Kind of puts it back into perspective
  10. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7379 posts
    June 3, 2010 at 1:51 pm
    Indeed we do consume far too much oil for our own good. It`s brought us nothing but heartache and we know it. However the American public isn`t to blame. Oil companies (specifically BP) deserve the lions share of blame. Collecting tens of billions in profit quarterly one would expect a sound company to invest in worst case scenario cleanup or leak sealing procedures. But BP chose to save money on a crappy backflow preventer and invest in lobbyists to convince congress that extra fail-safe devices aren`t necessary.
    PS: My electricity comes from a nuclear power plant and I`d have no qualms with buying a computer made from non petroleum products. But we all know oil companies like their profits more than war or new technology.
  11. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36172 posts
    June 3, 2010 at 2:06 pm
    ancient chinese proverb, "$hit Happens"
  12. Profile photo of outdoorMINER
    outdoorMINER Female 18-29
    934 posts
    June 3, 2010 at 2:28 pm
    I like these little infographics. It`s easy learnin` with pictures. I can dig.

    Also, if they can measure how big this oil spill is, why can`t they clean it up in methods other than "capping it"?
  13. Profile photo of RepostPolice
    RepostPolice Male 13-17
    190 posts
    June 3, 2010 at 2:30 pm
    How many response vessels?
  14. Profile photo of Angelmassb
    Angelmassb Male 18-29
    15511 posts
    June 3, 2010 at 2:33 pm
    "What you got there, numbers?"

    -Bender B. Rodriguez-
  15. Profile photo of outdoorMINER
    outdoorMINER Female 18-29
    934 posts
    June 3, 2010 at 2:42 pm
    "I`m slightly insulted by the implication that I can`t understand or "take in" news without pictures. Sorry my IQ is higher than that."

    You`re a woman, we know your lies.
  16. Profile photo of philippic
    philippic Male 18-29
    1704 posts
    June 3, 2010 at 2:47 pm
    buy shares in BP now.. then sell in 20 yrs!

    maybe?
  17. Profile photo of Brassbull
    Brassbull Male 30-39
    1614 posts
    June 3, 2010 at 3:15 pm
    They`ve updated the Visualizing the BP Oil Disaster webpage. Freaky!
  18. Profile photo of clancy54
    clancy54 Male 18-29
    83 posts
    June 3, 2010 at 3:36 pm
    "I`m slightly insulted by the implication that I can`t understand or "take in" news without pictures. Sorry my IQ is higher than that."

    "You`re a woman, we know your lies."

    Ha, the funny part is another women said that. Way to not be stuck up outdoorminer!
  19. Profile photo of mal_BB
    mal_BB Male 18-29
    1231 posts
    June 3, 2010 at 4:16 pm
    BP will not go bust. They`ve lost around 12Bn off their value, but are still worth approx 90Bn- and don`t forget they have oil riggs all over the world- this is fairly small stuff within a global context.
  20. Profile photo of basherrr
    basherrr Male 18-29
    242 posts
    June 3, 2010 at 4:31 pm
    I thought we agreed no more infographics?
  21. Profile photo of mcfudge
    mcfudge Male 18-29
    537 posts
    June 3, 2010 at 4:34 pm
    OH MY GOD! PICTURES!
  22. Profile photo of 4theLuvofTLs
    4theLuvofTLs Female 18-29
    47 posts
    June 3, 2010 at 4:39 pm
    anyone else notice the irony in all of this?
    BP stands for "Beyond Petroleum", yet they are still drilling for, sucking, and trying to save for further use, all of this petroleum oil.....
  23. Profile photo of NexusLetum
    NexusLetum Female 18-29
    136 posts
    June 3, 2010 at 5:20 pm
    @4theLuvofTLs
    /facepalm

    BP stands for British Petroleum. There is no irony.
  24. Profile photo of nettech98
    nettech98 Male 50-59
    1043 posts
    June 3, 2010 at 5:35 pm
    Actually BP is just BP. They changed their name in 2001 to BP plc. Not British Petroleum - not Beyond Petroleum.

    Just like FedEx. Doesn`t stand for anything. has its roots in the name Federal Express obviously.
  25. Profile photo of xxPinkxx
    xxPinkxx Female 18-29
    3830 posts
    June 3, 2010 at 5:36 pm
    Is there a way to suck it up and still use the oil, or is it useless afterward? seems like a waste, if we can use the money from the oil to helprestore the ecosystem after all the oil is cleaned up.
  26. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31759 posts
    June 3, 2010 at 5:43 pm
    Sad that it`s a month out of date, eh? Must check out BrassBull update link :)
    xxPinkxx iirc it can be sucked up and used, but that costs quite a bit so companies would rather just set it on fire & ignore it.
    But BP chose to save money on a crappy backflow preventer and invest in lobbyists to convince congress that extra fail-safe devices aren`t necessary.
    Well said Madest! (see I don`t only just poo on your posts! lolz!) If they`d followed their licence requirements and HAD A PLAN for a leak IN PLACE insted of running around for weeks looking for stuff, things might have been better by now.
  27. Profile photo of twistman27
    twistman27 Male 13-17
    12 posts
    June 3, 2010 at 5:49 pm
    Ha. 69 response vessels.
  28. Profile photo of ImNoGod
    ImNoGod Male 18-29
    1149 posts
    June 3, 2010 at 6:15 pm
    This should never have happened. Fu*k BP
  29. Profile photo of 4theLuvofTLs
    4theLuvofTLs Female 18-29
    47 posts
    June 3, 2010 at 6:16 pm
    @ NexusLetum and nettech98

    ya`ll might want to read this page.... the acronym does have a meaning....

    http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9028275&contentId=7051490
  30. Profile photo of SilverThread
    SilverThread Male 30-39
    3435 posts
    June 3, 2010 at 7:29 pm
    Yeah so this Infographic is outdated, sadly. And the figures it represents would be a blessing compared to the current statistical information available.
  31. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    June 3, 2010 at 8:37 pm
    This should never have happened. Fu*k BP
    Well, you say that, and I can understand the sentiment. But with due respect, you made that comment typing away on your plastic keyboard. How many cars does your family have? Have you turned on your AC today? How many TVs does your family have? How many airline flights have you taken over the years?

    I don`t mean to be facetious at all. But we`re a consumer society- as I said earlier in this thread, the US consumes about 20 million barrels of oil PER DAY. World consumption is about 80 million barrels. PER DAY. In other news, there have been about 55,000 (yes, you read that right) wells drilled in the Gulf of Mexico. This one f*cked up, and sometimes nature just conspires against you, despite all human-made safeguards to prevent it. Airline crashes are a good analogy, as is human deaths in earthquakes despite the very best earthquake-proof building technology.
  32. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    June 3, 2010 at 8:42 pm
    The oil industry is pushing back the envelope all the time in terms of technological advancement. One could make the case that drilling for oil in over a mile of water is akin to exploring the surface of the moon. But as much as we all rail against this disaster (and yes, it is a disaster), it`s only happening because there`s a demand from us as consumers. The main reason this is difficult to plug is that we`ve pushed the boundaries of demand so far that we`re drilling now in places where we don`t really know what the hell we`re doing, when you boil it down.

    I guess the point I`m trying to make is, everyone is trying to apportion blame to BP, to the oil industry in general, to Obama, to the US government... some of the blame has to land at our own feet as consumers. We all want our SUVs, our AC, our Laptops, our internet etc.
  33. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    June 3, 2010 at 8:43 pm
    Mind you, as a qualifier, I freely admit that all of this is coming from a guy who works in the oil industry, so feel free to disregard any/all of my vague and rambling points.

    Hope some of my sentiment made it through though!
  34. Profile photo of Lionhart2
    Lionhart2 Male 40-49
    8309 posts
    June 3, 2010 at 9:22 pm
    Not a qualifier, more of an additional point: The oil is running out people, that`s a fact. As it gets shorter, we need to drill in deeper water, in places where it would have been impossible to even think about 20-30 years ago because its a frikkin lot more dangerous and difficult. So get used to it. There are going to be more and more incidents like this. As Davy said, its a nearly impossible thing anyway, but they`re doing it, because the world will go crazy if they can`t take their guzzling SUV 50 metres to the corner shop to buy a plastic-wrapped carton of milk.
  35. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    June 3, 2010 at 9:29 pm
    vv What Lionhart said.
  36. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    June 3, 2010 at 9:43 pm
    I agree with everything you said, Davy. To that I would add that the reason that we are drilling for oil 60 miles off shore in mile-deep water is that the environmentalists have pretty much shut down all close-in, shallow-water production, where a blowout like this could have been capped in just a few days, and on-shore production in places like ANWR or the American West where a blowout can be capped in a matter of hours.

    Now they`re going to shut down deep-water oil production. This will make us even more dependent on foreign oil delivered in tankers which are statistically more likely to cause oil spills than offshore oil rigs.
  37. Profile photo of verinon
    verinon Male 18-29
    335 posts
    June 3, 2010 at 10:12 pm
    How about we just stop relying on oil. Problem solved.
  38. Profile photo of Pingas
    Pingas Male 13-17
    312 posts
    June 3, 2010 at 10:30 pm
    "Sounds good. What`s your proposed alternative?"

    ...Just don`t use oil, is it that hard? Stop using anything that requires oil, stop wasting resources on building crap like buildings and excess tools for the humans.
  39. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    June 3, 2010 at 10:32 pm
    How about we just stop relying on oil. Problem solved.
    Sounds good. What`s your proposed alternative?

    1)Wind. Visually rapes coastal/mountainous landscapes, and a moderate-sized windfarm provides power to a few small communities at best. It works locally, but it ain`t solving the issue of energy demand.

    2) Solar. Might work, but the most potent solar energy is around the equator, where we`d like to avoid having our energy dependence from. Not to mention that photovoltaic cells are made from oil. Back to where we started from, energy from Africa/Middle East.

    3) Nuclear. Well, we have about 10 years worth of non-enriched Uranium nuclear fuel left, by current exploration technology.

    I could go on.

    There`s no easy solution to our energy demand problem. Simply saying "Use the alternative!" is facetious. We, as a human race, currently don`t have an alternative.
  40. Profile photo of Barbarossa69
    Barbarossa69 Male 18-29
    220 posts
    June 3, 2010 at 10:39 pm
    Actually, if we went primarily electric cars (not completely until the range issue is solved), it would cut it down to just one major type of energy demand to solve, power, instead of both power production AND transportation. Why this doesn`t seem to occur to anyone in power is beyond me... much more efficient use of resources.
  41. Profile photo of Barbarossa69
    Barbarossa69 Male 18-29
    220 posts
    June 3, 2010 at 10:44 pm
    @Davymid Uhhhh, you realize uranium is a VERY common mineral right?
    "Current usage is about 65,000 tU/yr. Thus the world`s present measured resources of uranium (5.5 Mt) in the cost category somewhat below present spot prices and used only in conventional reactors, are enough to last for over 80 years."
    http://www.world-nuclear. org/info/inf75.html
  42. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    June 3, 2010 at 11:03 pm
    @Davymid Uhhhh, you realize uranium is a VERY common mineral right?
    Yeah, I know. I`m a professional geologist with a PhD. I`d appreciate toning down the condescension.

    Actually, if we went primarily electric cars (not completely until the range issue is solved), it would cut it down to just one major type of energy demand to solve
    And when your electric car`s battery depleted, how are you going to charge it back up? Plug it into a Unicorn`s arse so the power of Rainbows recharges the battery? Or are you going to plug it into the power outlet in the wall, so it gets charged from the local oil-fired power plant?

    I`m afraid I`ve made an ass of myself on this thread, like I said I mean no harm or challenge here. If I have any challenge, it`s a challenge to all of us as consumers and a challenge to our own complacency.
  43. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    June 3, 2010 at 11:15 pm
    Davy, we don`t have to run our reactors on just U-235. We can turn leftover U-238 into Pu-239 pretty easily and run them on that.
  44. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31759 posts
    June 3, 2010 at 11:27 pm
    I :heart: that NUCLEAR power is the #1 cleanest, least greenhousing and safest option available.
    OOOOh sweet sweet schadenfreude!!!
  45. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    June 3, 2010 at 11:32 pm
    Actually, we don`t have an energy problem; we have a transportation fuel problem. We can get all the electricity we need from coal and nuclear, but neither of those will run a car or an airliner. We could run some fleet vehicles like taxis and local delivery trucks on battery power when it`s convenient for them to recharge overnight. They can also use compressed natural gas (CNG) and fill up back at the depot. Later, we can make CNG available to the public so it would be practical for cross-country travel. You could also fill up at home with a simple pump and some fittings. Plug-in battery power can make sense for commuting if you charge up from a nuclear or coal-fired plant. If you`re getting electricity from gas or oil, you`re losing.

    We need to replace natural gas electric plants with nuclear and use the gas for transportation thus reducing the need for imported oil. Hydroelectric is good, too, but we won`t be building another one of them any time soon.
  46. Profile photo of PENtrap
    PENtrap Male 18-29
    199 posts
    June 4, 2010 at 12:13 am
    5Cats, too ture if there wasn’t so little left, but tbh to anyone who`s excuse for not wanting wind power because it `rapes the view of a landscape` is defiantly a British conservative.
  47. Profile photo of kimkio
    kimkio Female 18-29
    878 posts
    June 4, 2010 at 12:20 am
    i think they should throw all the waste down here
  48. Profile photo of SonicWolf
    SonicWolf Male 13-17
    89 posts
    June 4, 2010 at 12:48 am
    D: Thats a lot of oil!
  49. Profile photo of MattPrince
    MattPrince Male 40-49
    2220 posts
    June 4, 2010 at 4:01 am
    ...Just don`t use oil, is it that hard?

    Erm yes, I think it probably is. Most transport requires Oil for lubrication, even a push bike.
  50. Profile photo of mal_BB
    mal_BB Male 18-29
    1231 posts
    June 4, 2010 at 5:05 am
    You can`t ignore the fact that oil companies, including BP have been buying up patents for clean, sustainable technology for years. Clean, sustainable energy is not in their interest- selling oil is. We have the technology, but it won`t be utilized until the oil companies say so.
  51. Profile photo of razlem
    razlem Male 13-17
    533 posts
    June 4, 2010 at 6:11 am
    mal BB, the only reason they buy those patents is so they stay in business. They don`t want clean renewable energy to overtake the profitable oil market.
  52. Profile photo of keith2
    keith2 Male 18-29
    2587 posts
    June 4, 2010 at 6:43 am
    what about the nuclear option?? it`s always on the table
  53. Profile photo of xXKaryXx
    xXKaryXx Female 13-17
    635 posts
    June 4, 2010 at 8:32 am
    fishys are gonna go byebye

    D;
  54. Profile photo of krisley
    krisley Male 18-29
    525 posts
    June 4, 2010 at 9:45 am
    actually keith..... it`s not on the table... Stephen Colbert said that white house officials said so...
  55. Profile photo of screwzlooose
    screwzlooose Male 30-39
    385 posts
    June 4, 2010 at 11:44 am
    this is a month old. it has passed the valdez.

Leave a Reply