Busted BP well no longer 'threat' to Gulf: US official

Sep 04, 2010
The Macondo well, which spilled an estimated 4.9 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, has been secured and no longer constitutes "a threat," Admiral Thad Allen, National Incident Commander, pictured in July 2010, said Saturday.

The Macondo well, which spilled an estimated 4.9 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, has been secured and no longer constitutes "a threat," a senior US official said Saturday.

"I'm very pleased to announce that with the new blow-out preventer on this well, the cement that was previously put into this well, that this well does not constitute a threat to the Gulf of Mexico at this point," said Admiral Thad Allen, the US official overseeing the spill response.

A new valve known as a blow-out preventer was placed over the well on Friday after crews removed the damaged device, which will now be examined by investigators looking into the causes of the disaster.

"We basically have secured this well as we would any well that was under production," Allen told reporters.

"We have essentially eliminated the threat of discharge from the well at this point."

Allen said efforts would likely resume this week to finish a relief well that will intercept the Macondo allowing a final "kill" operation from below the .

BP has said it hopes the relief well will reach the damaged well by around mid-September, depending on .

The busted well has been shut in since July 15 when a cap was closed over the leak and engineers subsequently carried out a so-called "static kill," pumping heavy fluid and then cement into the top of the well to seal off the flow.

The spill, the worst in US history, was sparked by an April 20 explosion aboard the BP-leased Deepwater Horizon oil rig, which killed 11 workers.

It fouled beaches in all five states -- Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida.

Coastal Louisiana, still struggling to recover from 2005's , was particularly hard-hit as crude oozed into fragile wetlands and forced the closure of large swathes of fishing grounds.

Many shrimpers, fishermen and those reliant on tourism for their income suffered financial disaster, and are now waiting to hear what compensation they can expect from a 20-billion-dollar fund established by BP at the behest of the White House.

Explore further: Global CO2 emissions increase to new all-time record, but growth is slowing down

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

BP starts removing drill pipe from damaged wellhead

Aug 22, 2010

BP said Saturday it began removing drill pipe and other equipment from a damaged wellhead under the Gulf of Mexico, as it prepares to replace its giant blowout preventer valve with a new one.

BP removes cap from plugged well in Gulf of Mexico

Sep 02, 2010

BP on Thursday removed a massive cap which had stemmed the flow of oil from its ruptured well deep in the Gulf of Mexico in a key step toward killing the well once and for all, officials said.

Storm threatens BP efforts to plug Gulf well

Jul 22, 2010

The threat of a new tropical storm forced crews to make preparations to protect the damaged Gulf of Mexico oil well, which could delay plans to permanently seal the leak that led to the environmental disaster.

Recommended for you

New York state bans fracking

12 hours ago

Governor Andrew Cuomo said Wednesday he would ban hydraulic fracking in New York State, citing health concerns about the controversial oil and gas drilling technique.

Washington governor proposes cap on carbon pollution

16 hours ago

(AP)—Washington Gov. Jay Inslee on Wednesday proposed an ambitious cap-and-trade program to require the state's largest industrial polluters to pay for every ton of carbon they release.

User comments : 11

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

stealthc
5 / 5 (1) Sep 05, 2010
bp and the us gov are both full of crap. Does anyone seriously buy any of this after being lied to by both every single day since the beginning of all this, many months ago?
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Sep 05, 2010
The well might not be a threat, but all the oil it spewed forth is.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (2) Sep 05, 2010
It was an industrial accident, one in which the industry has very few of. They are asked to drill for oil, and told to do so way out in deep waters by environmental forces. It was obviously in there best interest not to cause a leak, yet things go wrong. Everyone demonizes the oil companies as they drive to work every morning.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Sep 05, 2010
It was an industrial accident, one in which the industry has very few of.
That's wrong. There are thousands of oils spills each year. Most of them aren't in the Gulf of Mexico, or of this large a volume.
Everyone demonizes the oil companies as they drive to work every morning.
Yes, the hypocrisy is the problem. We say we hate the oil companies, but we keep using oil. It's called addiction.

I hate smoking cigarettes, but as I type this, one is burning out in my desk ashtray right now. The real problem with oil is the fact that they are purely profit motivated. They spend less than 2% on R&D. The technology, that is streched well past its limit, is so outdated that these accidents are common.

It would simply cost them too much to do a better job. Does that mean it's ok for them not to? I don't think so. Not when they're pulling in a 10% profit equating to hundreds of billions of dollars.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (2) Sep 05, 2010
The oil companies profit margin is in line with most other companies. Given the vast volume of oil moved and number of oil rigs involved, the number of accidents are relatively low.

It's like me stating that 40,000 people die every year in car crashes just in the USA, without stating per mile driven, etc.

While oil and coal are not the best energy solutions since they are dirty, we don't use it because we are addicted to it. You don't have to smoke to get along, but the economy would crash if it was forced to use a alternative energy source tomorrow. Alternatives have to compete with oil and coal in accordance with free capitalistic principals. Eventually, oil will get expensive, and only then can alternative markets open up.

I would like to see hydrogen cars and more nuclear plants, eventually it will happen when the time allows it.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Sep 05, 2010
It's like me stating that 40,000 people die every year in car crashes just in the USA, without stating per mile driven, etc.

Ok, There are thousands of partial tanker spills each year. I hope that clarifies the statement enough for you.

The country of Niger has been utterly devastated by oil spills.

http://234next.co...onse.csp

You don't have to smoke to get along, but the economy would crash if it was forced to use a alternative energy source tomorrow.

That's ridiculous. The sheer amount of manufacturing jobs that would be created in the run up to a full cutoff of oil would be incredible. Money would move even faster through the economy. It would result in growth if we set dedicated goals to get off right now.

Costa Rica proved that much.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Sep 05, 2010
There is no alternative energy source in place that can replace the existing volume of oil & coal without crashing the economy. That is a plain fact. You're not getting what I'm telling you, ... you can't just stop using oil at some "cut off point" in a free market economy. It has to occur naturally, gradually, in accordance with free market capitalism, because the USA is not a socialistic society. Oil has to become expensive to a level where it is in the best interest of investors to buy into alternative technology and the vast infrastructure required. Alternatives have to compete with oil.
Having said that, yes some technologies can be subsidized by the gov, but in the end it still must work freely in the market. I wouldn't mind seeing a Manhatten like scale project to develop the infrastructure for hydrogen cars. We don't have nearly enough nuclear plants because the gov gets in the way making it not cost effective with all the regulations,.. the gov is no good at free market.
Nik_2213
1 / 5 (1) Sep 05, 2010
The big question is *why* that supposedly triple-redundant, tried and tested blow-out preventer failed. Perhaps it malfunctioned due to a design or manufacturing defect. Perhaps it jammed due to the greater depth at which it was deployed.

FWIW, this spill is small beer compared to the quantity of oil about to spill from corroding WW_2 wrecks...
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Sep 06, 2010
There is no alternative energy source in place that can replace the existing volume of oil & coal without crashing the economy. That is a plain fact. You're not getting what I'm telling you, ... you can't just stop using oil at some "cut off point" in a free market economy.
And you're entirely wrong on that. First, we're not a free market economy. Free Market economies do not exist in the global marketplace.
It has to occur naturally, gradually, in accordance with free market capitalism, because the USA is not a socialistic society.
No, we're a republic, which is rule by law. Establish the proper legal base for a cutover and it will happen.
Oil has to become expensive to a level where it is in the best interest of investors to buy into alternative technology and the vast infrastructure required. Alternatives have to compete with oil.
And all that takes it removal of the current oil subsidies that Americans pay 30% of their income taxation into.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (2) Sep 06, 2010
There is not going to be an artificial cutoff date for oil. Do you have any clue of how delicate the economy is? You saw what happened around the world with the USA sub-prime mortgage scam. No congress would be so stupid as to pass such a law or give such power to a UN. Why isn't Obama doing it? He's as liberal as they come. Answer; he can't even pass cap&trade, and such a cutoff date is entirely unnecessary. Innovation will solve the problem only when it is economically appropriate.

oh, and "30% of there income tax"?! I think you may want to check into that data.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Sep 06, 2010
No congress would be so stupid as to pass such a law or give such power to a UN
Why would we ever give this power to the UN?
Why isn't Obama doing it? He's as liberal as they come. Answer; he can't even pass cap&trade, and such a cutoff date is entirely unnecessary. Innovation will solve the problem only when it is economically appropriate.
Well that's easy to explain, just like the majority of US politicians, he's a corporate shill.
oh, and "30% of there income tax"?! I think you may want to check into that data.

Actually it's rather easy to divine from the data.

The US defense budget accounts for 50% of citizen's income taxation. over 60% of our defense budget is spent in aid to oil bearing countries, defense of oil shipping lanes, destabilization of resource rich countries, etc.

It is an utterly huge amount of money we spend in order to have cheap oil products.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.