What's new

5000 barrels a day of oil (210,000 gallons) leak off the coast of Louisiana

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

White-rhino

Member
Worst news of the whole drama seems to be playing out now.

Much to the dismay of the eco-terrorists, nobody can find any oil to clean up, let alone complain about. Condolences on this tragic turn of events for those affected . :)
 
G

Guido Sarducci

Member
Good call, Molson

Good call, Molson

Thank god he's a petrochemical engineer. :laughing:

...and not a senile, crackpot stockbroker who's been shorting BP since the disaster started...:laughing:
 
K

kornholios

New member
[FONT=&quot]It now [/FONT][FONT=&quot]seems [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Matt Simmons is Flying Goat's new authority figure. He's actually an investment banker with just barely enough grasp of petroleum-related information to appear credible to the extremely gullible and uninformed public.[/FONT]

But based on what I have read and seen regarding the Macondo blowout, I would regard his understanding of the offshore oil industry as completely flawed, i.e. he has zero knowledge.


 Also the fact that he feels qualified to go on TV and represent an authoritative viewpoint on something he clearly has absolutely no mental handle on is rather disturbing.



The guy is batshit nuts. He’s a screaming drama queen. He’s a sensationalist. He’s nothing more than a media-whore. I laughed my head off the first time someone provided a link to his first interview. Loony Tunes. I hope nobody makes any investment choices based on his opinions.
[FONT=&quot]T[/FONT][FONT=&quot]he [/FONT][FONT=&quot]followi[/FONT][FONT=&quot]ng are some of his claims and the responses to them:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]1. The real leak is seven miles away[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Simmons first suggested this in an interview with MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan on May 26th, 2010. In response to a question about a second leak, Simmons replied that there was reportedly a lot of oil six miles away, and said “I think that’s where the wellhead is.” He also mentioned that he had been telling government officials that. In a later interview on June 7, 2010, Simmons made the following claim:[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot] “I would think by the end of the week we will discover that we have an open hole with no casing in it which has
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]these little tiny leaks in the drilling riser. I bet we'll find the drilling riser is still connected to the rig bore, and so they've done everything wrong”.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Source: May 26th on MSNBC, June 7 on MSNBC[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Response[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Simmons apparently came to this conclusion because the leak from the end of the severed riser seemed to him too small to account for the large and growing oil slick on the surface of the Gulf of Mexico. This, coupled with reports that a NOAA ship, the Thomas Jefferson, identified possible oil plumes beneath the waters 5-10 miles away, led him to conclude that this new location was where the real spill, and the original well, lie. That BP and the US Coast Guard continued to maintain that the blowout preventer (BOP) was still intact atop the original wellbore, and then proceeded to stem the flow of oil with a series of efforts, suggested to him a massive cover-up.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Although it is difficult to prove that a ruse this elaborate has not been staged on the seafloor, there is clear evidence that the assemblage of ships involved in the spill response has been positioned around the Macondo-252 well location specified in the original well plan submitted to the Minerals Management Service (MMS) by BP. DigitalGlobe, a satellite imagery provider for Google Earth, has made available georeferenced photographs taken on May 24, when oil collection operations were underway. Using data from the above sources, the pictures below can be constructed showing the positions of interest on the BP well plan and the satellite image.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]If you go to the MMS Gulf of Mexico Region web site, you can find information showing that the original well and the relief well are in the locations where activity has recently been taking place, by looking up information using 'Fast Facts', 'Application for Permit to Drill' (APD), 'Bottom Lease', and 'G32306'. A reader made this screenshot showing the coordinates of the wells and sidetracks planned. Coordinates for blowout well match well "A" on the initial Macondo well plan.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Finally, it can be shown that the burning rig was located where the MC-252 well plan indicated (and where the relief well rigs, etc. have been operating).The maps referenced above can be found at http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6789#comments_top.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The alleged relocation of the BOP and riser several miles from an explosively uncased well, besides being inconsistent with well documented coordinates for the well, presents several logistical problems. Foremost, the BOP was initially still attached to part of the riser. Thus, this ungainly pair would have to been launched from the well several miles until it lodged in the mud on the Gulf floor, in the correct orientation. If the riser was still attached to the Deepwater Horizon, as Simmons also suggested, this stretches credulity even further.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In short, there is no evidence that the well recently capped by BP is not the original Macondo well, or that the original well is still flowing with no casing.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]2. Oil is flowing at 120,000 barrels/day[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Simmons has stated on a number of occasions that he estimates that oil from the blowout is flowing into the Gulf of Mexico at a rate of 100,000 to 150,000 barrels per day. From a talk at Camden, Maine on July 15th:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] Simmons described the real blowout as an open hole gushing 120,000 barrels of toxic crude every day below the surface of the Gulf six or seven miles away from the riser. And BP is ignoring it, he said.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] "What you are seeing on television, what BP is saying about relief wells . . . that's a total ruse," said Simmons.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Source: Simmons' Take on the Oil Spill in the Gulf[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Response[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]This figure appears to be a guess based on an estimated reservoir pressure of 40-50 thousand psi, which itself is a guess based on the intensity of the surface fire before the rig sank.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Contributor Arthur Berman (aeberman) has compiled data from the MMS that summarizes all Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) well maximum flow rates. The spreadsheet can be accessed here. The data show that the average well in the OCS had a maximum flow rate of 11,800 barrels per day (bpd) and the maximum flow of any well was 46,500 bpd. Thus, the flow rates Simmons postulates are far beyond any well seen to date in the OCS.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]It should be noted, though, that the flow in these wells is typically constrained so as to prevent damage to the wellbore. Indeed, the flow from MC-252 (the one seen on the ROV videos) is likely constrained within the BOP and possibly in the wellbore. Given this, it is possible that an uncased well (if it existed) would support this high flow rate if the reservoir pressure was as high as Simmons suggests. However, Macondo reservoir pressures of 40-50 thousand pounds per square inch are not supported by any data.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Source: June 7 on MSNBC[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]3. The real spill has caused a lake of oil larger than Washington State[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In the talk at Camden, Maine, Simmons claimed that BP was intentionally misleading the public and the government about the extent of the spill and that it would take a heavy toll in human lives:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] The submerged lake of oil has grown larger than the size of Washington state and is approximately 500 feet thick, according to Simmons' estimate.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] "It's thick oil, flowing like lava . . . covering a large part of the Gulf of Mexico and taking the oxygen out," said Simmons. When it mixes with the upper layer, the toxicity will be released, and when it comes ashore Simmons predicts it will take a heavy toll in human lives.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Response[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The area of Washington State is 71,303 square miles. If the lake is 500 feet thick, this would imply 177 trillion barrels of oil in the lake, vs. 2 to 4 trillion barrels estimated total reserves plus production to date for the world.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Also, claims of a quantity of oil this large are not consistent with Simmons' claim of 120,000 barrels/day from the "real" well bore. For example, at this flow rate for 90 days, a spill the size of WA would only be 10 microns thick (.01 mm).[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Finally, the lake of oil defies the laws of physics by staying on the sea floor and not rising to the surface of the Gulf of Mexico, because most of this type of oil is lighter than water, so would be expected to rise. [/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]4. Methane is lethal and toxic[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In an interview on NPR on July 15th, Simmons made the following claims:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] “It’s this toxic waste and crude and it’s releasing methane gases that are absolutely lethal which is why all the fish and dolphins and sharks and whales are dying. And workers too, which is why so many have gotten sick, or maybe really sick.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] The health problems are so serious,” Simmons said. “When you inhale methane you just die.”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Source: They’re still lying about the oil disaster[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Response[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]There are many natural sources of methane in the environment, including belching cattle and decomposing organic matter. Many of us use natural gas - mostly methane - to heat our homes. All of us inhale methane every day. While methane is clearly flammable and it is a potent greenhouse gas, it is completely non-toxic. Methane, like the nitrogen that makes up 78% of the earth’s atmosphere, is a simple asphyxiant. What that means is that it could kill you by displacing oxygen, but methane itself is non-toxic (unlike carbon monoxide, for example).[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In the same interview, Simmons discussed the toxicity of hydrogen sulfide gas, which is often present in petroleum reservoirs (although not significantly in Macondo). He noted that low-level concentrations can be fatal, and that workers are trained to put gas masks on quickly if monitors detect its presence. He then states that methane is more toxic than hydrogen sulfide. As per above, this is completely erroneous; hydrogen sulfide is highly toxic while methane is non-toxic.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Reference: Material Data Safety Sheet for Methane[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]5. Use of a small bore nuclear device is the “only option” to stop the flow of oil[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In an interview on Bloomberg Television on July 21st, Simmons repeated his accusation that BP was lying about the extent of the disaster, and called it "the biggest environmental cover-up ever." He further stated that "we have killed the Gulf of Mexico", that clean-up costs, if clean-up were even feasible, would top $1 trillion, and that "if they (BP) told the truth, they would all go to jail."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Simmons had stated previously that a small nuclear device was the only option to seal the leak. In this interview, one of the reporters indicated that reports were coming in that the oil was no longer leaking and asked if that gave Simmons hope. Simmons replied:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] “No, because that’s not the gusher. That was a little bit of condensation that would have ended anyways. There’s no way to fix the gusher because there’s no casing left in the hole other than doing a small diameter nuclear bomb...It's the only way. With no casing left in the hole, the odds of the relief well working are zero."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Source: July 21, Bloomberg TV[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Response[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]It is certainly surprising that the guy worried about toxic methane clouds isn't worried about a nuclear explosion in the Gulf of Mexico. But Simmons is not only advocating this position as "the only solution", he is telling government officials that this is the course of action that should be pursued.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The basis for his position is built upon his notion that there is a massive open hole spewing oil into the Gulf of Mexico miles from where BP is pulling off a massive scam. Per Point 1 there is no evidence to support the existence of this hole that Simmons believes will take a nuclear explosion to cap.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]As previously discussed, the Soviets did in fact use nukes successfully for gas well fires. The differences between the situations then and now were: 1). The leaks were onshore; 2). The leaks were gas; 3). These were actual leaks that needed to be sealed that had resisted other efforts.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Given that there is no evidence of this massive gusher -- and even if it did exist, the idea of using a nuclear explosion at those depths and under those conditions is fraught with uncertainties -- this is not a reasonable option for dealing with the spill. Further, evidence continues to mount that the leak has been slowed or perhaps stopped. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Conclusion[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Those who suggest that Simmons might be right, based on some new information that arises or some misinformation supplied by BP, should identify which parts of his story are right: The gravity-defying lake of oil? Flying BOPs? Methane death clouds? Hundred-foot tsunami waves?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In addition, for those who ask the question "what if Simmons is right?", the answer would be that all textbooks on basic physics, chemistry, and toxicology would have to be rewritten to handle the discrepancies between what is currently believed vs. what Simmons suggests has occurred.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In conclusion, the claims made by Simmons and documented here are simply not credible. Some - such as the idea that methane is toxic - are factual errors. Other claims, such as an open gusher that BP is covering up, defy logic. How Simmons will respond if no evidence of his claims emerges remains to be seen.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Whether due to insanity or evil, these ravings have terrified already despairing people, likely causing some to give up hope and even end it. They require vigorous debunking and ridicule. Concern for the feelings of the perpetrator should in no way limit aid to the victims.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]How about the situations of the families living on the GOM coastline who were too gullible and naive to fact-check or think logically? Some people either lost or quit their jobs and moved because they are worried about toxic clouds, methane tsunamis etc. It’s really sad to see the mass hysteria crowds feed upon each others fear/stress until they are so depressed and anxious they literally become sick…[/FONT]
 
Flying Goat

Flying Goat

Member
The high risk of capping BP's gushing well from the top.
News Type: Opinion — Mon Jul 19, 2010 3:14 AM EDT
environment, explosions, blowout, bp-gulf, craters, gas-leaks
By BK Lim
advertisement

-hydrocomgeo@gmail.com
1. What was being reported on capping and well integrity testing of BP’s gushing well.
After fitting on the new cap and delaying the well integrity test for a day, BP finally got the approval to completely shut off the oil gusher and monitor the pressure build-up within the cased well on Thursday, 1425hrs local time (1925 GMT) 15 July 2010.

Below is an extract from Alexander Higgins Blog: Alexhiggins-integrity well test

“Retired Adm. Thad Allen, the national incident commander, has said that a pressure reading of 8,000 or 9,000 pounds per square inch (psi) inside the new cap would be ideal, while a pressure reading of 6,000 psi would indicate leakage. But pressures in an intermediate range would create ambiguity and force officials to make a tough decision on whether to keep the well shut in or open it back up and resort once again to containment operations.”

“The Washington Post is reporting that an insider in the BP control room says the pressure inside BP’s blowout preventer has only risen to about 6700 psi which may indicate leaks in the well bore down hole, although he cautioned that it is too early to tell.”

“Furthermore, since BP has started the well integrity test several people have sent in tips or posted comments claiming they have seen leaks in various areas on the sea floor and I have even received a phone call about the issue.

I began watching the live feed from Viking Posiedon ROV 1 soon after they off the well, for well over an hour. I witnessed the ROV cruising the sea floor where I saw large fields of cracks and fissures with oil and gas coming out of them. The ROV travelled over what is clearly a badly fractured seabed. Some the oil geysers looked pretty big as well as what I saw coming out of the cracks in the sea floor, both methane and crude. They have not stopped the oil, but is now surfacing from the sea floor all over the place. The video feed did not show the usual tracking data (heading, depth, etc.) There are leaks everywhere. I saw it between 5:00-6:30 EST. I called a friend and got her online as well and she saw the same thing.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

BP and Retired Adm. Tim Allen were reported to be satisfied that the new cap is holding up to the pressure building within the well. Pressure readings after 41 hours were 6745 psi and rising more slowly at about 2 psi per hour compared to 2 to 10 psi on late Friday. Although puzzled by the slow rise in pressure, they were nevertheless cautiously happy there were “no leakage on the sea floor and the continued rise (albeit slow) in pressure. According to Kent Wells, a BP PLC vice president, if the pressure could rise above 7,500 psi the well would not be leaking. A low pressure reading or a falling one, could mean the oil is escaping.

2. Reported reasons for the puzzling pressure results.
Washington’s blog on 16 July 2010 compiled four potential explanations for the low pressure readings which you can read in full details at washingtonsblog.

(1) There are substantial leaks in the well;

(2) There is leakage in the sands deep under the seafloor; possibility crossflow at the bottom of the well.

(3) There is some kind of blockage in the well: "If it's rising slowly, that means the pipe's integrity's still there. It's just getting around obstacles"

(4) The reservoir has been depleted more than engineers anticipated.

Even though there is some truth in (1) and ROV videos did pick up instances of up-welling of disturbed sediment and particles clouds, the leakage volume is too small to account for the over 50,000 barrels/day oil gush previously and the nature of the leaks does not explain the simple escape path from the well.

While (2) is the most logical reason, the leakage may not necessary be at the bottom of the well. It is more likely to be at the gas saturated weak sub-formation (GWSF) zone, immediately underlying the non-lithified Quaternary sequence. Leakage at this level will not only explain the puzzling low pressure but also how the blowout occurred in the first place. Capping the well now will make a bad situation even worse leading to more disastrous consequences.

If the well had been gushing unhindered for the last 87 days, there is no reason at all for (3).

Reason (4) is disturbingly wishful since the oil gush did not show the slightest hint of slowing down even after 87 days. If the well is assumed to have depleted itself by half (since 6700 psi shut-in pressure is roughly half of the original 13,000 psi static pressure in the beginning prior to the blowout) the volume of oil would be significantly less before the capping.

3. How GWSF affects drilling and cementing the top hole section
When the GWSF hazards were first discussed more than 15 years ago, drillers agreed that cementing the top-hole section of a well would be extremely difficult even with low pressured GWSF zones. This is because as soon as the well bore penetrates the gas-saturated highly fractured (and faulted) top formation, gases would start escaping into the overlying non-lithified Quaternary sediment (soil). The erosion unconformity (U1) is often overlain by permeable layers of sand which further facilitate the discharge of gas and pore fluid into the well-bore; enlarging the well bore as disintegrated sediment particles get gas-lifted up into the water column. Drillers have no control over the escaping gases swirling outside the well casing; other than speeding up and cementing the top hole as soon as possible.

In Total’s 1988 Sisi-2 blowout (see figure 1), the gas discharge quickly developed into an uncontrollable massive gas blowout at 800m below sea floor. Figure 2 shows the geological setting for the 1991 Barton-BT5 blowout which occurred years after 4 highly problematic trajectories had been drilled. The early warning signs had been ignored and misinterpreted, culminating into a major disaster which almost shut down the Barton-A platform. With ROV videos showing scary pictures of blown out craters, fissures and spewing gas columns on the seafloor, Sabah Shell Berhad had no choice but to shut down the platform before the feared collapse culminate into an even bigger disaster. Barton-A would not be standing today almost 20 years later, had the voice of geological reasons on the delayed mechanism of GWSF hazards, not prevailed at the very last minute.

BP’s Macondo blowout, like PTTEP’s Montara, Total’s SiSi-2, Shell’s Barton-BT5 and Bajt-F blowouts are all disasters waiting to happen. It was only a matter of timing and depth. The GWSF hazards zones can be as large as a few km in lateral extent and hundreds of metres deep; depending on the geological structure. Since the chance of sealing the top-hole section in a GWSF zone is virtually zero, the best alternative (precaution wise) is to move the well location off the apex of the GWSF hazards zone. Figure 3 is a map showing previous problematic wells and the extent of the damaged seafloor caused by their near-disaster massive gas discharge at a shelf-edge zone.

4. How BP’s Macondo Well blew.
Figure 4a illustrates a normal sealed (cemented) top-hole section of a well. Figures 4b to 4d illustrate the difficulty in sealing the top-hole section passing through a GWSF hazards section. The enlarged and irregular well-bore also acts like a vertical conduit connecting the open fractures (fissures) in an already fractured formation. Loss Circulation is common as the heavier high pressured mud invades the fractured formation and in the process forces the formation fluid and gas deeper (laterally) into the formation and upwards into the overlying permeable sandy layers. But this is only a temporary equilibrium. As more gases and formation fluid are squeezed out and displaced, more drilling mud will invade the fractured formation. The GWSF zone in the vicinity of the well bore essentially becomes a hydraulically connected extended gas-charged pressurized (EGCP) zone; the extent of which depends on the drilling practices and geological nature of the GWSF hazards zone. Drilling mud will be forced back into the well whenever the pressure in the well drop below the charged-up pressure in the EGCP zone and vice versa. This is the nightmare scenario drilling through the GSWF hazards zones.

Even if a well manages to “drill thru and safely cement” the top-hole section, the poorly cemented top-hole section in a hydraulically connected EGCP zone will continue to act like a dynamic “spring-loaded” charging system; just waiting to blow on the slightest mistake. Despite the nightmares, Transocean’s drilling crew managed to control the well until it reached their targeted depth and oil reservoir. Displacing the drilling mud with seawater (too early) was a mistake that triggered the blowout. As the pressure inside the well continued to drop, the mixture of mud, clay slurry and eventually gas were forced back into the well. With continuous gas kicking-in at the top-hole level and no mud column to counter the gas bubbles’ rapid ascent through the riser, it was like “sucking” the oil out of the reservoir through a “straw”. Naturally, the well’s bottom seal gave way to the high pressure oil gushing out of the reservoir.

5. Making a bad situation worse
Capping the well from the top is a bad idea. The “Top Kill” attempt was doomed to fail because there is simply no way to overcome the multiple flow-path from a badly damaged top hole section. Capping the well at the top would only make a bad situation worse. Once the pressure in the well builds up, the oil would be forced back into the highly fractured GWSF zone again; recreating an even bigger EGCP zone.

There is a possibility that some of the methane gas could have been vaporized insitu from “frozen” methane hydrates, thus providing endless supply of methane gas. As the heavier hydrocarbons from the reservoir warm up the hydrates, more methane gas is vaporized and squeezed through the fissures. They eventually filter up towards the sea floor. Basically, the pressure increase in the well will slowly taper off but never reaching the maximum as the EGCP zone gets bigger and bigger.

Methane and lighter hydrocarbons will filter through the sandy sequence, fissures and fractures to reach the seafloor. The heavier oil will remain trapped within the EGCP zone. Given time, the fragile sedimentary (soil) structure will fail, resulting in uncontrollable gas and oil seeps. In reality the weak sedimentary (soil) structure will likely fail first before the steel casing and lining. Keeping the cap on and the pressure high will only lead to uncontrollable consequences.

BP well engineers should be aware that the EGCP zone acts like a secondary gas reservoir connected by the well in question. Calculating the correct mud weight might be tricky given the many unanswered questions and uncertainties. It might be prudent to carry out a detailed high resolution 3x3 km geophysical investigation over the ill-fated well. The evidence to date confirms the damage had extended far beyond the normal vicinity of the well. Concentrating on the well alone would be missing the forest for the trees. A correlation of the pre-incident and post-incident survey data would be priceless in understanding the causes of the blowout and oil spill disaster. The mistakes learnt and knowledge earned will go a long way to ensure our environment may never suffer from another mega mishap of this kind again.

For those of you who want pictures to clarify your understanding of the above:

http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/201...risk-of-capping-bps-gushing-well-from-the-top

Yeah, I did the cut & past just to see if I could piss you guys off... Hope not too technical for ya...
 
Flying Goat

Flying Goat

Member
Here's a very good explanation in "regular Joe" language (with pictures):

http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/201...acondo-blowout-so-disastrous-beyond-patch-up-

If they'd secured reliable geological info to begin with, and/or paid attention to it, they would not have drilled there...

Combine that with a 32-year old punk, a rig virgin, running things - helluva ego, that guy - and now taking the 5th...

Say whatever you want to about Flying Goat or her sources... rolls off like water from an (oiled) duck's back...

:moon:
 
Flying Goat

Flying Goat

Member
Hmmm... another "Targeted Individual" falls... RIP Matthew Simmons, you tried to get the word out...

Obama's Gulf War –
"Bewitched, Bothered & Bumbling"
Casey Stengel would have Yanked them much earlier in the game

Not just bewitched, but bedeviled as well,
BP continues to bumble around,
But hasn't bothered to explain to Thad baby
That they haven't a clue if their well casing's sound.

Chief Bungler, Suttles, has proclaimed a victory,
But somehow Kent Wells hasn't sounded that sure.
The information they've been parceling out,
On dry land would most likely be labeled manure

Dumping twenty-three hundred barrels of mud,
Followed by five hundred more of cement,
And rosy pronouncements – Obama's ecstatic –
But no one is sure where the hell the stuff went.

Maybe forty percent went inside the casing.
You suppose that the rest disappeared in thin air?
We'll have to await Ms. Browner's announcement.
If it's gone by November, Obama won't care.

Doug Suttles did say that it went "as expected,"
But having watched BP and how they have muddled,
Something about these guys must be contagious.
They also have Chu and The Admiral befuddled.

But isn't it time to bring in some relievers?
The minors are calling to Steve Chu and crew.
Which still leaves the problem of BP's own bunglers.
Their big league retirements are long overdue.

Bob Carlson
www.politicalboondoggles.com
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top