I recommend a visit every once and a while to http://www.progressivepunch.org/ to find out your Senators and Representative are doing . . . And where that stand.

@StopTheSpill, can an Ohio class submarine withstand the pressure at a mile deep?

N

@Stop The Spill: would an Ohio Class submarine be able to operate at that depth? Or would we just be adding a nuclear fiasco to the oil spill?

What the heck is an Ohio class submarine? Are there some cruising around in Lake Erie?

One of our founding principles is no taxation without representation. I don't want the churches to have political representation. Besides, nonprofits in general are tax exempt.

Looks bad for the Ohio Class sub as a solution. Test depth is 800 ft. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_class_submarine

The Thresher was crushed and lost in an accident.

re: Ohio Class Submarine, quick check on the web, test depth is 800 ft, assuming that this is just a shallow publication given by the Navy to keep its real depth potential secret, you still have over 4,200 ft to go to get to the source of the oil plume. Maybe they can just drag the hulk of the Deepwater Horizon over the well to block it, though I doubt dropping a mass of weight is really going to deform pipes that are cable of withstanding the immense underwater pressures that they are designed to work at.

N

@flotron9, re:#47-

In spite of the evidence you present I maintain that Corporations do, indeed, produce FABULOUS wealth. They just don't share it with you and me, or with Nigerians, Bolivians, coal miners, etc. Just cuz they don't show YOU the money, don't go thinkin' that they don't HAVE it!

We love Kevin Costner http://www.kevincostner.com/

re: costner: he was a conservative republican before he did the movie JFK

EPA Officials Weigh Sanctions Against BP’s U.S. Operations
by Abrahm Lustgarten, ProPublica - May 21, 2010 1:27 pm EDT

Officials at the Environmental Protection Agency are considering whether to bar BP from receiving government contracts, a move that would ultimately cost the company billions in revenue and could end its drilling in federally controlled oil fields.

Over the past 10 years, BP has paid tens of millions of dollars in fines and been implicated in four separate instances of criminal misconduct that could have prompted this far more serious action. Until now, the company's executives and their lawyers have fended off such a penalty by promising that BP would change its ways.

That strategy may no longer work.

Days ago, in an unannounced move, the EPA suspended negotiations with the petroleum giant over whether it would be barred from federal contracts because of the environmental crimes it committed before the spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Officials said they are putting the talks on hold until they learn more about the British company's responsibility for the plume of oil that is spreading across the Gulf.

The EPA said in a statement that, according to its regulations, it can consider banning BP from future contracts after weighing "the frequency and pattern of the incidents, corporate attitude both before and after the incidents, changes in policies, procedures, and practices."

Several former senior EPA debarment attorneys and people close to the BP investigation told ProPublica that means the agency will re-evaluate BP and examine whether the latest incident in the Gulf is evidence of an institutional problem inside BP, a precursor to the action called debarment.

Federal law allows agencies to suspend or bar from government contracts companies that engage in fraudulent, reckless or criminal conduct. The sanctions can be applied to a single facility or an entire corporation. Government agencies have the power to forbid a company to collect any benefit from the federal government in the forms of contracts, land leases, drilling rights, or loans.

The most serious, sweeping kind of suspension is called "discretionary debarment" and it is applied to an entire company. If this were imposed on BP, it would cancel not only the company's contracts to sell fuel to the military but prohibit BP from leasing or renewing drilling leases on federal land. In the worst cast, it could also lead to the cancellation of BP's existing federal leases, worth billions of dollars.

Present and former officials said the crucial question in deciding whether to impose such a sanction is assessing the offending company's culture and approach: Do its executives display an attitude of non-compliance? The law is not intended to punish actions by rogue employees and is focused on making contractor relationships work to the benefit of the government. In its negotiations with EPA officials before the Gulf spill, BP had been insisting that it had made far-reaching changes in its approach to safety and maintenance, and that environmental officials could trust its promises that it would commit no further violations of the law.

EPA officials declined to speculate on the likelihood that BP will ultimately be suspended or barred from government contracts. Such a step will be weighed against the effect on BP's thousands of employees and on the government's costs of replacing it as a contractor.

Even a temporary expulsion from the U.S. could be devastating for BP's business. BP is the largest oil and gas producer in the Gulf of Mexico and operates some 22,000 oil and gas wells across United States, many of them on federal lands or waters. According to the company, those wells produce 39 percent of the company's global revenue from oil and gas production each year -- $16 billion.

Discretionary debarment is a step that government investigators have long sought to avoid, and which many experts had considered highly unlikely because BP is a major supplier of fuel to the U.S. military. The company could petition U.S. courts for an exception, arguing that ending that contract is a national security risk. That segment of BP's business alone was worth roughly $4.6 billion over the last decade, according to the government contracts website USAspending.

Because debarment is supposed to protect American interests, the government also must weigh such an action's effect on the economy against punishing BP for its transgressions. The government would, for instance, be wary of interrupting oil and gas production that could affect energy prices, or taking action that could threaten the jobs of thousands of BP employees.
Continue reading here:
http://www.propublica.org/feature/epa-officials-weighing-sanctions-again...

»

Live feed of oil spewing out of riser. Coming from BP ROV, I'm guessing they're providing the least best angle for this.

http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/ho...

N

Re: Acknowledging that the system is screwed up, doesn't limit anyone from working to change it.

I agree!

It just seems to me that one way of voting for real change is voting 3rd party. It may take some time, but perhaps not as long a time as it will take the Democratic party away from the corporations that own them.

It appears that the plume is now only oil, whereas before is was a mix of oil and natural gas. This surely means that the rate of flow for oil has increased. I am not seeing the massive bubbles that were there over the weekend.

@DRichards, can't say I blame you for supporting and voting for a 3rd party, I myself registered Green back in the 90's. But don't let the corrupt and inept actions of a vast number of Democrats fog your reason. All I'm saying is for now, don't vote for a 3rd party candidate if it's going to effectively empower a Republican candidate, however, if you know a race is tight enough, perhaps even winable by you're preferred 3rd party candidate, then by all means go for it.

I definitly share your frustration with the Democratic party, but at least with the Democratic party I can still be frustrated, the Republican party just pisses me off, can't tolerate their oppressive attitudes. Remember, for the most part the Democrats still have to be bought off, the Republicans already believe the corporate BS, they'll get that corrupt cash regardless.

N