Blog

A grande onda de recall que assolou as principais montadoras do mundo inteiro, principalmente a Toyota, parece ter chegado até no modelos mais caros e exclusivos. Isso porque, a Lamborghini anunciou um recall convocando os proprietários de 428 unidades do Murcielago Roadster e Cupê, fabricados nos ano de 2007 e 2008 nos Estados Unidos.

De acordo com a Lamborghini, as soldas de fixação da bomba de combustível no interior do tanque de combustível podem se soltar, ocasionando um vazamento de combustível. Na presença de alguma ignição/faísca, o vazamento do combustível pode ocasionar um incêndio, destruir completamente o superesportivo e causar danos fatais aos seus ocupantes.

Pra solucionar o problema, a Lamborghini comunicou ao órgão americano National Highway Traffic Safety Administration que ira efetuar a troca do tanque de combustível gratuitamente. O recall da Lamborghini Murcielago Roadster e Cupê deverá ser realizado a partir do mês de junho.

Fonte: CarScoop

By Scott M. Fulton, III, Betanews

If a user would rather that Facebook not share her personal information with other services unknowingly, then there should be a simple switch that turns off Facebook’s ability to do that. This was the message delivered by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, in an op-ed piece published in Sunday’s Washington Post.

“Facebook has been growing quickly. It has become a community of more than 400 million people in just a few years,” Zuckerberg wrote. “It’s a challenge to keep that many people satisfied over time, so we move quickly to serve that community with new ways to connect with the social Web and each other. Sometimes we move too fast — and after listening to recent concerns, we’re responding.”

The problem with automatically sharing personal data with other sites was magnified with last month’s unveiling of the ‘Like’ system, also known as Open Graph. Ostensibly, it enables sites such as YouTube to inform Facebook about those videos that its users signify that they “Like,” so that Facebook can respond by feeding that user more information about, for instance, their producers or subject matter.

Facebook does give users a way to effectively say, “No, I’d rather not,” with respect to sharing information in this manner, but only on a site-by-site basis. In his op-ed piece yesterday, Zuckerberg explained that this type of “granularity” was something he had thought people would prefer, “but that may not have been what many of you wanted. We just missed the mark.”

The CEO stated that a solution will be made available “in the coming weeks,” in response to what he characterized as complaints from a minority of users. The majority of others don’t complain, he said, but that won’t stop Facebook from trying to please everyone, including those few who think privacy is really important.

“We have also heard that some people don’t understand how their personal information is used and worry that it is shared in ways they don’t want,” he wrote. “Many people choose to make some of their information visible to everyone so people they know can find them on Facebook.”

Recently, many users have discovered their information was already made visible, and not by choice. That prompted Sen. Chuck Schumer (D – N.Y.) to ask the Federal Trade Commission to create new guidelines for all social networking sites, and to act as the police force for compliance nationwide. And earlier this month, Rep. Rick Boucher (D – Va.) introduced legislation that would mandate that any act of personal information sharing between Web sites be expressly indicated to the user at the time it happens, with the user being given the option to stop it.

Zuckerberg’s solution — at least, to the extent he discussed it in the Post — would fall short of that mandate, opting instead to give users an extra option to turn all third-party sharing off. Conceivably, that option may be presented to all users upon logging into Facebook.

Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010
















Facebook – Mark Zuckerberg – Washington Post – Federal Trade Commission – YouTube

Donna Rodriguez was kind enough to invite me to talk live on her weekly radio program, the Dishing with Donna Show, which airs every Saturday at 2 p.m., on WGKA 920 AM.

How did I repay this kindness? By showing up 20 minutes late, that’s how. Between closed highway lanes and a highly regrettable “if only I had first looked at a map moment,” I left this poor woman alone to stall until I burst into the studio. Me, I would have been poems I had memorized in junior high school (”Because I could not stop for Death, He kindly stopped for me…”), or just mumbling. Donna instead was coolly talking about the building blocks of effective food writing.

Anyhow, you can read about Rodriguez’s experience of keeping it together here, on her blog.

I also recommend the show that, as far as I know, is the only hour of broadcast in Atlanta devoted solely to food and restaurants. Rodriguez does a lot of prep before each show, so the conversation moves briskly and with purpose.

Do you listen to …

[JURIST] Australian Defense Minister John Faulkner and Attorney General Robert McClelland [official websites] announced Monday that the government will establish a new military court [press release] as part of a restructuring of the federal court system. The Military Court of Australia will be administered by the Federal Court of Australia and will have jurisdiction over Australian Defense Force (ADF) [official websites] personnel operating overseas who are accused of committing serious service offenses or elect to have their cases heard by the court. Judges on the court will be required to have military experience or familiarity with the armed forces but cannot be ADF members or within the military chain of command. In the joint statement, McClelland outlined the benefits of the new courts, stating:

Judicial officers appointed to the new Military Court of Australia will have the same independence and constitutional protections that apply in other federal courts. … This new structure will achieve a more integrated and efficient system in order to effectively deliver legal and justice services to both the civilian and defence community.

Additionally, the proposed court restructuring would give jurisdiction over family law cases solely to the Family Court and would retain the Federal Magistrates Court [official websites] to exercise general federal law jurisdiction. Legislation to establish the new military court is to be introduced to the Parliament [official website] later this year, and the Military Court is expected to be operational by the end of 2011.

The new military courts would replace the interim arrangements that had been in use after the Australian Military Court (AMC) [Department of Defense backgrounder] was found unconstitutional [judgment text; JURIST report] by the High Court of Australia [official website] in August. The High Court held that the AMC employed the judicial power of the Commonwealth while AMC judges functioned within the hierarchy of the military, violating chapter three of the Australian Constitution [text]. The ruling cast doubt on approximately 170 cases that the AMC had ruled on since its inception in 2007. The case that prompted the ruling was brought as an appeal by sailor Brian Lane over a 2005 charge of indecent assault on a superior officer. Lane had argued [The Australian report] that the AMC did not have jurisdiction over the case and that the legislation creating the court was invalid. In response to the ruling, Faulker said that the previous military justice system would be reinstated [press release], which consisted mainly of trials by court martial and ADF magistrates. The AMC was established by the government of former prime minister John Howard [BBC profile] after a series of Senate Committee reports were critical of the system of military justice and recommended extensive changes.

So Mr. Jobs is saying we won’t be disappointed by the announcements that will be made at Apple’s Worldwide Developer’s Conference.

And now the company has been gracious enough to also let us know when exactly he’ll be delivering.

Mark the date: the man’s keynote address kicks off on Monday 7 June at 10 AM PST.

We know a new iPhone is coming – but what else?

Did you know that although it’s easy to prevent, there are more cases of skin cancer each year than cases of breast, colon, lung and prostrate cancers combined? Or that skin cancer is affecting younger and younger people? That adds up to more than one million Americans getting skin cancer annually. Every year, the Friday before Memorial Day is designated as Don’t Fry Day as a reminder to be SunWise and protect your skin while enjoying the outdoors.

What do you do to be SunWise and protect yourself from overexposure to the sun?

Each week we ask a question related to the environment. Please let us know your thoughts as comments. Feel free to respond to earlier comments or post new ideas. Previous questions.

Might We Suggest…

• 2.1 Arrives on Select Droids Today, Full Rollout Starts This Week
  According to Engadget, the long awaited Android 2.1 rollout has commenced for Droid owners.  Start earlier today, 1,000 started receiving the notification that an update is available for their phone. …

* Chronium steel blade * 5 position attachment comb * Charging stand with charging light indicator * Jawline blending comb * Moustache comb * Lubrication Oil * Cleaning brush *

View Mountain Shaver SV2188 Deluxe beard and Moustache Trimmer Cordless/ rechargeable Details

BP’s last best hope for stopping the oil leak just got delayed until Wednesday.

Top Kill had been expected to commence on Tuesday. Originally, it was planned for Sunday.

“We’re lining up all the equipment on the sea floor. When it’s all staged, we have to connect all the materials together and make sure everything is tested. It’s not a fast process,” said BP spokesperson John Curry.

The plan to stop the leak with cement-like drilling fluid is basically BP’s last quick fix. If it fails, BP will return to a variation on Operation Top Hat.

The company will keep trying new plans to siphon or stop the leak until August, when relief wells will reduce the flow. “No step that we take will make things worse,” Curry said.

Don’t miss: Pictures Of A Louisiana Town Covered In Oil

Disclosure: The author owns shares in BP and Transocean.

Join the conversation about this story »

The Wall Street Journal: A huge jolt convulsed an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico. The pipe down to the well on the ocean floor, more than a mile below, snapped in two. Workers battled a toxic spill.

That was 2003—seven years before last month’s Deepwater Horizon disaster, which killed 11 people and sent crude spewing into the sea. And in 2004, managers of BP PLC, the oil giant involved in both incidents, warned in a trade journal that the company wasn’t prepared for the long-term, round-the-clock task of dealing with a deep-sea spill.

It still isn’t, as Deepwater Horizon demonstrates and as BP’s chief executive, Tony Hayward said recently. It’s “probably true” that BP didn’t do enough planning in advance of the disaster, Mr. Hayward said. There are some capabilities, he said, “that we could have available to deploy instantly, rather than creating as we go.”

It’s a problem that spans the industry, whose major players include Chevron Corp., Royal Dutch Shell and Petróleo Brasileiro SA. Without adequately planning for trouble, the oil business has focused on developing experimental equipment and techniques to drill in ever deeper waters, according to a Wall Street Journal examination of previous deepwater accidents. As drillers pushed the boundaries, regulators didn’t always mandate preparation for disaster recovery or perform independent monitoring.

The brief, roughly two-decade history of deepwater drilling has seen serious problems: fires, equipment failures, wells that collapsed, platforms that nearly sank. Since last July, one brand-new deepwater rig—among the 40 or so operating in at least 1,000 feet of water in the Gulf—was swept by fire. Another lost power and started to drift, threatening to detach from the wellhead. Poor maintenance at a third deepwater well led to a serious gas leak, according to regulatory records.

By some measures, offshore drilling has become safer in recent years. Industry backers argue that major accidents are rare. The rate of serious injuries in U.S. waters fell 71% between 1998 and 2008, and the number of serious oil spills has also been falling once hurricanes are taken into account. Moreover, deepwater drilling is by some measures safer than drilling in shallower waters, where rigs are often older and operated by smaller companies.

Still, drilling for oil at depths no human could survive presents special risks when something does go wrong. The water pressure is crushing, the seabed temperature is almost freezing, the underground conditions explosive. The rapid push into deeper water means that some projects rely on technology that hasn’t been used before.

“It’s like outer space, in terms of the complexity of the operating environment,” said Robin West, who helped oversee offshore-drilling policy under President Ronald Reagan and is now chairman of PFC Energy, a consulting firm.

Read more>>

Share This

Justice John Paul Stevens with the unanimous opinion.

***This antitrust case comes from an Illinois based apparel company that lost out on a clothing contract when the league decided to entire into a contract with Reebok covering all 32 teams.***

 

***This is not a total loss for the NFL because the opinion says the League may engage in some activities as a single entity and disputes over those actions need to be judged on a case-by-case basis but “the activity at issue in this case is still concerted activity covered for [Sherman Antitrust Act] purposes.”

From the opinion: “While teams have common interests such as promoting the NFL brand, they are still separate profit-maximizing entities, and their interest in licensing team trademarks are not necessarily aligned.”

BACKGROUNDER

Lee Ross

– FOXNews.com

– January 13, 2010

Supreme Court Tackles Dispute Over NFL Authority

In a fight as fierce as any seen in the Super Bowl, lawyers on Wednesday tussled with Supreme Court justices in a case examining the fundamental operations of the 32-team National Football League.

In a fight as fierce as any seen in the Super Bowl, lawyers on Wednesday tussled with Supreme Court justices in a case examining the fundamental operations of the 32-team National Football League.

The NFL asserts that as a legal joint venture it operates as a single entity in making key decisions that impact all of its member teams.

But a lawyer representing a small apparel company that sued the league for supposedly violating the Sherman Antitrust Act argued the teams are independent actors free to enter into business contracts as they see fit.

Labor unions, including the one representing NFL players, contend a ruling in the league’s favor will give it too much power at the expense of the men on the field and fans.

New Orleans Saints quarterback and union representative Drew Brees recently wrote that team owners would use a high court victory to restrict player free agency, raise prices on merchandise and stadium tickets and freeze coaches salaries. Others have suggested that a ruling for the league will lead to increased labor strife and strikes that could lead to cancelled games.

It was difficult to discern from Wednesday’s arguments how the justices will resolve the dispute, possibly sending it back to lower courts for further development. But the wholesale victory the NFL asked for and the unions fear does not appear to be likely.

“You are seeking through this ruling what you haven’t gotten from Congress: An absolute bar to an antitrust claim,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said to the NFL’s lawyer.

The case started as a lawsuit from American Needle Inc., an Illinois based company that over the years had produced logoed clothing for several NFL teams. But a decade ago the NFL signed an exclusive contract with Reebok to cover every team. American Needle was shut out and sued saying the contract with Reebok violated antitrust laws.

“The 32 teams of the National Football League are separately owned and controlled profit-making enterprises,” American Needle lawyer Glen Nager said at the beginning of his case. It was a point he returned to repeatedly throughout the morning.

The issue over competition took an interesting twist when Justice Stephen Breyer wondered why a fan of a particular team would have any interest in buying merchandise featuring another.

“I don’t know a Red Sox fan who would take a Yankees sweatshirt if you gave it away,” Breyer said after stating he is more of baseball fan than football but his analogy applies just the same.

Later in the argument, Justice John Paul Stevens, who specialized in antitrust law in his early career, focused on the league’s agreement to equally share revenues. He said that fact would “support the conclusion that this is basically a pro-competitive agreement because it tends to make competition stronger on the playing field…and that’s the end of the ball game.”

The key for the justices may come down to their determination over how vital the selling of logoed merchandise is to the purpose of the league to play games and promote the NFL which would be permissible under the Sherman Act.

It’s an issue Chief Justice John Roberts suggested needed further review.

“If there is a factual dispute about whether a particular activity of the league is designed to promote the game or is designed simply to make more money, than that is the sort of thing that goes to trial,” Roberts said.

***Lower courts had dismissed the attempts of the American Needle company from pursuing legal action against the NFL. Today’s ruling allows the legal action to go forward.

Luke Timmerman wrote:

Cell Therapeutics (NASDAQ: CTIC), the Seattle-based developer of cancer drugs, said today it has raised $21 million through an offering of preferred stock to three institutional investors. The company’s lead drug candidate, pixantrone for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, was rejected by the FDA last month. Cell Therapeutics said it plans to use the new financing to pay down some of its debt, finance R&D, prepare new drug applications, and for other corporate purposes.

UNDERWRITERS AND PARTNERS

Politico takes a look at the coalescing roles of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Obama administration, a story of two similarly disposed wise (wo)men who have forged a partnership remarkably free of the Foggy Bottom-Pentagon infighting or upstaging that has plagued administrations past. (Well, mostly.) Gates, Politico says, is known at the White House as “Yoda.” Here’s an example of his Jedi mind tricks.

As reported here, the House Armed Services Committee finished marking up the fiscal 2011 Defense authorization last week, and intruded on a lot of administration priorities. Something I didn’t focus on, but Gates certainly did: The committee again authorized funding for a second engine on the Joint Strike Fighter, something the past two administrations have opposed as unnecessary and costly. And they did it right after Gates gave a major speech warning Congress about the “political will” necessary for a restrained, sustainable defense budget. Like not even two weeks afterward. It’s a slap in the face. Politico is right to observe that Gates is more solicitous of Capitol Hill than his predecessor, Donald Rumsfeld — a pretty low bar to clear —  but the budget fight is the central characteristic of his relationship with legislators at the moment.

So the morning after the markup, Gates comes into a Pentagon press conference and starts to regulate. “We will strongly resist efforts to impose programs and changes on the department that the military does not want, cannot afford, and that takes dollars from programs and endeavors the military services do need,” he said, reminding everyone in the room and on the Hill of his longstanding recommendation that President Obama veto the bill if it funds the second JSF engine and an Air Force transport plane Gates is trying to kill.

But if you’re a legislator, maybe you have a different calculus in mind. You need to get re-elected. Your constituents need jobs. You need to be seen as providing them with jobs. Defense-sector manufacturing and support jobs are good jobs, with high wages and federal benefits. So what if some defense secretary is moaning about wasteful defense spending? Your district isn’t going to care. And besides — isn’t Gates on his way out the door this year, anyway?

Then comes this exchange with a reporter in last week’s press conference. Here’s the transcript:

Q Will you stay here through next year to see that ‘012 budget through? Because what you’re proposing can be rope-a-doped if there’s a perception you’re leaving at the end of the year. Rope-a-dope means they could, you know, resist –

SEC. GATES: I know what rope-a-dope means. (Laughter, laughs.) I’ve been in — I started in the government 44 years ago. I know exactly what that means. (Laughter.)

ADM. MULLEN: (Laughs.)

Q A serious question, though.

Do you now anticipate staying here through the end of ‘011 to see the ‘012 budget through?

SEC. GATES: We’ll see.

Maybe that legislator’s calculus changes now that Gates might stick around to see his priorities enforced. After all, she could be blamed for busting up the gargantuan defense budget, opposing the military and not delivering jobs. It’s an election year.

The Force is strong with this one.

“Profitable and proud” is a new series here at Signal vs. Noise. We’ll highlight tech companies (and others) that have $1M+ in revenues, didn’t take VC, and are profitable. First up: Campaign Monitor, a small software company in Sydney that makes elegant email marketing software for designers and their clients. Co-founder David Greiner tells us about CM’s path below.

How successful is your business? Any numbers you’re willing to share to back that up?

Success is a tricky thing to define because it means different things to different people. From a financial perspective we’ve been very successful. We’re a private company so don’t share any numbers. I can tell you we’ve managed to more than double our revenues and profits every year for the last six years. All without taking any outside investment.

While the financial success has been great, there are other aspects of the business that I would consider more of a success personally. I genuinely still love what I do. I work with interesting, funny people. My wife and I are expecting our first child soon and I can work the hours I want. For me these things are much better indicators of a successful business than anything on a spreadsheet.

You started as a small web design shop and then clients started approaching you to send email newsletters for them. How did you make the switch to selling a product? How much time did it take to build something on the side?

The idea for selling our own software really came out of frustration more than anything else. We were designing email newsletters for a lot of our clients but couldn’t find the right tool for the job. After trying everything on the market, we built a simple app that let our clients manage their own newsletters. All our clients loved it and it created a nice new revenue stream for us.

We quickly realized this was something other web designers would love too. In early 2004 we cut back our schedule a little and built Campaign Monitor on the side. The majority of our days were still spent on regular web design work, but every spare moment was spent building the first version of Campaign Monitor. It took us just over six months from having the idea to launch.

Dave (left) and co-founder Ben Richardson.

Did you ever consider taking on any investors? Why or why not?

Outside investment was never an option that interested us. I think there are a couple of reasons for this. First, we were building something for ourselves, so we already had a good idea what the problem was and how to solve it. Our background was designing and developing for the web, so we didn’t need to hire anyone. Plus, we could fund the whole process with the profits of our consulting business. We’re not talking big numbers here either. It’s amazing what a small team can achieve when you really focus for a couple of hours each day.

On top of this, the first version of Campaign Monitor was deliberately simple. We hosted it on a relatively cheap shared server with the rest of our clients. We spent next to nothing on marketing, and just relentlessly improved the product week after week.

How long did it take you to get the product to a point where it was profitable? How long until you stopped doing client work completely?

After launch we continued to spend an hour or two a day improving the product and talking to customers. By our sixth month Campaign Monitor revenues were already on par with our consulting business.

We’re quite conservative, and waited another six months before focusing on the product full-time. By this time Campaign Monitor was generating more than three times more revenue than the web design business, so we were comfortable making the transition. We didn’t want to leave our existing consulting clients in the lurch, so we created a new company to focus on Campaign Monitor and hired on a new team member to take over the web design business, which is still operating today.

Screenshot of Campaign Monitor.

More…

“Profitable and proud” is a new series here at Signal vs. Noise. We’ll highlight tech companies (and others) that have $1M+ in revenues, didn’t take VC, and are profitable. First up: Campaign Monitor, a small software company in Sydney that makes elegant email marketing software for designers and their clients. Co-founder David Greiner tells us about CM’s path below.

How successful is your business? Any numbers you’re willing to share to back that up?

Success is a tricky thing to define because it means different things to different people. From a financial perspective we’ve been very successful. We’re a private company so don’t share any numbers. I can tell you we’ve managed to more than double our revenues and profits every year for the last six years. All without taking any outside investment.

While the financial success has been great, there are other aspects of the business that I would consider more of a success personally. I genuinely still love what I do. I work with interesting, funny people. My wife and I are expecting our first child soon and I can work the hours I want. For me these things are much better indicators of a successful business than anything on a spreadsheet.

You started as a small web design shop and then clients started approaching you to send email newsletters for them. How did you make the switch to selling a product? How much time did it take to build something on the side?

The idea for selling our own software really came out of frustration more than anything else. We were designing email newsletters for a lot of our clients but couldn’t find the right tool for the job. After trying everything on the market, we built a simple app that let our clients manage their own newsletters. All our clients loved it and it created a nice new revenue stream for us.

We quickly realized this was something other web designers would love too. In early 2004 we cut back our schedule a little and built Campaign Monitor on the side. The majority of our days were still spent on regular web design work, but every spare moment was spent building the first version of Campaign Monitor. It took us just over six months from having the idea to launch.

Dave (left) and co-founder Ben Richardson.

Did you ever consider taking on any investors? Why or why not?

Outside investment was never an option that interested us. I think there are a couple of reasons for this. First, we were building something for ourselves, so we already had a good idea what the problem was and how to solve it. Our background was designing and developing for the web, so we didn’t need to hire anyone. Plus, we could fund the whole process with the profits of our consulting business. We’re not talking big numbers here either. It’s amazing what a small team can achieve when you really focus for a couple of hours each day.

On top of this, the first version of Campaign Monitor was deliberately simple. We hosted it on a relatively cheap shared server with the rest of our clients. We spent next to nothing on marketing, and just relentlessly improved the product week after week.

How long did it take you to get the product to a point where it was profitable? How long until you stopped doing client work completely?

After launch we continued to spend an hour or two a day improving the product and talking to customers. By our sixth month Campaign Monitor revenues were already on par with our consulting business.

We’re quite conservative, and waited another six months before focusing on the product full-time. By this time Campaign Monitor was generating more than three times more revenue than the web design business, so we were comfortable making the transition. We didn’t want to leave our existing consulting clients in the lurch, so we created a new company to focus on Campaign Monitor and hired on a new team member to take over the web design business, which is still operating today.

Screenshot of Campaign Monitor.

More…

Lost Season 6 Finale, the last episode of Lost since it started last 2004, will finally end.‘Lost’ fans were seen down after the much famous show ended. ABC aired the drama for the last time on Sunday May 23rd 2010. Somewhat around six years, the show had been running while gaining viewer count day by day. It was surely a huge success but airing of the last show wasn’t the much sad part rather the ending was. Fans worldwide were disappointed to see the finale as they anxiously waited for the drama to start. After it ended, critics and fans were kinda totally Lost as they were starring at each other somewhat clueless.

Internet message boards, blogs, and leading news agencies were seen reporting the ending of the show. While criticizing the ending, some critics were also of the view that the show changed the theme from a Sci-Fi beginning to a Pshchology and Religion route. Some of the fans were also heard as saying that the way, the show started and gained fans, it totally changed and was not so good anymore.

A few critics were of the view that the ending was more a type of Armageddon.

The Lost Finale has been termed a fail and fans told that the ending wasn’t as good as the show was running all along.

While the show ended, critics were of the view that our survivors on the island didn’t survive at all in the first place. Souls of the survivors would be roaming around and haunting the island forever.

So why did the show end this way, a simple question answered, lost finale explained:

“The show is, at its heart and soul, a character study. We were fascinated as storytellers by what makes people the way they are.”stated by the “Lost” co-creator Damon Lindelof.

Related posts:

1. Lost Ending: Lost Finale Explained!
2. Watch Lost Finale – How did Lost End?: Lost Finale Updates
3. Lost Finale: Spoilers and Teasers

The Times-Picayune: BP admitted Thursday that a figure it has been citing for weeks as its best estimate of the total amount of oil flowing into the Gulf of Mexico — 5,000 barrels a day – is too low. A tube inserted into a hole in a broken riser pipe is now capturing 5,000 barrels of oil per day, but oil is still gushing from that hole as well as from another leak nearby, BP spokesman Mark Proegler said.

BP is measuring the oil as it is siphoned onto a drill ship on the water’s surface, Proegler said.

“Five thousand was always understood to be a very rough estimate. That number was useful and sort of the best estimate at the time,” said Jane Lubchenco, administrator of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, the federal agency that came up with the 5,000-barrel, or 210,000-gallon, per day estimate.

NOAA has no immediate plans to revise its estimate and will wait until a recently assembled team of scientists concludes a study of the oil flow and releases its findings.

Oil has been escaping the well since the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded and sank in the Gulf of Mexico a month ago.

Lubchenco said the spill amount does not impact response efforts, which are focused primarily on stopping the flow of oil and preventing it from washing ashore. Thick, dark oil was spotted this week in a Louisiana marsh near the mouth of the Mississippi River.

“The response to the spill has never been pegged to that estimate of 5,000 or any other estimate,” Lubchenco said. “We’ve always pegged our response to the worst-case scenario and had much more significant effort than would have been required if it would have been 5,000.”

BP has been working for about a month to contain two oil leaks on a pipe attached to the sunken Deepwater Horizon rig. The rig, which BP leased from Transocean, exploded about 50 miles off the Louisiana coast on April 20 and subsequently sank. Eleven people on the rig were killed.

Although BP and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration had estimated up until Thursday that 5,000 barrels of oil are gushing into the sea each day from the leaks, some outside experts have put the amount at five times that much.

Steve Wereley, a researcher at Purdue University, told the House Energy committee Wednesday that he believed about 70,000 barrels of oil are leaking each day from the larger leak, based on an analysis of video of the spill.

A live video stream of the leak released by BP Thursday shows oil and natural gas continuing to pour from the pipe despite the insertion tube, which is surrounded by a rubber flap to prevent oil from escaping.

Oil spewing from the hole in the riser pipe accounts for about 85 percent of what is pouring into the sea. The remainder is coming from a hole hundreds of feet away near an apparatus called a blowout preventer.

A task force has been assembled to determine exactly how much oil is leaking every day, Lubchenco said. It is not known when that team will have a new estimate available.

“They don’t have a precise timeline, but everyone understands the importance of having a good number and one that is scientifically credible,” Lubchenco said.

Read more>>

Share This

This week BP will try one more time to stop its massive leak in the Gulf of Mexico. The “top kill” plan that was supposed to go into action on Sunday will now commence on Wednesday, the company says.

The process will involve pumping heavy fluids down two three-inch lines placed inside the wellhead. If successful, the fluids will temporarily stop the oil rush, which would then allow operators to seal the opening with cement. The wellhead, officials say, will never be used again for oil drilling [Christian Science Monitor].

Just like the containment dome, though, a top kill has never been attempted on a leak gushing so far below the surface of the water—5,000 feet. But with BP’s other attempts ending in failure, this looks like the best shot the company has to stop the flow in a short term.

As BP prepares this operation, the simmering anger at the company has seeped up to the higher levels of the U.S. government. Rear Admiral Mary Landry, who has been coordinating the Coast Guard’s response with BP, finally started to sound annoyed with the company’s actions—or lack thereof—as 65 miles of American shorelines have now been hit by oil, coating pelicans in Louisiana that were just removed from the endangered species list six months ago.

Landry also criticized BP for allowing some equipment that could aid in efforts to block or clean up the spreading oil slick to sit unused, even as oil is washing up onto the Gulf Coast. “There is really no excuse for not having constant activity,” Landry said [New Orleans Times-Picayune].

Other government officials, like Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, were more direct:

In a news conference on Sunday outside the BP headquarters in Houston, Mr. Salazar repeated the phrase that the government would keep its “boot on BP’s neck” for results. He also said the company had repeatedly missed deadlines and had not been open with the public. Mr. Salazar added, “If we find they’re not doing what they’re supposed to be doing, we’ll push them out of the way appropriately” [The New York Times].

The AP reports that the Justice Department is gathering information about the spill, but the White House wouldn’t say this weekend whether it intended to open a criminal investigation of BP. In the meantime, anger levels continue to rise as the oil slick gets wider.

On Saturday, the tensions between BP and local authorities came to a boiling point in Jefferson Parish, when local officials declared they were going to commandeer 40 boats of fishermen who had signed up to help with the spill but had since remained idle. They had spotted oil moving past the shoreline beaches through passes into Barataria Bay, which is surrounded by wildlife-rich wetlands [The New York Times].

But what of the EPA demand we covered on Friday, that BP must find an alternative chemical dispersant and switch within a few days? It seems that wasn’t such rigid ultimatum after all. BP replied over the weekend that no, they’d just as soon keep using the worrisome dispersant they’ve been using all along. The EPA flipped again and said that it might not force the switch.

Follow DISCOVER on Twitter.

Previous Posts on the BP oil spill:
80beats: BP To Switch Dispersants; Will Kevin Costner Save Us All?
80beats: Scientists Say Gulf Spill Is Way Worse Than Estimated. How’d We Get It So Wrong?
80beats: Testimony Highlights 3 Major Failures That Caused Gulf Spill
80beats: 5 Offshore Oil Hotspots Beyond the Gulf That Could Boom—Or Go Boom
80beats: Gulf Oil Spill: Do Chemical Dispersants Pose Their Own Environmental Risk?

Image: International Bird Rescue Research Center

He took on the Taliban as a clandestine C.I.A. officer, and was one of the first into Kabul during the American invasion in 2001.

Veteran C.I.A. officer Gary Berntsen gained prominence as one of the covert operatives who hunted Osama Bin Laden and spent years going after Al Qaeda terrorists.

Now he has set his sights on a different foe: New York Democratic Senator Charles Schumer.

“This is as much of an insurrection against Chuck Schumer in New York as it is an election,” says Berntsen, who announced his candidacy as a Republican this weekend.

Berntsen accuses the two term Schumer of supporting policies that have hurt the economy, made America’s national security weaker, and believes he is in lock-step with the Obama administration.

“Schumer is a major part of the problem,” he says. “He’s a force in the Democratic party, he is President Obama’s man in the Senate, he is someone who hopes to become the new majority leader.”

Berntsen is especially critical of Democratic spending policies.

“The U.S. government owes $14 trillion dollars. Senator Schumer was part of this. The U.S. government has been borrowing money recklessly. By the year 2015 we will owe $20 trillion. Senator Schumer and his peers are passing on a debt not only to our children, but to our grand children. It’s complete irresponsibility.”

For his part, Schumer doesn’t seem worried. He refused to respond to a Fox News request about Berntsen’s candidacy, when he held a news conference on a local issue on Long Island, on Friday.

“Today’s not a day for politics, no comment,” he told us.

Bernsten faces long odds, say political experts.
Schumer has amassed a campaign war chest reported at nearly $22 million, won his last race with more than 70% of the vote, and Democrats outnumber Republicans in New York State by almost three million.

“He has a chance of riding the wave and knocking Schumer out of the seat, but not a very good chance,” observes Democratic political consultant Hank Sheinkopf, a veteran of many national and New York races.

“Chuck Schumer has a lot of money. He is the Democrat. He has done multiple, multiple candidacies, and races throughout the state. He’s still well regarded,” says Sheinkopf.

“Voters may worry about national security but what they are mostly worried about is financial security right now,” he adds. “(Bernsten’s) got to talk finances. People really don’t believe they are going to get blown up by a terrorist, what they do believe is they are going to get blown up by Wall Street.”

It is a theme Berntsen has already grabbed.

“Senator Schumer has a lot of money, but if he spends his money in this campaign the way he spends our tax dollars this task might not be so difficult,” Berntsen says. “I think people are exhausted by his policies. They are exhausted from him,” he says.

“It will be a shocker, but we will be at him every single day from now until the election. We will build a force against Senator Schumer in New York, and he will lose the election,” predicts Berntsen.

An estimated 6 million gallons of oil has spread in the Gulf of Mexico, and more gush out of the damaged well each day. Senate environmental committee head Barbara Boxer has requested the Justice Department to assess BP’s readiness in preventing the oil spill. U.S Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is doubtful whether BP knows what it is doing, and if not they have to be pulled off. BP Chief Executive Tony Hayward had expressed dissatisfaction on the company’s month-long containment efforts.

For one, the amount of oil extracted using the mile-long tube has decreased from 92,400 gallons down to only 57, 120 gallons sucked up in a day, reports the Associated Press, and it changes overtime. WSJ indicates the decline from 5,000 barrels to 1,360 barrels a day. WSJ cites research firm ODS-Petrodata saying that BP executives, scientists, and government officials are learning in progress despite their already month-long efforts.

Second, BP has started spraying 6,000 gallons of chemical Corexit 950 into the gulf to disperse the oil, but its environmental effect is being questioned. There has not been sufficient studies yet regarding dispersant said Nancy Kinner, professor, University of New Hampshire, but BP continues to use it because there would be other environmental concerns for alternatives and they cannot provide them.

Third, instruments used, such as environmental maps, are reportedly outdated. It would cost $11 million to upgrade them. Environmental maps trace areas that need to be protected from oil spill. Also, plastic piping or “booms” to divert oil flow are lacking.

It is like fighting an all-out war, said Coast Guard Commandant Thad Allen. BP has the expertise in stopping the spill, and what the rest could do is to make sure it will happen, he emphasized.

Related posts:

1. Oil Spill Still Flowing
2. Mexico Oil Spill : Lives and Money
3. Lighting The Oil Spill On Fire Is Being Considered By Coast Guard Officials