BP has announced that the plan to lower a giant dome on top of the gushing oil well in the Gulf of Mexico has not failed. It just hasn't worked. CNN reports that the giant dome has become encrusted with hydrates, a compound that results from the chemical reaction between oil and water (no, not like salad dressing). Hydrates are lighter than water and float. The encrusted hydrates have made the dome buoyant and are also clogging up the plumbing that would make pumping oil to the surface possible.
In the words of my twelve year old brother, Kevin, Option Four was an EPIC FAIL.
BP is now considering attempting a "junk shot," which according to the Internet is...nevermind, I'll let you look that one up.
Regardless of the popular definition, CNN reports that a junk shot would "take ground-up material of various types and try to inject it into the blowout preventer at the bottom of it and it will flow up and plug it up."
I know this is totally off the subject, but if you were the PR guy working for the company responsible for the worst environmental disaster of the 21st Century, would you speak in all pronouns or would you be more specific? Using the word "it" four times in their description of the junk shot plan makes me wonder if BP really knows what they're doing or if they're just flying by the seat of their pants.
Anyway, BP chief operations officer Doug Suttles compares a junk shot to stopping up a toilet, which I must say is a wonderful analogy choice for describing an oil spill. I know BP wants to make the everyday American know what they are planning, but is there not an industrial application that would have been more appropriate? Might he have said, it is like filling a drainage pipe with sand? Filling an old well with cement? What are the American people going to think when BP's plan for stopping the oil spill was inspired by a clogged toilet?