Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Gulf Coast Oil]: Spill, Baby Spill. Volunteer Info at the top of OP

2456763

Posts

  • adytumadytum Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    MeshaK wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    The financial hit to the nation's oil industry is, frankly, the least of my concerns

    The danger (both economically and environmentally) to the coastal states the slick threatens is much more distressing to me than the fact that BP takes a hit in the pocket book, even if it gets passed down to consumers.

    Because maybe you know we shouldn't have an entire nation that is so completely dependent on this one fucking resource

    True that. When I get off work I guess I should go buy some rubber boots and gloves for the ritual cleaning of the oil-covered wildlife, huh? Except for the nutria rats. Those fuckers can rot in hell.

    But they are full of delicious meat. How can you hate them?

    etxvv5.jpg
  • ArchArch HELLO YES THIS IS BUG Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Potato ninja- I was gonna quote you and then my post but I think I like yours better

    But like I said- I have been calling for the end to offshore drilling for years. This is just validation for me.

  • QuetzatcoatlQuetzatcoatl Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Offshore drilling is entirely safe and we should open the Alaskan Wildlife Reserves for oil exploration.
    Considering how much of it goes on, offshore drilling is pretty damn safe. Accidents like this are really rare. And, yes, we should open up more of Alaska for drilling.

    Now that I realize that the wells are effectively time bombs waiting to destroy vast areas of the coastline and that the rigs are built without the most basic of safety features present then there needs to be an utter halt on development until a 100% effective deadman switch can be installed, and then multiple backups each using a different method also installed.

    I was reading the excuses from BP that 'Oh, the cut off switch probably hit a stronger area of pipe' or ' the valves have jammed on each other'. It should be impossible for the system to fail. Like on a modern nuclear plant. If it becomes supercritical, the fuel rods just fall out of the core, and then the cooling water dumps itself onto the core automatically under gravity.

    I'm interested in finding out what the root causes for the problem were. While it's reasonable to expect a leak to happen, the issue is how and why the shut-off systems failed. I work in an industry that deals very regularly with oil companies and I'm familiar with the work that goes into safety and reliability of equipment.

    The fail shut part of it is pretty much standard. Any valve installed will either fail open or shut depending on what needs to happen in an emergency.

  • ArchArch HELLO YES THIS IS BUG Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Offshore drilling is entirely safe and we should open the Alaskan Wildlife Reserves for oil exploration.
    Considering how much of it goes on, offshore drilling is pretty damn safe. Accidents like this are really rare. And, yes, we should open up more of Alaska for drilling.

    Now that I realize that the wells are effectively time bombs waiting to destroy vast areas of the coastline and that the rigs are built without the most basic of safety features present then there needs to be an utter halt on development until a 100% effective deadman switch can be installed, and then multiple backups each using a different method also installed.

    I was reading the excuses from BP that 'Oh, the cut off switch probably hit a stronger area of pipe' or ' the valves have jammed on each other'. It should be impossible for the system to fail. Like on a modern nuclear plant. If it becomes supercritical, the fuel rods just fall out of the core, and then the cooling water dumps itself onto the core automatically under gravity.

    I'm interested in finding out what the root causes for the problem were. While it's reasonable to expect a leak to happen, the issue is how and why the shut-off systems failed. I work in an industry that deals very regularly with oil companies and I'm familiar with the work that goes into safety and reliability of equipment.

    The fail shut part of it is pretty much standard. Any valve installed will either fail open or shut depending on what needs to happen in an emergency.

    I think it had to do with the fact that the entire rig blew up and sank, which bent and broke lots of the pipes.

  • DmanDman Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I was trying to get this in perspective because thousands of barrels isn't my forte when it comes to units.

    a modern super tanker carries 2 million barrels. the Exxon Valdez incident spilled about 250,000 barrels

    this is (supposedly?) leaking 5000/day

    The emergency valve is at least partially blocking the leak or it would be 'orders of magnitudes worse'.

    therefore
    5000 barrels/day times 50 days = Exxon Valdez Alaska Spill levels of bad.

    so we aren't there yet, but it'll take time to get the equipment needed to fix this on site, I imagine this is going to be leaking for another week minimum and 50 days doesn't seem out of the question.

    Basically I'm just saying that things could be worse.

  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Offshore drilling is entirely safe and we should open the Alaskan Wildlife Reserves for oil exploration.
    Considering how much of it goes on, offshore drilling is pretty damn safe. Accidents like this are really rare. And, yes, we should open up more of Alaska for drilling.

    Now that I realize that the wells are effectively time bombs waiting to destroy vast areas of the coastline and that the rigs are built without the most basic of safety features present then there needs to be an utter halt on development until a 100% effective deadman switch can be installed, and then multiple backups each using a different method also installed.

    I was reading the excuses from BP that 'Oh, the cut off switch probably hit a stronger area of pipe' or ' the valves have jammed on each other'. It should be impossible for the system to fail. Like on a modern nuclear plant. If it becomes supercritical, the fuel rods just fall out of the core, and then the cooling water dumps itself onto the core automatically under gravity.

    I'm interested in finding out what the root causes for the problem were. While it's reasonable to expect a leak to happen, the issue is how and why the shut-off systems failed. I work in an industry that deals very regularly with oil companies and I'm familiar with the work that goes into safety and reliability of equipment.

    The fail shut part of it is pretty much standard. Any valve installed will either fail open or shut depending on what needs to happen in an emergency.

    I think it had to do with the fact that the entire rig blew up and sank, which bent and broke lots of the pipes.

    Yes, but why did it blow up?

    Maybe Hugo Chavez did it!

    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Dman wrote: »
    I was trying to get this in perspective because thousands of barrels isn't my forte when it comes to units.

    a modern super taker carries 2 million barrels. the Exxon Valdez incident spilled about 250,000 barrels

    this is (supposedly?) leaking 5000/day

    The emergency valve is at least partially blocking the leak or it would be 'orders of magnitudes worse'.

    therefore
    5000 barrels/day times 50 days = Exxon Valdez Alaska Spill levels of bad.

    so we aren't there yet, but it'll take time to get the equipment needed to fix this on site, I imagine this is going to be leaking for another week minimum and 50 days doesn't seem out of the question.

    Basically I'm just saying that things could be worse.

    It's also supposed to be not quite as difficult to clean up as the heavy black oil you often associate with oil spills, being more of a low density crude. Still poisonous though, but perhaps not quite so bad for the land and beaches themselves.

    Your puny weapons are useless against me
  • Jademonkey79Jademonkey79 Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Offshore drilling is entirely safe and we should open the Alaskan Wildlife Reserves for oil exploration.
    Considering how much of it goes on, offshore drilling is pretty damn safe. Accidents like this are really rare. And, yes, we should open up more of Alaska for drilling.

    Well accidents like this are rare so obviously we're ok! Kind of like how car crashes are statistically rare so seatbelts are stupid.

    DRILL BABY DRILL.
    People on this thread are demanding an end to offshore drilling. Using you car analogy, that's like saying we should ban all cars because some people die in auto accidents.

    No one is calling for an end to "seat belts" (i.e., safety measures on oil rigs). If this spill highlights a safety problem, it should be addressed.

    I'm calling for an end to drilling in places where it makes no sense. The proposition to put rigs 8 miles off of Florida's coast is just silly. It's limestone and has already shown in tests to hold little gas or oil. It's also a bit dumb to place lots of platforms in a region that is basically guaranteed to see a hurricane at least once a year.

    I understand that drilling is necessary right now but you have to be smart about it. What we're seeing now is leagues away from smart.

    "We’re surrounded. That simplifies our problem of getting to these people and killing them."
  • Jademonkey79Jademonkey79 Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Dman wrote: »
    I was trying to get this in perspective because thousands of barrels isn't my forte when it comes to units.

    a modern super taker carries 2 million barrels. the Exxon Valdez incident spilled about 250,000 barrels

    this is (supposedly?) leaking 5000/day

    The emergency valve is at least partially blocking the leak or it would be 'orders of magnitudes worse'.

    therefore
    5000 barrels/day times 50 days = Exxon Valdez Alaska Spill levels of bad.

    so we aren't there yet, but it'll take time to get the equipment needed to fix this on site, I imagine this is going to be leaking for another week minimum and 50 days doesn't seem out of the question.

    Basically I'm just saying that things could be worse.

    It's also supposed to be not quite as difficult to clean up as the heavy black oil you often associate with oil spills, being more of a low density crude. Still poisonous though, but perhaps not quite so bad for the land and beaches themselves.

    That would be comforting if those beaches and land weren't the major source of our economy. Nobody wants to walk down the beach and have to wash their feet off with turpentine. I know, I've done it in the past and it sucks. You also get these annoying spheres of oil that wash up for years later.

    "We’re surrounded. That simplifies our problem of getting to these people and killing them."
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Offshore drilling is entirely safe and we should open the Alaskan Wildlife Reserves for oil exploration.
    Considering how much of it goes on, offshore drilling is pretty damn safe. Accidents like this are really rare. And, yes, we should open up more of Alaska for drilling.

    Now that I realize that the wells are effectively time bombs waiting to destroy vast areas of the coastline and that the rigs are built without the most basic of safety features present then there needs to be an utter halt on development until a 100% effective deadman switch can be installed, and then multiple backups each using a different method also installed.

    I was reading the excuses from BP that 'Oh, the cut off switch probably hit a stronger area of pipe' or ' the valves have jammed on each other'. It should be impossible for the system to fail. Like on a modern nuclear plant. If it becomes supercritical, the fuel rods just fall out of the core, and then the cooling water dumps itself onto the core automatically under gravity.

    I'm interested in finding out what the root causes for the problem were. While it's reasonable to expect a leak to happen, the issue is how and why the shut-off systems failed. I work in an industry that deals very regularly with oil companies and I'm familiar with the work that goes into safety and reliability of equipment.

    The fail shut part of it is pretty much standard. Any valve installed will either fail open or shut depending on what needs to happen in an emergency.

    Yes, but there is a difference between say the fail shut off in your car (worst case, you die) and the fail shut off here. This valve should have been tested under deliberate sabotage conditions. Hell it should be torpedo hardened, nuclear shut off systems are. It shouldn't require anything to work other than the simple laws of physics.

    Your puny weapons are useless against me
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    I think it had to do with the fact that the entire rig blew up and sank, which bent and broke lots of the pipes.
    So, this is a pretty extreme example of an accident. Quick internet search comes up with over 5000 oil platforms around the world.

    You're proposing shutting down an entire industry because of one accident.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    If Florida gets coated with this stuff, does that mean we get to set fire to it?

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. On Hiatus!

    Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
  • Jademonkey79Jademonkey79 Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    If Florida gets coated with this stuff, does that mean we get to set fire to it?

    Only if we can build beach resorts in Arizona when California and Seattle fall into the ocean.

    "We’re surrounded. That simplifies our problem of getting to these people and killing them."
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    I think it had to do with the fact that the entire rig blew up and sank, which bent and broke lots of the pipes.
    So, this is a pretty extreme example of an accident. Quick internet search comes up with over 5000 oil platforms around the world.

    You're proposing shutting down an entire industry because of one accident.

    How many gulf coasts do we have available?

    Honestly, I was a supporter of these platforms since I believed (as is true for modern nuclear plants) that an accident like this is impossible, even with deliberate sabotage. I thought that there were multiple tiers of independant safety systems, each 100% capable of fully shutting down the well in the even of a disaster. If that is true, then fine, drill away.

    But clearly it is not the case.

    Your puny weapons are useless against me
  • PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    If Florida gets coated with this stuff, does that mean we get to set fire to it?

    Oh man, finally some good news!

    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • QuetzatcoatlQuetzatcoatl Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Yes, but there is a difference between say the fail shut off in your car (worst case, you die) and the fail shut off here. This valve should have been tested under deliberate sabotage conditions. Hell it should be torpedo hardened, nuclear shut off systems are. It shouldn't require anything to work other than the simple laws of physics.

    The valve installed there is probably closer to something used in a nuclear shut-off system than something installed in a car.

    I'm not defending anything. The best way to prevent something like this in the future is to understand how it happened.

  • ArchArch HELLO YES THIS IS BUG Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    I think it had to do with the fact that the entire rig blew up and sank, which bent and broke lots of the pipes.
    So, this is a pretty extreme example of an accident. Quick internet search comes up with over 5000 oil platforms around the world.

    You're proposing shutting down an entire industry because of one accident.

    Okay listen you are missing the point here.

    Yes I am proposing shutting down an entire industry, but not because of this accident, previous accidents, or future accidents.

    The accidents just help to accentuate my point that "Hey, oil really is not the best resource to base an enormous portion of the global industry and infrastructure on."

    Not only is it dangerous and destructive to harvest both on land and at sea, the transportation carries risks and the USE of it causes damage to every single ecosystem we can think of.

    Burn it? Atmospheric damage

    Make plastics that don't get recycled? Landfill problems, fish kill, disruption of food chains, general pollution

    There is so much wrong with this resource that while there are good things (the medical and scientific industries could honestly not operate without plastics) maybe it is time to give much more serious thought to how much of this one resource we use, and start considering alternatives.

    Realistically I know we will never end the use of petrol products as fuel and in various industries, but at the same time that does not mean we can't lessen the EXTREME level of dependence on their existence we have created for ourselves.

    And these accidents just help me further my point.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    I think it had to do with the fact that the entire rig blew up and sank, which bent and broke lots of the pipes.
    So, this is a pretty extreme example of an accident. Quick internet search comes up with over 5000 oil platforms around the world.

    You're proposing shutting down an entire industry because of one accident.

    Okay listen you are missing the point here.

    Yes I am proposing shutting down an entire industry, but not because of this accident, previous accidents, or future accidents.

    The accidents just help to accentuate my point that "Hey, oil really is not the best resource to base an enormous portion of the global industry and infrastructure on."

    Not only is it dangerous and destructive to harvest both on land and at sea, the transportation carries risks and the USE of it causes damage to every single ecosystem we can think of.

    Burn it? Atmospheric damage

    Make plastics that don't get recycled? Landfill problems, fish kill, disruption of food chains, general pollution

    There is so much wrong with this resource that while there are good things (the medical and scientific industries could honestly not operate without plastics) maybe it is time to give much more serious thought to how much of this one resource we use, and start considering alternatives.

    Realistically I know we will never end the use of petrol products as fuel and in various industries, but at the same time that does not mean we can't lessen the EXTREME level of dependence on their existence we have created for ourselves.

    And these accidents just help me further my point.

    And even if you don't buy all that hippie bullshit (for the record, I do buy it, but still): it's fucking retarded geopolitically. What with all the awful regimes sitting on top of oil (Putin, Saudis, Iran, the mess we've created in Iraq, Venezuela, Alaska)

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Arch for President.

    EB for Secretary of State.

    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • MutilateMutilate Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    What are we really going to do? The honest truth is that in our lifetime and in our children’s lifetime and in their children’s lifetimes you will not see a significant reduction in the need for oil. You are talking about taking on a multi billion dollar industry with more resources at it's disposal than any of us can even fathom. The hybrid-vehicles, and wind energy and solar energy are niche ideas that are more PR than anything else. Big business will win. It always wins and it controls our lives. That’s not the oil industries fault but people want to spin this to make it so then so be it. That's cool with me.

  • GalahadGalahad Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    I think it had to do with the fact that the entire rig blew up and sank, which bent and broke lots of the pipes.
    So, this is a pretty extreme example of an accident. Quick internet search comes up with over 5000 oil platforms around the world.

    You're proposing shutting down an entire industry because of one accident.

    Okay listen you are missing the point here.

    Yes I am proposing shutting down an entire industry, but not because of this accident, previous accidents, or future accidents.

    The accidents just help to accentuate my point that "Hey, oil really is not the best resource to base an enormous portion of the global industry and infrastructure on."

    Not only is it dangerous and destructive to harvest both on land and at sea, the transportation carries risks and the USE of it causes damage to every single ecosystem we can think of.

    Burn it? Atmospheric damage

    Make plastics that don't get recycled? Landfill problems, fish kill, disruption of food chains, general pollution

    There is so much wrong with this resource that while there are good things (the medical and scientific industries could honestly not operate without plastics) maybe it is time to give much more serious thought to how much of this one resource we use, and start considering alternatives.

    Realistically I know we will never end the use of petrol products as fuel and in various industries, but at the same time that does not mean we can't lessen the EXTREME level of dependence on their existence we have created for ourselves.

    And these accidents just help me further my point.

    I'm with you on the US need to reduce our dependence on oil. We should be investing in alternatives, and research.

    But the alternatives aren't ready to take the load yet, and until they are we NEED the oil as a country. This should be an opportunity to look at safety issues, and regulation. Find out where the failures happened. But shutting down drilling in the gulf at this point would not so much be shooting ourselves in the foot as sawing it off at the ankle. We aren't alone in the world, and China for one certainly does not have our scruples (yet).

    I suspect that BP needs to be slapped hard over this though. "It was a well we were renting, it isn't our responsibility!" as a first reaction to this was/is pretty reprehensible.

    (and now I wander away for an hour or so... not ignoring replies.)

  • CorvusCorvus Caw? VancouverRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    I think it had to do with the fact that the entire rig blew up and sank, which bent and broke lots of the pipes.
    So, this is a pretty extreme example of an accident. Quick internet search comes up with over 5000 oil platforms around the world.

    You're proposing shutting down an entire industry because of one accident.

    Okay listen you are missing the point here.

    Yes I am proposing shutting down an entire industry, but not because of this accident, previous accidents, or future accidents.

    The accidents just help to accentuate my point that "Hey, oil really is not the best resource to base an enormous portion of the global industry and infrastructure on."

    Not only is it dangerous and destructive to harvest both on land and at sea, the transportation carries risks and the USE of it causes damage to every single ecosystem we can think of.

    Burn it? Atmospheric damage

    Make plastics that don't get recycled? Landfill problems, fish kill, disruption of food chains, general pollution

    There is so much wrong with this resource that while there are good things (the medical and scientific industries could honestly not operate without plastics) maybe it is time to give much more serious thought to how much of this one resource we use, and start considering alternatives.

    Realistically I know we will never end the use of petrol products as fuel and in various industries, but at the same time that does not mean we can't lessen the EXTREME level of dependence on their existence we have created for ourselves.

    And these accidents just help me further my point.

    And even if you don't buy all that hippie bullshit (for the record, I do buy it, but still): it's fucking retarded geopolitically. What with all the awful regimes sitting on top of oil (Putin, Saudis, Iran, the mess we've created in Iraq, Venezuela, Alaska)

    Well, don't you guys get most of your foreign oil from us? (Canada). I mean, Stephen Harper is a dick, but he's not that bad.

    Of course, then you're dealing with the tar-sands.

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    And even if you don't buy all that hippie bullshit (for the record, I do buy it, but still): it's fucking retarded geopolitically. What with all the awful regimes sitting on top of oil (Putin, Saudis, Iran, the mess we've created in Iraq, Venezuela, Alaska)

    I see what you did thar.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Yes, but there is a difference between say the fail shut off in your car (worst case, you die) and the fail shut off here. This valve should have been tested under deliberate sabotage conditions. Hell it should be torpedo hardened, nuclear shut off systems are. It shouldn't require anything to work other than the simple laws of physics.

    The valve installed there is probably closer to something used in a nuclear shut-off system than something installed in a car.

    I'm not defending anything. The best way to prevent something like this in the future is to understand how it happened.

    For nuclear shut offs to fail you'd need to say, stop gravity or heat transfer working, that's the degree of safety I'm talking about with these 'mega disaster aversion' safety features

    Your puny weapons are useless against me
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Corvus wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    I think it had to do with the fact that the entire rig blew up and sank, which bent and broke lots of the pipes.
    So, this is a pretty extreme example of an accident. Quick internet search comes up with over 5000 oil platforms around the world.

    You're proposing shutting down an entire industry because of one accident.

    Okay listen you are missing the point here.

    Yes I am proposing shutting down an entire industry, but not because of this accident, previous accidents, or future accidents.

    The accidents just help to accentuate my point that "Hey, oil really is not the best resource to base an enormous portion of the global industry and infrastructure on."

    Not only is it dangerous and destructive to harvest both on land and at sea, the transportation carries risks and the USE of it causes damage to every single ecosystem we can think of.

    Burn it? Atmospheric damage

    Make plastics that don't get recycled? Landfill problems, fish kill, disruption of food chains, general pollution

    There is so much wrong with this resource that while there are good things (the medical and scientific industries could honestly not operate without plastics) maybe it is time to give much more serious thought to how much of this one resource we use, and start considering alternatives.

    Realistically I know we will never end the use of petrol products as fuel and in various industries, but at the same time that does not mean we can't lessen the EXTREME level of dependence on their existence we have created for ourselves.

    And these accidents just help me further my point.

    And even if you don't buy all that hippie bullshit (for the record, I do buy it, but still): it's fucking retarded geopolitically. What with all the awful regimes sitting on top of oil (Putin, Saudis, Iran, the mess we've created in Iraq, Venezuela, Alaska)

    Well, don't you guys get most of your foreign oil from us? (Canada). I mean, Stephen Harper is a dick, but he's not that bad.

    Of course, then you're dealing with the tar-sands.

    It's more a general indictment of oil based economies world wide than a US specific problem. But yeah, Canada and Mexico are the top two, I think. Mexico might be third.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Corvus wrote: »
    Well, don't you guys get most of your foreign oil from us? (Canada). I mean, Stephen Harper is a dick, but he's not that bad.

    Of course, then you're dealing with the tar-sands.

    It's more a general indictment of oil based economies world wide than a US specific problem. But yeah, Canada and Mexico are the top two, I think. Mexico might be third.

    46% from OPEC countries.
    in thousand barrels
    1. Canada 912,263
    2. Saudi Arabia 559,750
    3. Mexico 476,366
    4. Venezula 435,029
    ....
    http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_a.htm


    30% of US produced oil is from off shore oil drilling.

    but if we increased off shore drilling similar to what mccain/palin suggested we would get this:
    mazria_new_offshore_drilling.jpg

    Edit: Moral of the story is we are not going to gain energy independence by getting more oil ourselves. We need to power our industry, power plants, and vehicles through rainbows and hope. LOTS of it.

    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • DrakeDrake Blow it all up ForeverRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Well, it's only seven to eight miles offshore from Venice, La. now.

    Good luck over there guys. I doubt we are much further behind on the Ms./Al. coast.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100429/ts_alt_afp/usblastoilenergypollution

  • A Dabble Of TheloniusA Dabble Of Thelonius Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Man. I picked one hell of a time to move to Pensacola.

    TuckSig.jpg
    Steam - Talon Valdez : Xbox Live & LoL - Talonious Monk
  • DrakeDrake Blow it all up ForeverRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Just in case you think this problem is only going to impact the Gulf States.
    Experts said the spill could also destroy the livelihood of commercial fishermen and shrimp catchers and impact recreational fishermen. According to the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, the state’s fishing industry is worth $265 billion at dockside and has a total economic impact of $2.3 trillion.

    Full article.

    According to the article, some are claiming that this is going to be worse than Exxon-Valdez.

    This is a goddamn nightmare. We're going to be feeling this one for years, I think.

  • Jademonkey79Jademonkey79 Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Man. I picked one hell of a time to move to Pensacola.

    Ouch

    "We’re surrounded. That simplifies our problem of getting to these people and killing them."
  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Drake wrote: »
    Just in case you think this problem is only going to impact the Gulf States.
    Experts said the spill could also destroy the livelihood of commercial fishermen and shrimp catchers and impact recreational fishermen. According to the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, the state’s fishing industry is worth $265 billion at dockside and has a total economic impact of $2.3 trillion.

    Full article.

    According to the article, some are claiming that this is going to be worse than Exxon-Valdez.

    This is a goddamn nightmare. We're going to be feeling this one for years, I think.

    Don't worry it will only take BP about 2 decades to pay an order of magnitude less than what they are ordered to pay in punitive damages by the courts.
    Litigation was filed on behalf of 38,000 litigants. In 1994, a jury awarded plaintiffs $287 million in compensatory damages and $5 billion in punitive damages. Exxon appealed and the Ninth Circuit court reduced the punitive damages to $2.5 billion. Exxon then appealed the punitive damages to the Supreme Court which capped the damages to $507.5 million in June, 2008. On August 27, 2008, Exxon Mobil agreed to pay 75% of the $507.5 million damages ruling to settle the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill off Alaska.[11] In June 2009, a federal ruling ordered Exxon to pay an additional $480 million in interest on their delayed punitive damage awards [12]

    I wish as a private citizen I could just tell the court that I'm just going to pay them in a decade and pay 1/10th of what they ask me for speeding tickets.

    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • adytumadytum Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Admiral Landry said President Obama had been notified. She also opened up the possibility that if the government determines that BP, which is responsible for the cleanup, cannot handle the spill with the resources available in the private sector, that Defense Department could become involved to contribute technology.

    Will BP have to foot the bill if the US government is involved in the cleanup?

    etxvv5.jpg
  • DrakeDrake Blow it all up ForeverRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    adytum wrote: »
    Admiral Landry said President Obama had been notified. She also opened up the possibility that if the government determines that BP, which is responsible for the cleanup, cannot handle the spill with the resources available in the private sector, that Defense Department could become involved to contribute technology.

    Will BP have to foot the bill if the US government is involved in the cleanup?

    Yes, everything I've read so far plainly states that they are responsible for the cost of clean up. Whether they can be made to stick to that obligation remains to be seen.

  • Big DookieBig Dookie Smells great! Houston, TXRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    I think it had to do with the fact that the entire rig blew up and sank, which bent and broke lots of the pipes.
    So, this is a pretty extreme example of an accident. Quick internet search comes up with over 5000 oil platforms around the world.

    You're proposing shutting down an entire industry because of one accident.

    How many gulf coasts do we have available?

    Honestly, I was a supporter of these platforms since I believed (as is true for modern nuclear plants) that an accident like this is impossible, even with deliberate sabotage. I thought that there were multiple tiers of independant safety systems, each 100% capable of fully shutting down the well in the even of a disaster. If that is true, then fine, drill away.

    But clearly it is not the case.
    I think this is why all of this has turned into such a huge disaster. There are several layers of protection in any aspect of an offshore facility that are supposed to mitigate these risks. Significant time and resources are put toward Layers of Protection Analysis to prevent these kinds of disasters. By all modern conventions, there's no way that this should have happened. No one could have anticipated this.

    But like you said, it did happen, which is very worrisome obviously to everyone affected by the aftermath of the explosion and oil leak, but also to other operators offshore. The big question is, what happened to the Blow-Out Preventer? We don't know exactly what happened, but it's been speculated (by Transocean themselves even) that the initial explosion was caused by a huge blowout at the wellhead. However, the BOP is a staple in drilling that has only become more and more advanced and reliable through the years. So why did this one fail? I can understand that the issue now probably has to do with the damage done from the rig sinking, but the BOP should have sealed in the well from the beginning and prevented the explosion from happening.

    I don't know. If you'd told me a few weeks ago that this was possible, I'd have called you crazy. Now that we all know it's not only possible but that the worst did in fact happen, it makes me very nervous about what other safety gaps might exist out there. I will be very interested to see the results of the eventual investigation into the root cause of the explosion that started all this.

  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Offshore drilling is entirely safe and we should open the Alaskan Wildlife Reserves for oil exploration.
    Considering how much of it goes on, offshore drilling is pretty damn safe. Accidents like this are really rare. And, yes, we should open up more of Alaska for drilling.

    And when they do happen they are disasters of epic proportions
    I think I would rather invest the money spent collecting and dealing with this in some other energy source, personally
    Not really. A few certainly are, but most are pretty minor. The oil industry has tons of incentives to keep oil from spilling. Putting aside the bad PR and the legal problems, 5000 barrels a day at the current price of $85/barrel is about $425,000 in lost revenue, plus the costs associated with cleanup.

    The oil industry hates spills as much as environmentalists do.

    Apparently they don't hate them enough to design a better rig system...

    Anyway I haven't seen anyone point this out yet, but the Gulf is already in pretty awful condition from years of drilling, shipping, poor runoff water quality from the land, etc etc. There's actually a giant dead spot in it where nothing can live because of the above. Something like this on top of all the other crap going on there really does have Epic Disaster Potential, like it or not.

    tmsig.jpg
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2010
    MeshaK wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    The financial hit to the nation's oil industry is, frankly, the least of my concerns

    The danger (both economically and environmentally) to the coastal states the slick threatens is much more distressing to me than the fact that BP takes a hit in the pocket book, even if it gets passed down to consumers.

    Because maybe you know we shouldn't have an entire nation that is so completely dependent on this one fucking resource

    True that. When I get off work I guess I should go buy some rubber boots and gloves for the ritual cleaning of the oil-covered wildlife, huh? Except for the nutria rats. Those fuckers can rot in hell.

    If you're serious, check with your EPA for coordinating efforts. They'll probably provide protective gear and such.

    tmsig.jpg
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    What the opinions on burning the oil slick on the surface?

    As far as I can tell it's actually a pretty good idea. I mean, we were going to burn that oil anyway.

  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2010
    Drake wrote: »
    Just in case you think this problem is only going to impact the Gulf States.
    Experts said the spill could also destroy the livelihood of commercial fishermen and shrimp catchers and impact recreational fishermen. According to the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, the state’s fishing industry is worth $265 billion at dockside and has a total economic impact of $2.3 trillion.

    Full article.

    According to the article, some are claiming that this is going to be worse than Exxon-Valdez.

    This is a goddamn nightmare. We're going to be feeling this one for years, I think.

    Well... der. The Exxon-Valdez was one ship in the middle of nowhere. you're dealing with a much larger volume of oil in a much more vulnerable location.

    To not be all doom and gloom, I'd like to point out that cleanup technology has progressed quite a bit since those days, at least.

    tmsig.jpg
  • GalahadGalahad Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    The Cat wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Offshore drilling is entirely safe and we should open the Alaskan Wildlife Reserves for oil exploration.
    Considering how much of it goes on, offshore drilling is pretty damn safe. Accidents like this are really rare. And, yes, we should open up more of Alaska for drilling.

    And when they do happen they are disasters of epic proportions
    I think I would rather invest the money spent collecting and dealing with this in some other energy source, personally
    Not really. A few certainly are, but most are pretty minor. The oil industry has tons of incentives to keep oil from spilling. Putting aside the bad PR and the legal problems, 5000 barrels a day at the current price of $85/barrel is about $425,000 in lost revenue, plus the costs associated with cleanup.

    The oil industry hates spills as much as environmentalists do.

    Apparently they don't hate them enough to design a better rig system...

    Anyway I haven't seen anyone point this out yet, but the Gulf is already in pretty awful condition from years of drilling, shipping, poor runoff water quality from the land, etc etc. There's actually a giant dead spot in it where nothing can live because of the above. Something like this on top of all the other crap going on there really does have Epic Disaster Potential, like it or not.

    The dead zone is pretty much down to modern farming practices I think. Yay corn.

    The Gulf is pretty dirty just in general though, yeah.

    Hmm, actually if you look at the dead zone & the oil slick... they kinda sorta overlap. Good? Maybe? I dunno... funky. Ok, no more stream of conscious replying to The Cat.

  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2010
    What the opinions on burning the oil slick on the surface?

    As far as I can tell it's actually a pretty good idea. I mean, we were going to burn that oil anyway.

    Swapping air pollution for water pollution?

    Apparently there are spray-on dispersants that can be helpful, but only in calm seas.

    tmsig.jpg
This discussion has been closed.