You are all over-reacting. The Alaska and Singapore spills made the news only because the public's attention is on another oil spill right now, and they are playing off of that to incite more sensation and panic. If it wasn't for the BP spill, those two minor spills wouldn't even have made the news.
Don't you have a date with a tube sock and Atlas Shrugged?
Casually HardcoreOnce an Asshole. Trying to be better.Registered Userregular
edited May 2010
That would mean evangelicals were right
Actually, they would be horribly wrong. Dome of the Rock would need to be destroyed, and some bullshit temple needs to be build in its place, then all the Jesus lovers would need to disappear, then there needs to be war, then 7 years of peace, then the apocalypse would happened.
If anything, Evangelicals would probably feel rather robbed.
First of all, Perpetual is right. The media never would've chosen to report a matter like that if it weren't for the much bigger spill. A couple thousand barrels, from the point of view of environmental effects? Puh-leeze. I'm not saying it's a good thing, the fact is, the media chooses what they think will "sell" and this story would not have been good a month ago. And a couple thousand barrels in a containment area is super easy to clean up.
That said, what is HILARIOUS about that article is that the tank overflowed. If you have any knowledge of the oil industry, you know that the BP-Texas City incident (where a lot of people died in 2005) was caused because (gasp) a tank overflowed because they didn't have a way to independently measure the level of the tank - so when their level gauge failed, they couldn't tell it had failed because they didn't have independent verification. The result was that there are now industry requirements to put an IHLA (Independent High Level Alarm) on all tanks. Granted a good number of tanks are grandfathered in as long as you don't change the service of the tank, but it's obvious from the article that they probably didn't have an IHLA. Which means BP STILL DID NOT LEARN THEIR LESSON. (if in fact BP owns 47% of the pipeline which sounds about right - think the other owner is Exxon, and maybe someone else?)
Let me just reiterate: A couple thousand barrels in a containment area far away from people is not a big deal; it just shows how insanely stupid BP can be. While it's not a big deal it NEVER should have happened and they're very lucky it remained not-a-big-deal rather than possibly turning into another Texas City incident - because a couple thousand barrels is PLENTY to cause another accident like that.
edit: An open valve caused oil to overflow... ok as an engineer I am just head-desking right now. They didn't have a crucial valve tied to the level in the tank? And let's say the valve failed - why the fuck did it fail open?! And this was a PLANNED shutdown, with people monitoring the situation?!!?! How the fuck do you mess something like that up?! ARIGHGDKJFLDFJKLKFJ grrrrr
You are all over-reacting. The Alaska and Singapore spills made the news only because the public's attention is on another oil spill right now, and they are playing off of that to incite more sensation and panic. If it wasn't for the BP spill, those two minor spills wouldn't even have made the news.
Don't you have a date with a tube sock and Atlas Shrugged?
Are you retarded? He's simply saying that the media is playing on the public's current cognitive bias by reporting things they would otherwise not have reported if it wasn't for the BP spill.
Protein Shakes on
0
Options
DrakeEdgelord TrashBelow the ecliptic plane.Registered Userregular
You are all over-reacting. The Alaska and Singapore spills made the news only because the public's attention is on another oil spill right now, and they are playing off of that to incite more sensation and panic. If it wasn't for the BP spill, those two minor spills wouldn't even have made the news.
Don't you have a date with a tube sock and Atlas Shrugged?
Are you retarded? He's simply saying that the media is playing on the public's current cognitive bias by reporting things they would otherwise not have reported if it wasn't for the BP spill.
You are all over-reacting. The Alaska and Singapore spills made the news only because the public's attention is on another oil spill right now, and they are playing off of that to incite more sensation and panic. If it wasn't for the BP spill, those two minor spills wouldn't even have made the news.
Don't you have a date with a tube sock and Atlas Shrugged?
Are you retarded? He's simply saying that the media is playing on the public's current cognitive bias by reporting things they would otherwise not have reported if it wasn't for the BP spill.
I'm just tired of the smug attitude.
I read his post again and it doesn't strike me as smug at all. He's totally right - you are all overreacting to two minor spills that would otherwise not even appear on your radars even if you had read them.
Protein Shakes on
0
Options
DrakeEdgelord TrashBelow the ecliptic plane.Registered Userregular
You are all over-reacting. The Alaska and Singapore spills made the news only because the public's attention is on another oil spill right now, and they are playing off of that to incite more sensation and panic. If it wasn't for the BP spill, those two minor spills wouldn't even have made the news.
Don't you have a date with a tube sock and Atlas Shrugged?
Are you retarded? He's simply saying that the media is playing on the public's current cognitive bias by reporting things they would otherwise not have reported if it wasn't for the BP spill.
I'm just tired of the smug attitude.
I read his post again and it doesn't strike me as smug at all. He's totally right - you are all overreacting to two minor spills that would otherwise not even appear on your radars even if you had read them.
So if it weren't for the Gulf oil spill, these two other spills wouldn't have been worthy of a single news story?
These aren't headline stories, people. They're just news stories. About things that happened. They don't even have pictures. That you can yell "Media sensationalism!" at this amazes me.
So if it weren't for the Gulf oil spill, these two other spills wouldn't have been worthy of a single news story?
These aren't headline stories, people. They're just news stories. About things that happened. They don't even have pictures. That you can yell "Media sensationalism!" at this amazes me.
It's likely a combination of selective reporting by the media, and the public's cognitive bias. I mean, let's admit it - if BP's spill had not happened, then your eyes would most likely have glazed over the stories of the minor spills. At best, you would have read the headline and the summary, said "that sucks" and then moved on to more interesting things.
...the public's cognitive bias. I mean, let's admit it - if BP's spill had not happened, then your eyes would most likely have glazed over the stories of the minor spills. At best, you would have read the headline and the summary, said "that sucks" and then moved on to more interesting things.
I'm disputing this part. The media reports on things. It's kinda what they do. They don't notice a spill at an oil rig/tanker and think "hmm, the public doesn't have the taste for oil spills right now, so we'll collectively not write a single article about this event". They may not dedicate as much attention to it, but you're not seriously going to argue that those articles are disproportionate, are you?
...the public's cognitive bias. I mean, let's admit it - if BP's spill had not happened, then your eyes would most likely have glazed over the stories of the minor spills. At best, you would have read the headline and the summary, said "that sucks" and then moved on to more interesting things.
I'm disputing this part. The media reports on things. It's kinda what they do. They don't notice a spill at an oil rig/tanker and think "hmm, the public doesn't have the taste for oil spills right now, so we'll collectively not write a single article about this event". They may not dedicate as much attention to it, but you're not seriously going to argue that those articles are disproportionate, are you?
Actually that is precisely what they do. Everyday the editors decide which stories to publish and how much space (on the newspaper and the website) to allocate to those stories. The majority of stories that are reported to news organizations actually go unreported due to selective editing.
DrakeEdgelord TrashBelow the ecliptic plane.Registered Userregular
edited May 2010
Maybe this is a good time to put a spotlight on corruption and incompetence in the Oil Industry? You know, while people who don't normally pay attention to these things are paying attention?
Maybe this is a good time to put a spotlight on corruption and incompetence in the Oil Industry? You know, while people who don't normally pay attention to these things are paying attention?
Man, this is going to be a time to ignore anything and everything that has to do with reality. 'Cause reality might make some people uncomfortable, you see?
Some senator the other day was going on about how liberals are going to want to use this as an excuse to re-open the debate of whether we should be drilling for oil off-shore. Of course no one steps up with a follow-up question like (just for instance) "well why shouldn't we be debating that topic now that we've seen that we can't trust at least one major player in the industry to correctly do its job?" No, instead he gets to blather on without anyone thinking to ask him to explain himself. <sigh>
Maybe this is a good time to put a spotlight on corruption and incompetence in the Oil Industry? You know, while people who don't normally pay attention to these things are paying attention?
Man, this is going to be a time to ignore anything and everything that has to do with reality. 'Cause reality might make some people uncomfortable, you see?
Some senator the other day was going on about how liberals are going to want to use this as an excuse to re-open the debate of whether we should be drilling for oil off-shore. Of course no one steps up with a follow-up question like (just for instance) "well why shouldn't we be debating that topic now that we've seen that we can't trust at least one major player in the industry to correctly do its job?" No, instead he gets to blather on without anyone thinking to ask him to explain himself. <sigh>
I definitely said that exact thing (that we should re-ignite the debate on drilling) the INSTANT I heard about this
so at least one liberal has already done just that
So if it weren't for the Gulf oil spill, these two other spills wouldn't have been worthy of a single news story?
These aren't headline stories, people. They're just news stories. About things that happened. They don't even have pictures. That you can yell "Media sensationalism!" at this amazes me.
It's likely a combination of selective reporting by the media, and the public's cognitive bias. I mean, let's admit it - if BP's spill had not happened, then your eyes would most likely have glazed over the stories of the minor spills. At best, you would have read the headline and the summary, said "that sucks" and then moved on to more interesting things.
If it weren't for the egregious errors and ethical lapses of the oil companies, their egregious errors and ethical lapses would get less news time.
Totally true, but not really indicative of anything.
So if it weren't for the Gulf oil spill, these two other spills wouldn't have been worthy of a single news story?
These aren't headline stories, people. They're just news stories. About things that happened. They don't even have pictures. That you can yell "Media sensationalism!" at this amazes me.
It's likely a combination of selective reporting by the media, and the public's cognitive bias. I mean, let's admit it - if BP's spill had not happened, then your eyes would most likely have glazed over the stories of the minor spills. At best, you would have read the headline and the summary, said "that sucks" and then moved on to more interesting things.
If it weren't for the egregious errors and ethical lapses of the oil companies, their egregious errors and ethical lapses would get less news time.
Totally true, but not really indicative of anything.
It's just poor taste by media companies. They are clearly playing on the public's current worries of BP's spill, by reporting even more spills.
Protein Shakes on
0
Options
DrakeEdgelord TrashBelow the ecliptic plane.Registered Userregular
So if it weren't for the Gulf oil spill, these two other spills wouldn't have been worthy of a single news story?
These aren't headline stories, people. They're just news stories. About things that happened. They don't even have pictures. That you can yell "Media sensationalism!" at this amazes me.
It's likely a combination of selective reporting by the media, and the public's cognitive bias. I mean, let's admit it - if BP's spill had not happened, then your eyes would most likely have glazed over the stories of the minor spills. At best, you would have read the headline and the summary, said "that sucks" and then moved on to more interesting things.
If it weren't for the egregious errors and ethical lapses of the oil companies, their egregious errors and ethical lapses would get less news time.
Totally true, but not really indicative of anything.
It's just poor taste by media companies. They are clearly playing on the public's current worries of BP's spill, by reporting even more spills.
No. Poor taste in the media is reporting on whatever Lindsey Lohan is up to these days. Not the fact that the worlds most powerful industry is full of fuck-ups and criminals.
So if it weren't for the Gulf oil spill, these two other spills wouldn't have been worthy of a single news story?
These aren't headline stories, people. They're just news stories. About things that happened. They don't even have pictures. That you can yell "Media sensationalism!" at this amazes me.
It's likely a combination of selective reporting by the media, and the public's cognitive bias. I mean, let's admit it - if BP's spill had not happened, then your eyes would most likely have glazed over the stories of the minor spills. At best, you would have read the headline and the summary, said "that sucks" and then moved on to more interesting things.
If it weren't for the egregious errors and ethical lapses of the oil companies, their egregious errors and ethical lapses would get less news time.
Totally true, but not really indicative of anything.
It's just poor taste by media companies. They are clearly playing on the public's current worries of BP's spill, by reporting even more spills.
Except for the part where it isn't. The Gulf may well be lost for a generation, and even a best-case scenario is likely to result in tens-or-hundreds-of-billions in lost revenue and lost jobs.
There is nobody in America who will not ultimately be affected by this spill. It is kind of a really big fucking deal and so whether or not oil companies can put their pants on without dumping a thousand barrels of oil into the water is kind of extremely fucking relevant.
Also iirc correctly, depending on how he yields his time, you might not get a chance for a rebuttal right away; you might have to go through a bunch of parliamentary procedure just to bring up the issue again.
Spacemilk on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
It's just poor taste by media companies. They are clearly playing on the public's current worries of BP's spill, by reporting even more spills.
It's neither surprising nor particularly alarming that a catastrophic incident of one kind results in heightened scrutiny of other incidents of that kind, even if they are far less significant. I think the Gulf spill raises the wholly reasonable question of "Exactly how common are oil spills, anyway?", and that it is entirely within the realm of responsible journalism to use the Horizon spill as the basis to report on other spills.
In all honesty it looks like you are just fishing for a reason to acts self-righteous here.
So if it weren't for the Gulf oil spill, these two other spills wouldn't have been worthy of a single news story?
These aren't headline stories, people. They're just news stories. About things that happened. They don't even have pictures. That you can yell "Media sensationalism!" at this amazes me.
It's likely a combination of selective reporting by the media, and the public's cognitive bias. I mean, let's admit it - if BP's spill had not happened, then your eyes would most likely have glazed over the stories of the minor spills. At best, you would have read the headline and the summary, said "that sucks" and then moved on to more interesting things.
If it weren't for the egregious errors and ethical lapses of the oil companies, their egregious errors and ethical lapses would get less news time.
Totally true, but not really indicative of anything.
It's just poor taste by media companies. They are clearly playing on the public's current worries of BP's spill, by reporting even more spills.
Except for the part where it isn't. The Gulf may well be lost for a generation, and even a best-case scenario is likely to result in tens-or-hundreds-of-billions in lost revenue and lost jobs.
There is nobody in America who will not ultimately be affected by this spill. It is kind of a really big fucking deal and so whether or not oil companies can put their pants on without dumping a thousand barrels of oil into the water is kind of extremely fucking relevant.
I think you misunderstood me. It's poor taste in a sense that what they are reporting directly depends on what people are willing to listen to at that moment, rather than what really is important. What Lindsey Lohan wears is NEVER important, yet most of the time that's what is reported.
Also you know, this is a thread about oil spills. With a bunch of people wondering about oil spills. Who are now noticing other news stories about oil spills.
I'm fairly certain on other occasions I would just glance over such things in my daily news feed.
Of course then there is the irony in concern trolling about day-to-day environmental fuck ups actually being reported. Other things I would like reported: mining companies releasing toxins in estuaries, dumping random chemical crap on bare ground etc. These things do happen every day, and I wish they were reported more aggressively so we could make these companies take some fucking responsibility, or at least give the public some perspective on the costs before we get "wah taxes are too high for us!".
I think you misunderstood me. It's poor taste in a sense that what they are reporting directly depends on what people are willing to listen to at that moment, rather than what really is important. What Lindsey Lohan wears is NEVER important, yet most of the time that's what is reported.
I agree in general, but in this case spills are suddenly relevant. If there wasn't a major spill threatening an entire coastal region then a minor safety failure wouldn't be an issue. Now that we have a giant example of what happens when oil companies fuck up, those "minor safety failures" and "small spills" are pretty important as they demonstrate both that safety measures are still insufficient and that this disaster could repeat itself.
Context matters.
PotatoNinja on
Two goats enter, one car leaves
0
Options
DrakeEdgelord TrashBelow the ecliptic plane.Registered Userregular
So if it weren't for the Gulf oil spill, these two other spills wouldn't have been worthy of a single news story?
These aren't headline stories, people. They're just news stories. About things that happened. They don't even have pictures. That you can yell "Media sensationalism!" at this amazes me.
It's likely a combination of selective reporting by the media, and the public's cognitive bias. I mean, let's admit it - if BP's spill had not happened, then your eyes would most likely have glazed over the stories of the minor spills. At best, you would have read the headline and the summary, said "that sucks" and then moved on to more interesting things.
If it weren't for the egregious errors and ethical lapses of the oil companies, their egregious errors and ethical lapses would get less news time.
Totally true, but not really indicative of anything.
It's just poor taste by media companies. They are clearly playing on the public's current worries of BP's spill, by reporting even more spills.
Except for the part where it isn't. The Gulf may well be lost for a generation, and even a best-case scenario is likely to result in tens-or-hundreds-of-billions in lost revenue and lost jobs.
There is nobody in America who will not ultimately be affected by this spill. It is kind of a really big fucking deal and so whether or not oil companies can put their pants on without dumping a thousand barrels of oil into the water is kind of extremely fucking relevant.
I think you misunderstood me. It's poor taste in a sense that what they are reporting directly depends on what people are willing to listen to at that moment, rather than what really is important. What Lindsey Lohan wears is NEVER important, yet most of the time that's what is reported.
So when the topic turns to something actually important, that's the time to get outraged and make accusations of tasteless media pandering? That sounds a little misdirected to me.
No. Poor taste in the media is reporting on whatever Lindsey Lohan is up to these days. Not the fact that the worlds most powerful industry is full of fuck-ups and criminals.
All industries are full of fuck ups and criminals, you just described every group of people on the planet. Most oil spills are relatively minor events and wouldn't make the news. However, due to the oil catastrophe (this is far larger then a spill) even relatively minor spills become news worthy.
Is it responsible journalism to whip people up over minor events just because of a massive one? This is a yes or no answer. I thought it was pretty much decided that playing off peoples fears was bad after 9/11. Where there was one really bad act of terrorism but every time a minor one cropped up it was reported and people lost their minds.
I'd say it's irresponsible. I'd also say it detracts from the true disaster and cheapens it. Unless oil spills are your pet cause it cheapens it and takes a lot of the gravity out of the real problems.
This sort of irresponsible reporting does nothing but fear monger for a bit, and then dull everybody to the issue. It helps the news sell news, and it helps BP when people get over it quicker and by cheapening the damage of their spill.
So if it weren't for the Gulf oil spill, these two other spills wouldn't have been worthy of a single news story?
These aren't headline stories, people. They're just news stories. About things that happened. They don't even have pictures. That you can yell "Media sensationalism!" at this amazes me.
It's likely a combination of selective reporting by the media, and the public's cognitive bias. I mean, let's admit it - if BP's spill had not happened, then your eyes would most likely have glazed over the stories of the minor spills. At best, you would have read the headline and the summary, said "that sucks" and then moved on to more interesting things.
If it weren't for the egregious errors and ethical lapses of the oil companies, their egregious errors and ethical lapses would get less news time.
Totally true, but not really indicative of anything.
It's just poor taste by media companies. They are clearly playing on the public's current worries of BP's spill, by reporting even more spills.
Except for the part where it isn't. The Gulf may well be lost for a generation, and even a best-case scenario is likely to result in tens-or-hundreds-of-billions in lost revenue and lost jobs.
There is nobody in America who will not ultimately be affected by this spill. It is kind of a really big fucking deal and so whether or not oil companies can put their pants on without dumping a thousand barrels of oil into the water is kind of extremely fucking relevant.
I think you misunderstood me. It's poor taste in a sense that what they are reporting directly depends on what people are willing to listen to at that moment, rather than what really is important. What Lindsey Lohan wears is NEVER important, yet most of the time that's what is reported.
So when the topic turns to something actually important, that's the time to get outraged and make accusations of tasteless media pandering? That sounds a little misdirected to me.
No offense dude, but I think accusations of tasteless media pandering are far more interesting than your retarded, baseless doomsday scenarios of suffocating by methane poisoning or tsunamis destroying the coast.
You know, glass house and all. Just sayin'.
I agree in general, but in this case spills are suddenly relevant. If there wasn't a major spill threatening an entire coastal region then a minor safety failure wouldn't be an issue. Now that we have a giant example of what happens when oil companies fuck up, those "minor safety failures" and "small spills" are pretty important as they demonstrate both that safety measures are still insufficient and that this disaster could repeat itself.
Context matters.
Perhaps. I am not bitching about the fact that they are reporting those. I am bitching about the fact that they started reporting those now. I strongly doubt the main intent of the media reporting those stories is to draw the public attention to chronic and widespread problems in the safety of oil operations. It's just a convenient side effect.
It's just poor taste by media companies. They are clearly playing on the public's current worries of BP's spill, by reporting even more spills.
It's neither surprising nor particularly alarming that a catastrophic incident of one kind results in heightened scrutiny of other incidents of that kind, even if they are far less significant. I think the Gulf spill raises the wholly reasonable question of "Exactly how common are oil spills, anyway?", and that it is entirely within the realm of responsible journalism to use the Horizon spill as the basis to report on other spills.
In all honesty it looks like you are just fishing for a reason to acts self-righteous here.
So if it weren't for the Gulf oil spill, these two other spills wouldn't have been worthy of a single news story?
These aren't headline stories, people. They're just news stories. About things that happened. They don't even have pictures. That you can yell "Media sensationalism!" at this amazes me.
It's likely a combination of selective reporting by the media, and the public's cognitive bias. I mean, let's admit it - if BP's spill had not happened, then your eyes would most likely have glazed over the stories of the minor spills. At best, you would have read the headline and the summary, said "that sucks" and then moved on to more interesting things.
If it weren't for the egregious errors and ethical lapses of the oil companies, their egregious errors and ethical lapses would get less news time.
Totally true, but not really indicative of anything.
It's just poor taste by media companies. They are clearly playing on the public's current worries of BP's spill, by reporting even more spills.
Except for the part where it isn't. The Gulf may well be lost for a generation, and even a best-case scenario is likely to result in tens-or-hundreds-of-billions in lost revenue and lost jobs.
There is nobody in America who will not ultimately be affected by this spill. It is kind of a really big fucking deal and so whether or not oil companies can put their pants on without dumping a thousand barrels of oil into the water is kind of extremely fucking relevant.
I think you misunderstood me. It's poor taste in a sense that what they are reporting directly depends on what people are willing to listen to at that moment, rather than what really is important. What Lindsey Lohan wears is NEVER important, yet most of the time that's what is reported.
So when the topic turns to something actually important, that's the time to get outraged and make accusations of tasteless media pandering? That sounds a little misdirected to me.
No offense dude, but I think accusations of tasteless media pandering are far more interesting than your retarded, baseless doomsday scenarios of suffocating by methane poisoning or tsunamis destroying the coast.
You know, glass house and all. Just sayin'.
I agree in general, but in this case spills are suddenly relevant. If there wasn't a major spill threatening an entire coastal region then a minor safety failure wouldn't be an issue. Now that we have a giant example of what happens when oil companies fuck up, those "minor safety failures" and "small spills" are pretty important as they demonstrate both that safety measures are still insufficient and that this disaster could repeat itself.
Context matters.
Perhaps. I am not bitching about the fact that they are reporting those. I am bitching about the fact that they started reporting those now. I strongly doubt the main intent of the media reporting those stories is to draw the public attention to chronic and widespread problems in the safety of oil operations. It's just a convenient side effect.
Hey, keep going with the Ad Hominem attacks. Those are really working for you.
No. Poor taste in the media is reporting on whatever Lindsey Lohan is up to these days. Not the fact that the worlds most powerful industry is full of fuck-ups and criminals.
All industries are full of fuck ups and criminals, you just described every group of people on the planet. Most oil spills are relatively minor events and wouldn't make the news. However, due to the oil catastrophe (this is far larger then a spill) even relatively minor spills become news worthy.
Is it responsible journalism to whip people up over minor events just because of a massive one? This is a yes or no answer. I thought it was pretty much decided that playing off peoples fears was bad after 9/11. Where there was one really bad act of terrorism but every time a minor one cropped up it was reported and people lost their minds.
I'd say it's irresponsible. I'd also say it detracts from the true disaster and cheapens it. Unless oil spills are your pet cause it cheapens it and takes a lot of the gravity out of the real problems.
This sort of irresponsible reporting does nothing but fear monger for a bit, and then dull everybody to the issue. It helps the news sell news, and it helps BP when people get over it quicker and by cheapening the damage of their spill.
This is goosery.
It's hard to read the articles posted and conclude that they are "whipping people up." And I think it is newsworthy to give people an idea of the true cost of oil, which I don't think the media adequately does most of the time.
If most spills aren't noteworthy it's because they are so common. Maybe in light of a major ecological disaster we should be reevaluating what an acceptable frequency of oil spills ought to be?
So when the topic turns to something actually important, that's the time to get outraged and make accusations of tasteless media pandering? That sounds a little misdirected to me.
No offense dude, but I think accusations of tasteless media pandering are far more interesting than your retarded, baseless doomsday scenarios of suffocating by methane poisoning or tsunamis destroying the coast.
You're not really in a position to call anyone retarded when you're only trick seems to be to post something and then ignore the fact that everyone points out how stunningly wrong you are. Or should we revisit the Dust to Dust report?
There's nothing wrong with asking a question about whether someone might be at risk from gas-displacement of oxygen. The answer is hardly common sense, and most common sense is either not common or not sensible.
It's just poor taste by media companies. They are clearly playing on the public's current worries of BP's spill, by reporting even more spills.
It's neither surprising nor particularly alarming that a catastrophic incident of one kind results in heightened scrutiny of other incidents of that kind, even if they are far less significant. I think the Gulf spill raises the wholly reasonable question of "Exactly how common are oil spills, anyway?", and that it is entirely within the realm of responsible journalism to use the Horizon spill as the basis to report on other spills.
In all honesty it looks like you are just fishing for a reason to acts self-righteous here.
Well, it looks like since 1940 there's been about one spill every year of at least 7k barrels. Overall, an average of 500k barrels/year (it's pretty skewed since you get a lot in the 10-30k range than then a 1M barrel spill every few years and then there's 91 where you get around 10M). There appear to have been 15 individual spills in that time span over 700k barrels each. Although you may want to discount the Gulf War one as that appears to have been deliberate.
You're not really in a position to call anyone retarded when you're only trick seems to be to post something and then ignore the fact that everyone points out how stunningly wrong you are.
Just because I don't have a obsession-compulsion to prove myself right one very single point I make doesn't mean I am ignoring anything. I post from work, and only from work, so it's not like I have that luxury either. So lay off the crack, please, and let's go back to discussing the incident.
On actual news, this post from The Oil Drum is pretty interesting. Apparently hours before the accident on the rig, a crucial test they did yielded unsatisfactory results, but some of the engineers gave the drill a go anyway.
Posts
Don't you have a date with a tube sock and Atlas Shrugged?
Actually, they would be horribly wrong. Dome of the Rock would need to be destroyed, and some bullshit temple needs to be build in its place, then all the Jesus lovers would need to disappear, then there needs to be war, then 7 years of peace, then the apocalypse would happened.
If anything, Evangelicals would probably feel rather robbed.
First of all, Perpetual is right. The media never would've chosen to report a matter like that if it weren't for the much bigger spill. A couple thousand barrels, from the point of view of environmental effects? Puh-leeze. I'm not saying it's a good thing, the fact is, the media chooses what they think will "sell" and this story would not have been good a month ago. And a couple thousand barrels in a containment area is super easy to clean up.
That said, what is HILARIOUS about that article is that the tank overflowed. If you have any knowledge of the oil industry, you know that the BP-Texas City incident (where a lot of people died in 2005) was caused because (gasp) a tank overflowed because they didn't have a way to independently measure the level of the tank - so when their level gauge failed, they couldn't tell it had failed because they didn't have independent verification. The result was that there are now industry requirements to put an IHLA (Independent High Level Alarm) on all tanks. Granted a good number of tanks are grandfathered in as long as you don't change the service of the tank, but it's obvious from the article that they probably didn't have an IHLA. Which means BP STILL DID NOT LEARN THEIR LESSON. (if in fact BP owns 47% of the pipeline which sounds about right - think the other owner is Exxon, and maybe someone else?)
Let me just reiterate: A couple thousand barrels in a containment area far away from people is not a big deal; it just shows how insanely stupid BP can be. While it's not a big deal it NEVER should have happened and they're very lucky it remained not-a-big-deal rather than possibly turning into another Texas City incident - because a couple thousand barrels is PLENTY to cause another accident like that.
edit: An open valve caused oil to overflow... ok as an engineer I am just head-desking right now. They didn't have a crucial valve tied to the level in the tank? And let's say the valve failed - why the fuck did it fail open?! And this was a PLANNED shutdown, with people monitoring the situation?!!?! How the fuck do you mess something like that up?! ARIGHGDKJFLDFJKLKFJ grrrrr
Are you retarded? He's simply saying that the media is playing on the public's current cognitive bias by reporting things they would otherwise not have reported if it wasn't for the BP spill.
I'm just tired of the smug attitude.
I read his post again and it doesn't strike me as smug at all. He's totally right - you are all overreacting to two minor spills that would otherwise not even appear on your radars even if you had read them.
Whatever. You're right. It's not important.
Pave the Earth.
These aren't headline stories, people. They're just news stories. About things that happened. They don't even have pictures. That you can yell "Media sensationalism!" at this amazes me.
It's likely a combination of selective reporting by the media, and the public's cognitive bias. I mean, let's admit it - if BP's spill had not happened, then your eyes would most likely have glazed over the stories of the minor spills. At best, you would have read the headline and the summary, said "that sucks" and then moved on to more interesting things.
I'm disputing this part. The media reports on things. It's kinda what they do. They don't notice a spill at an oil rig/tanker and think "hmm, the public doesn't have the taste for oil spills right now, so we'll collectively not write a single article about this event". They may not dedicate as much attention to it, but you're not seriously going to argue that those articles are disproportionate, are you?
Actually that is precisely what they do. Everyday the editors decide which stories to publish and how much space (on the newspaper and the website) to allocate to those stories. The majority of stories that are reported to news organizations actually go unreported due to selective editing.
The media reflects the mediated.
Some senator the other day was going on about how liberals are going to want to use this as an excuse to re-open the debate of whether we should be drilling for oil off-shore. Of course no one steps up with a follow-up question like (just for instance) "well why shouldn't we be debating that topic now that we've seen that we can't trust at least one major player in the industry to correctly do its job?" No, instead he gets to blather on without anyone thinking to ask him to explain himself. <sigh>
I definitely said that exact thing (that we should re-ignite the debate on drilling) the INSTANT I heard about this
so at least one liberal has already done just that
If it weren't for the egregious errors and ethical lapses of the oil companies, their egregious errors and ethical lapses would get less news time.
Totally true, but not really indicative of anything.
It's just poor taste by media companies. They are clearly playing on the public's current worries of BP's spill, by reporting even more spills.
No. Poor taste in the media is reporting on whatever Lindsey Lohan is up to these days. Not the fact that the worlds most powerful industry is full of fuck-ups and criminals.
Except for the part where it isn't. The Gulf may well be lost for a generation, and even a best-case scenario is likely to result in tens-or-hundreds-of-billions in lost revenue and lost jobs.
There is nobody in America who will not ultimately be affected by this spill. It is kind of a really big fucking deal and so whether or not oil companies can put their pants on without dumping a thousand barrels of oil into the water is kind of extremely fucking relevant.
It's neither surprising nor particularly alarming that a catastrophic incident of one kind results in heightened scrutiny of other incidents of that kind, even if they are far less significant. I think the Gulf spill raises the wholly reasonable question of "Exactly how common are oil spills, anyway?", and that it is entirely within the realm of responsible journalism to use the Horizon spill as the basis to report on other spills.
In all honesty it looks like you are just fishing for a reason to acts self-righteous here.
I think you misunderstood me. It's poor taste in a sense that what they are reporting directly depends on what people are willing to listen to at that moment, rather than what really is important. What Lindsey Lohan wears is NEVER important, yet most of the time that's what is reported.
I'm fairly certain on other occasions I would just glance over such things in my daily news feed.
Of course then there is the irony in concern trolling about day-to-day environmental fuck ups actually being reported. Other things I would like reported: mining companies releasing toxins in estuaries, dumping random chemical crap on bare ground etc. These things do happen every day, and I wish they were reported more aggressively so we could make these companies take some fucking responsibility, or at least give the public some perspective on the costs before we get "wah taxes are too high for us!".
I agree in general, but in this case spills are suddenly relevant. If there wasn't a major spill threatening an entire coastal region then a minor safety failure wouldn't be an issue. Now that we have a giant example of what happens when oil companies fuck up, those "minor safety failures" and "small spills" are pretty important as they demonstrate both that safety measures are still insufficient and that this disaster could repeat itself.
Context matters.
So when the topic turns to something actually important, that's the time to get outraged and make accusations of tasteless media pandering? That sounds a little misdirected to me.
Heh, maybe they can make her part of the Junk Shot.
All industries are full of fuck ups and criminals, you just described every group of people on the planet. Most oil spills are relatively minor events and wouldn't make the news. However, due to the oil catastrophe (this is far larger then a spill) even relatively minor spills become news worthy.
Is it responsible journalism to whip people up over minor events just because of a massive one? This is a yes or no answer. I thought it was pretty much decided that playing off peoples fears was bad after 9/11. Where there was one really bad act of terrorism but every time a minor one cropped up it was reported and people lost their minds.
I'd say it's irresponsible. I'd also say it detracts from the true disaster and cheapens it. Unless oil spills are your pet cause it cheapens it and takes a lot of the gravity out of the real problems.
This sort of irresponsible reporting does nothing but fear monger for a bit, and then dull everybody to the issue. It helps the news sell news, and it helps BP when people get over it quicker and by cheapening the damage of their spill.
I support this
No offense dude, but I think accusations of tasteless media pandering are far more interesting than your retarded, baseless doomsday scenarios of suffocating by methane poisoning or tsunamis destroying the coast.
You know, glass house and all. Just sayin'.
Perhaps. I am not bitching about the fact that they are reporting those. I am bitching about the fact that they started reporting those now. I strongly doubt the main intent of the media reporting those stories is to draw the public attention to chronic and widespread problems in the safety of oil operations. It's just a convenient side effect.
Hey, keep going with the Ad Hominem attacks. Those are really working for you.
You don't even know what Ad Hominem means.
This is goosery.
It's hard to read the articles posted and conclude that they are "whipping people up." And I think it is newsworthy to give people an idea of the true cost of oil, which I don't think the media adequately does most of the time.
If most spills aren't noteworthy it's because they are so common. Maybe in light of a major ecological disaster we should be reevaluating what an acceptable frequency of oil spills ought to be?
There's nothing wrong with asking a question about whether someone might be at risk from gas-displacement of oxygen. The answer is hardly common sense, and most common sense is either not common or not sensible.
Well, it looks like since 1940 there's been about one spill every year of at least 7k barrels. Overall, an average of 500k barrels/year (it's pretty skewed since you get a lot in the 10-30k range than then a 1M barrel spill every few years and then there's 91 where you get around 10M). There appear to have been 15 individual spills in that time span over 700k barrels each. Although you may want to discount the Gulf War one as that appears to have been deliberate.
So not all that uncommon!
Just because I don't have a obsession-compulsion to prove myself right one very single point I make doesn't mean I am ignoring anything. I post from work, and only from work, so it's not like I have that luxury either. So lay off the crack, please, and let's go back to discussing the incident.
On actual news, this post from The Oil Drum is pretty interesting. Apparently hours before the accident on the rig, a crucial test they did yielded unsatisfactory results, but some of the engineers gave the drill a go anyway.