PDA

View Full Version : RE: Oil in Gulf; Oh Man, another Titannic/Challenger scenario.



aeromed202
May 16th, 2010, 15:25
Just watching 60 Minutes on the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster. Even if half true it is truly disgusting how BP managed that, and probably all other wells. Warning signs brushed off by management, damaged equipment approved for use, pressure to drill faster and faster, and a knowledge that any spill recovery cost would be capped by law so they apparently just did what they wanted to maximize profits and viewed any ecological disaster as just the 'capped' cost of doing business.

As usual with these kinds of events, if even one concern was taken seriously or given the respect it deserved there would likely have been no loss of life or polluted and toxic ocean. And where, I would like to know, is the cry for all oil platforms to be inspected now? This one was one of the newest so the others must be even older and worse off. I sure don't trust them.

PRB
May 16th, 2010, 15:33
Well, I'm not sure I totally trust “60-Minutes” to not produce a “hit piece” for the purpose of generating ratings, and oil companies have always been a "ratings favorite", but that's another story...

I am fascinated by the engineering challenge here. And lets face it, the only people who have the skills to fix this is the oil company. The EPA, Homeland Security, HUD, and whatever other useless government agency is 100% clueless here, their chest-beating and finger pointing notwithstanding. It's 5000 feet down. How the heck are they going to stop it? It's going to make an interesting Discovery Channel program one day, when they air the “How They Stopped The Gulf Oil Leak” program, but we'll have to wait a while for that one, I'm afraid.

aeromed202
May 16th, 2010, 15:41
That's why I said 60 Minutes. They're usually pretty on the mark but everybody has an opinion. Apparently the technology is there, it just wasn't used right and limits were unreasonably passed. I'm not surprised, just depressed another notch. And you're probably right, the ones who did this are the ones who might know how best to fix it. Now I'm really depressed..

safn1949
May 16th, 2010, 16:07
60 minutes is a shadow of it's former self.A dressed up version of the enquirer.Do your own research and never take any one source at face value,they have a lot to lose unless they can dig up some scandal or another to feed the slobbering masses.There is very little real journalism left in this country.

Don't get me wrong,this is a bad deal but the technological challenges are huge.And this is not in any way a personal reflection on you so please don't take it that way.

jmig
May 16th, 2010, 16:24
Disclaimer: I have worked in the oil and gas industry for 30 years.

In fact, working on the oil rigs as a roustabout paid my way through college. So I am prejudiced toward the O&G industry. I am also believe I am more knowledgeable than anyone at CBS.

I am not going to deny the claims of 60 Minutes. I never watched the episode so I don't know what they said. I will tell you what I have heard from discussions with friends, including one ex-BP engineer, whom I worked with years ago. I don't think cutting corners had a lot to do with this accident. It was one of those "Because a nail fell out, the shoe was lost..." accidents. I will also say that this was not an "if" but a "when". Sooner or later an accident of this proportion was bound to happen. The CEOs of Chevron, Shell, Apache, etc. are all sending thanks to their gods that it wasn't them.

The three companies evolved, Transoceanic, Halliburton and Cameron were the ones upon the accident happened. BP was the well owner but they had contracted the three companies to drill the well.

You must understand that drilling a well 5000 feet below an ocean's surface is no easy feat, under the best of conditions. It is more like NASA putting a man on the moon than anything else. Everything has to be done using remotely guided vehicles. Think of men sitting on a surface ship guiding robots to connect and disconnect things 5000 feet below. that is what happens.

No one knows yet what really happened. The finger pointing was not really far off. It could have been any of them. No one is going to accept guilt without proof. What MAY have happened is a series of events that, if only one had been stopped, the accident would not have happened.

Petroleum engineers and geologists have a pretty good idea of where the oil and gas can be found. The amount is harder to predict. Oil and gas go together. It is the gas below the oil that pushes it to the surface. The pictures of the old gusher wells, spraying oil were due to the gas in the well.

When a well is drilled it is cemented then capped with a series of valves called a christmas tree. Later the cement is drilled out, a line is connected and the valves are opened to allow the well to flow for a period of time. This test tells the engineers what the amount of hydrocarbons or "pay" is. The accident happened when they were trying to cap the well.

Evidently a gas bubble came up the well as they were trying to either cement or cap it. I have heard both. A gas bubble is a very dangerous thing. The engineer has to judge what the maximum pressure he can expect will be. (BP) He tells this to the cementing engineer (Halliburton) who makes sure the weight of the cement he is using is heavy enough to contain the well bore pressure.

Either the well bore was higher than the BP engineer expected or the cement selected by Halliburton was too light OR this gas bubble was so large it overwhelmed the weight of the mud. (The mud engineer from Halliburton was from a town 25 miles away and he was one of the 11 deaths) and the well had a blowout.

This is where Cameron comes in. As a final safey valve blowout preventors (BOPs) are placed on top of the well. Their job, if all else fails, is to crush and cut the pipe sealing the well bore. They too failed.

So, you have a massive gas bubble, which is impossible to predict, rushing to the surface. It pushes the heavy cement up toward the surface with it. The operators detect this and try to pump more cement down the well, to no avail. When they realize it will blow they activate the BOPs, which fail.

Who is at fault?

aeromed202
May 16th, 2010, 16:54
Thanks for your views jmig. Yeah sorry for the early comments but I was just fuming. As I said, if even half the story is true...

N2056
May 16th, 2010, 17:14
"This is where Cameron comes in. As a final safey valve blowout preventors (BOPs) are placed on top of the well. Their job, if all else fails, is to crush and cut the pipe sealing the well bore. They too failed."

A large part of my job involves working on improving how we do what we do. We refuse to "live with" something that is not right. To me this seems pretty clear that that "last ditch" system failed in an epic way. Why? Until that is answered anyone out there on a rig should be plenty worried! What is crucial is that the event is studied, the problems pinpointed, and solutions designed and implemented.

I won't go into the circus that was front row center on Capitol Hill this week...:rolleyes:

KOM.Nausicaa
May 16th, 2010, 17:21
The Risky Hunt for the Last Oil Reserves:

Does Deep Sea Drilling Have a Future? (http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,694346,00.html)

The oil catastrophe afflicting the Gulf of Mexico underscores just how dangerous offshore oil exploration can be. Oil companies are seeking to extract the planet's last remaining barrels by drilling from ever-deeper sites on the ocean floor that wouldn't even have been considered not too many years ago.

Ken Stallings
May 16th, 2010, 17:29
The Risky Hunt for the Last Oil Reserves:

Does Deep Sea Drilling Have a Future? (http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,694346,00.html)

The oil catastrophe afflicting the Gulf of Mexico underscores just how dangerous offshore oil exploration can be. Oil companies are seeking to extract the planet's last remaining barrels by drilling from ever-deeper sites on the ocean floor that wouldn't even have been considered not too many years ago.

I think the alarms have been louder from this mishap than the actual problems it has caused. The Valdez mishap was a disaster due to the proximity to the shores. This one happened far enough out that the actual environmental impact is vastly more spread out.

It also seems that BP has finally managed to get a handle of the spill.

Name an industry and you'll find mishaps, many spectacular. I think the media have turned the petroleum industry into a whipping boy and this is done absent of smart economic considerations. Energy is the lifeblood of everyone's job. Reduce the supply and you literally put millions of people out of work very easily.

I think across the board there needs to be a lot less focus on ideals and more focus on sobering reality.

Ken

N2056
May 16th, 2010, 17:37
The fact that the impact will be more spread out is the scary part. The full impact of this event has yet to be seen, and may well spread to affect other countries. I think at this point it is too early yet to know what the ecological insult will be.

Ken Stallings
May 16th, 2010, 17:47
"Ecological insult?"

Did you mean to type "ecological impact?"

Anyway, we already know that vast amounts of oil and gas are released through the ocean floor naturally. I think nature is better at handling these things than we give credit for. Considering how many of these rigs are operating every day, and for how many years they have been operating, I think we should restrain urges to do rash things like shut them down or prevent their future use.

Their safety record remains pretty good. These folks in this industry are good people who work hard and are very intelligent and responsible. Mistakes happen.

Ken

N2056
May 16th, 2010, 18:04
Ken, I actually meant it as typed. In my line of work that is the phrase we use as we absolutely cannot allow that sort of thing to occur in my line of work. I guess it is just a phrase I am used to. Ultimately the meaning is the same.

safn1949
May 16th, 2010, 18:11
Also,think about this.....WW 1&2.How many ships went down,full of fuel and what not.Look up the figures and do a bit of math and you will see that probably millions of gallons of petrochemicals of all kinds went down.The USS Arizona still leaks oil at Pearl Harbor.

This is not to say so what,but we learn from these types of things.And the planet goes on oblivious to our presence. We are fleas on a dog,when the dog scratches,we lose.The planet will be here long after we are gone.

Ken Stallings
May 16th, 2010, 18:22
Ken, I actually meant it as typed. In my line of work that is the phrase we use as we absolutely cannot allow that sort of thing to occur in my line of work. I guess it is just a phrase I am used to. Ultimately the meaning is the same.

OK, that's cool. I had just never head that term used before except in context of human-to-human interaction.

Ken

wombat666
May 16th, 2010, 18:27
And the planet goes on oblivious to our presence.
Excellent information John.
Clear and concise.
I'd simply say the Planet is suffering in an alarming way due to the depredations of Homo Sapiens each and every day.
:censored:

PRB
May 16th, 2010, 18:39
The planet is not now, and never will “suffer” anything. It's just a ball of atoms of various types. It is, as safn1949 pointed out, oblivious to our activities. When the sun goes nova, it won't matter if we failed to recycle out plastic bottles. It won't care, IOW, oblivious. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to keep our home clean and habitable, but it, the planet, does not care. As for the Gulf Oil situation, I say we leave that to the people who have the ability to solve the problem. That would be BP, Haliburton, Exxon, Shell, etc. Everyone else is clueless.

pilottj
May 16th, 2010, 18:39
...beams in before the lock...

Yeah humans might be like fleas on a dog, but somtimes the fleas on the dog can cause blood loss, trasmit parasites, diseases, bad things for the dog. Sure overall we are a relatively minor event in the entire history of the planet but we will leave our mark for sure. Kinda like the kid who carves his name in the park bench...'we were here'

Panther_99FS
May 16th, 2010, 18:43
The whole thing could've been avoided if only there was a less demand worldwide for Vasoline....:bump:

Allen
May 16th, 2010, 18:54
The whole thing could've been avoided if only there was a less demand worldwide for Vasoline....:bump:

LOL!

viking3
May 16th, 2010, 19:10
The one thing I read which made me angry was that there is technology available for such pressures and depths that was mandated by Norway and Brazil but was not required for the Gulf. Plus it is now coming out that the rules in place were not being followed through lax enforcement. I'm not against oil-drilling but I'm against companies that do not work within the regulations. As we say in the aviation maintenance business "Them rules are written in blood".

Regards, Rob:ernae:

Wing_Z
May 16th, 2010, 20:25
...So, you have a massive gas bubble, which is impossible to predict, rushing to the surface. It pushes the heavy cement up toward the surface with it. The operators detect this and try to pump more cement down the well, to no avail. When they realize it will blow they activate the BOPs, which fail.

Who is at fault?

Thanks for taking the time to post that, it adds some depth to the discussion (no pun).
But I'd have thought that a failsafe device should be just that: failsafe.
Especially given the enormous impact a failure would have.
It's not as if the type of failure is unknown: it is exactly known - a well blows out, so cap it.
There are some extremely smart people in that industry - clearly they had not applied their minds to the problem in advance.

BP as well owner will bleed over this for years, and the cleanup will also take years.
Remains to be seen what impact this has on the world energy equation, too.

tigisfat
May 16th, 2010, 21:24
Someone sent me this today:

http://i595.photobucket.com/albums/tt32/walkeramerican/forum%20commentary%20pictures/oil.jpg

I guess I've been wrong all these years about how we come by oil.

Bjoern
May 17th, 2010, 06:07
The whole thing could've been avoided if only there was a less demand worldwide for Vasoline....:bump:

Well, if there were more normal looking women instead of female Schwarzenegger imitations less men *would* need Vasoline. ;)

Snuffy
May 17th, 2010, 06:10
In .... *waits*

cheezyflier
May 17th, 2010, 07:44
i may not know diddly squat about the industry, but still my mind forms opinions based on the little i do know, and instinct. i see the news when they tell about the failed attempts. i notice that they weren't trying to cap it off, they were trying to make a way to continue harvesting the oil from the hole they made without losing more. to me that seems irresponsible. my mind says stop damaging and then figure how to go back and get the oil.

the other part of me doesn't trust the industry. the corporate greed that we (the entire human race) that we accept really astounds me. back when gas prices were going through the roof these companies were posting the highest profits in recorded history. of course, i fully expect at this point, someone to come rushing to their defense over that statement. (even though it's 100% true) there always is. it's like a crack addict trying to convince you that the stroke he had wasn't from doing to much crack.

jhefner
May 17th, 2010, 10:42
Also,think about this.....WW 1&2.How many ships went down,full of fuel and what not.Look up the figures and do a bit of math and you will see that probably millions of gallons of petrochemicals of all kinds went down.The USS Arizona still leaks oil at Pearl Harbor.

This is not to say so what,but we learn from these types of things.And the planet goes on oblivious to our presence. We are fleas on a dog,when the dog scratches,we lose.The planet will be here long after we are gone.

Where's the oil? Much has evaporated, but still more lies under the Gulf like a big black blob (http://redirectingat.com/?id=673X542464&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.startribune.com%2Fnation%2F93 758734.html%3Felr%3DKArks%3ADCiUMEaPc%3AUiD3aPc%3A _Yyc%3AaULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUr&sref=http%3A%2F%2Fdallashistory.freeforums.org%2Fw here-s-the-oil-much-has-evaporated-but-still-more-lies-t5308.html)

A little context for the BP oil spill: It isn't the Apocalypse (http://niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=00454)‎

While the news has reported that this reef and that beach are "endangered"; the hoped for pictures of fouled beaches and massive fish and whale kills have not taken place.

We are not fleas on a dog, we are microbes on a planet that is not a single, living entity, but a complex community of living and non-living organisms that is able to adapt to major changes, and has endured through far worst than we can throw at it.

-James

jmig
May 17th, 2010, 12:17
i may not know diddly squat about the industry, but still my mind forms opinions based on the little i do know, and instinct. i see the news when they tell about the failed attempts. i notice that they weren't trying to cap it off, they were trying to make a way to continue harvesting the oil from the hole they made without losing more. to me that seems irresponsible. my mind says stop damaging and then figure how to go back and get the oil.

the other part of me doesn't trust the industry. the corporate greed that we (the entire human race) that we accept really astounds me. back when gas prices were going through the roof these companies were posting the highest profits in recorded history. of course, i fully expect at this point, someone to come rushing to their defense over that statement. (even though it's 100% true) there always is. it's like a crack addict trying to convince you that the stroke he had wasn't from doing to much crack.

They did try to cap the well. the problem is that the pipe from which the oil is spewing is torn off so short to the ocean floor that it can't be pinched off. The outward flow of oil under pressure keeps them from filling the well with something to stop the flow.

What they are trying to do is drill another well at an angle that will intersect the 21" well bore below the ocean floor. Cement will then be pumped into the well under high pressure sealing the well and stopping the leak.

Skittles
May 17th, 2010, 12:22
i may not know diddly squat about the industry, but still my mind forms opinions based on the little i do know, and instinct. i see the news when they tell about the failed attempts. i notice that they weren't trying to cap it off, they were trying to make a way to continue harvesting the oil from the hole they made without losing more. to me that seems irresponsible. my mind says stop damaging and then figure how to go back and get the oil.

the other part of me doesn't trust the industry. the corporate greed that we (the entire human race) that we accept really astounds me. back when gas prices were going through the roof these companies were posting the highest profits in recorded history. of course, i fully expect at this point, someone to come rushing to their defense over that statement. (even though it's 100% true) there always is. it's like a crack addict trying to convince you that the stroke he had wasn't from doing to much crack.

Oil companies operate at approximately a 9.7% profit margin. That's about average. Google operates at 25% profit margin. Gas prices are due to taxes and added value on the forecourt. They make so much money because they sell so much of it, not because of extortionate mark-ups. Often you actually pay less at the pumps than it costs to produce - the difference is subsidised by the government.

And they're not trying to harvest the oil with the intention of selling it. There's a massive, highly pressurised jet of oil firing out from the well and there is no way to 'plug the hole' directly.' The prospect of funneling the oil to the surface was extremely clever. You massively reduce contamination of the ocean whilst avoiding the hurdes associated with the pressure. Shame it failed really.

Cratermaker
May 17th, 2010, 14:37
While the news has reported that this reef and that beach are "endangered"; the hoped for pictures of fouled beaches and massive fish and whale kills have not taken place.
Don't worry, there is always photoshop or photos taken from other oil spills that will be billed as gulf spill photos.:rolleyes:

KOM.Nausicaa
May 17th, 2010, 14:48
Those who say we can't harm the planet miss the point. The whole point is that we do damage to the eco systems and there for to ourselves, because we are part of it.

Roadburner440
May 17th, 2010, 15:20
It is a sad and unfortunate event that this happened the way it did. I do not think anyone set out with any kind of malicious intent, or purposely neglected their duty for this to occur. I tend to lean toward the side of an accident like this was bound to happen. I imagine the pressure in that well bore is tremendous. The weight of 5,000ft of water is enough to implode a submarine, and for the oil to gush out like it is in the video means the pressure in that well far exceeds the overhead water pressure. It is amazing to think concrete could even hold it back to begin with..... This will affect that area for decades to come. The Exxon Valdez spill still affects Alaska, and decades later Chernobyl is still a hole in the ground. In fact they now need to build a new concrete structure over it to contain the radiation as the last one they built is crumbling to the ground and starting to let the radiation out. Also 3 mile island almost became our own version of Chernobyl, and we lucked out on that one. Energy is a dangerous business, but I will admit that I love my electronics/vehicles and such. I hope in the coming years safer alternatives are developed, but until then this is just the reality of the energy business.

jhefner
May 17th, 2010, 15:37
Those who say we can't harm the planet miss the point. The whole point is that we do damage to the eco systems and there for to ourselves, because we are part of it.

Be sure and tell mother nature that; since she is devasating all that pristene land up north with that volcano....

We can stop any possible damage to the ecosystem by shutting down our modern way of life and go back to stone knives and bearskins. (Bearskins! Oops, more ecodamage....) But besides being impractical, it is reacting way out of proportion to the incident, which is my whole point.

This is like getting all upset over a single plane crash, and insisting that all planes should be grounded until we can make sure it never happens again; ignoring the fact that day in and day out, there are thousands of flights being made, and they reach their destination with no problems.

Like a plane crash, we mourn the dead, analyze what happened, and do the best we can to make sure it doesn't happen again. And like others said; realize it it can be a dangerous business, just like coal mining, airline travel and driving on the freeway; and accidents will occur. The best we can do is make them few and far between, with mininum damage when they occur; which is present state of things today. (When did the last off-shore drilling rig explode and sink? How many are presently in the Gulf of Mexico alone?)

-James

Dangerousdave26
May 17th, 2010, 16:51
Those who say we can't harm the planet miss the point. The whole point is that we do damage to the eco systems and there for to ourselves, because we are part of it.

Lest we forget

There were those before us we should morn for they had not the control over their environment that we seem to have or that some think we might have.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian-Triassic_extinction_event


The Permian–Triassic (P–Tr) extinction event, informally known as the Great Dying,<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-0">[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian-Triassic_extinction_event#cite_note-0)</sup> was an extinction event (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event) that occurred 251.4 (http://toolserver.org/%7Everisimilus/Timeline/Timeline.php?Ma=251.4) million years ago,<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-Jin2000_1-0">[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian-Triassic_extinction_event#cite_note-Jin2000-1)</sup><sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-Bowring1998_2-0">[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian-Triassic_extinction_event#cite_note-Bowring1998-2)</sup> forming the boundary between the Permian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian) and Triassic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triassic) geologic periods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_period). It was the Earth's most severe extinction event, with up to 96 percent of all marine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_biology) species (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species)<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-Benton_3-0">[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian-Triassic_extinction_event#cite_note-Benton-3)</sup> and 70 percent of terrestrial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrestrial_ecoregion) vertebrate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertebrate) species becoming extinct (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction); it is the only known mass extinction of insects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insects).<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-Labandeira_4-0">[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian-Triassic_extinction_event#cite_note-Labandeira-4)</sup><sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-sole_5-0">[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian-Triassic_extinction_event#cite_note-sole-5)</sup> Fifty-seven percent of all families and 83% of all genera were killed. Because so much biodiversity was lost, the recovery of life on earth took significantly longer than after other extinction events.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-Benton_3-1">[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian-Triassic_extinction_event#cite_note-Benton-3)</sup> This event has been described as the "mother of all mass extinctions".<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-Erwin1993_6-0">[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian-Triassic_extinction_event#cite_note-Erwin1993-6)</sup>
Researchers have variously suggested that there were from one to three distinct pulses, or phases, of extinction.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-YinGSSP_7-0">[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian-Triassic_extinction_event#cite_note-YinGSSP-7)</sup><sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-Jin2000_1-1">[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian-Triassic_extinction_event#cite_note-Jin2000-1)</sup><sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-Yin1992_8-0">[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian-Triassic_extinction_event#cite_note-Yin1992-8)</sup> There are several proposed mechanisms for the extinctions; the earlier phase was likely due to gradualistic environmental change, while the latter phase has been argued to be due to a catastrophic event. Suggested mechanisms for the latter include large or multiple bolide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolide) impact events (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_event), increased volcanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanoes), and sudden release (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis) of methane hydrates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_hydrates) from the sea floor; gradual changes include sea-level change, anoxia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoxic_event), increasing aridity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arid),<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-TannerLucas_9-0">[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian-Triassic_extinction_event#cite_note-TannerLucas-9)</sup> and a shift in ocean circulation driven by climate change.
Any of this at the end sound familiar?

If you study the earth you will realize how insignificant to it we are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution

KOM.Nausicaa
May 17th, 2010, 17:12
Except that none of those species that are extinct had the power to extinct themselves. We have.

Ken Stallings
May 17th, 2010, 17:18
Except that none of those species that are extinct had the power to extinct themselves. We have.

There are many ways you can make your species extinct.

One way is to pursue policies that force many people out of work, cause massive increases in costs of living, and put the world economy into recession.

The last time the world economy went into serious recession was about eight years after World War I. I personally don't need to see a repeat to convince me we should have learned from the first example!

If you can point out environmental policies that do not raise costs of living, do not put people out of work, and do not lead to recession (in the short term or long term) then I will enthusiastically endorse them.

However, very very few of the policies urged by the environmental advocacy groups adhere to any of my requirements, and most not a single one!

Ken

Dangerousdave26
May 17th, 2010, 17:23
Except that none of those species that are extinct had the power to extinct themselves. We have.

Long before that happens internal or external forces will present themselves that very well may cause man's extinction as well as most other life on earth.

From that extinction will come the rebirth of life which will continue the cycle until the nuclear fuel in the core of the earth is extinguished. Then all life will end and nothing anyone does will stop it.

wombat666
May 18th, 2010, 01:00
Those who say we can't harm the planet miss the point. The whole point is that we do damage to the eco systems and there for to ourselves, because we are part of it.

One of the most alarming results of the surface clean up is the way oil has been contained to a great extent by the (for want of a better term) detergent, however, underwater imaging shows vast areas of contamination extending below the these surface holding areas.
The prognosis indicates these 'blocks' of 'oil' are sinking and will finally come to rest on the ocean floor.

'If you're not part of the solution then you're part of the problem' is an apt description of this situation.

jhefner
May 18th, 2010, 07:05
One of the most alarming results of the surface clean up is the way oil has been contained to a great extent by the (for want of a better term) detergent, however, underwater imaging shows vast areas of contamination extending below the these surface holding areas.
The prognosis indicates these 'blocks' of 'oil' are sinking and will finally come to rest on the ocean floor.

'If you're not part of the solution then you're part of the problem' is an apt description of this situation.

First of all the initial reports of "mushroom clouds of oil underwater" proved to be false. You can't even see the oil when it is underwater.

Secondly, nature itself releases oil all the time. The LaBrea tar pits on land are a similiar example.

The entire event and it's aftermath has never occured before. It will take awhile to sort out what the short and long term effects on the environment are. But, I think we will find they will be surprisingly small. And in the meantime, too many organizations including our own government have decided to "not let a crisis go to waste", and are blowing it way out of proportion. I am just asking for sanity, and sticking with the facts of what is going on; and not the hyperbole.

-James

wombat666
May 18th, 2010, 08:33
First of all the initial reports of "mushroom clouds of oil underwater" proved to be false. You can't even see the oil when it is underwater.-James

Oh really???
Must be CGG in the footage we've seen.
:173go1:

jhefner
May 18th, 2010, 08:56
Oh really???
Must be CGG in the footage we've seen.
:173go1:

Just repeating what I heard on the news on the way home last night. I couldn't find it online, so I will just leave it be for now.

Cratermaker
May 18th, 2010, 12:49
I can't find any video of mushroom clouds of oil under water, CGG or otherwise. Link please?

tigisfat
May 18th, 2010, 12:50
I can't find any video of mushroom clouds of oil under water, CGG or otherwise. Link please?

+1, me too.

Henry
May 18th, 2010, 13:00
that was on the news
also they said it was going to rain today:wavey:
living close to the gulf and knowing many oilmen around
it is a sad state of affairs but i believe they are doing there best
humanly possible
H

Cratermaker
May 18th, 2010, 13:13
Maybe the news outlet reporting it has the video on their site? Anyone remember which news outlet?

jhefner
May 18th, 2010, 14:42
Maybe the news outlet reporting it has the video on their site? Anyone remember which news outlet?

I haven't seen any video. And, if I heard the news report correct; the same research ship that reported the "oil mushroom clouds" reported later yesterday that the clouds were not in fact not clouds of oil. I just can't find the second story online.

Here is the original news story:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/18/2902320.htm

-James

aeromed202
May 18th, 2010, 15:40
I'm not really on board with this 'nature will take care of our messes' kind of position. Does this mean I can toss my TP out the window when I'm done with it? It'll eventually dissolve won't it? Pour my used motor oil down the sewer? No, of course not.
No, probably no mushroom clouds (like an atom bomb), that sounds iffy. But consider... now I'm a bit rusty at my chemistry but oil, as a liquid, is less dense than water, like big oil marbles and smaller water marbles. It's about molecular size and nuclear density. Just pour some Wesson into a glass of water. After an hour or so the water molecules will be in the lower phase and the oil molecules in the upper with a visible boundry layer. They don't mix. Now add things like wave aggitation, currents, particulates, organic and inorganic compounds and sea life and things get way more complicated. Plus undersea vortexes are common enough and can look a bit like a mushroom cloud. Oil will disperse but each smaller droplet is still chemically oil. It is out there, moving, and being ingested too.
Whatever facts get learned from this we'd better make some good from it is all I can say.

jhefner
May 18th, 2010, 16:16
Nobody likes the idea of nature having to take care of it; but she is probably doing a better job than we can with detergents and booms.

Crude oil is also not a homogeneous substance like the Wesson in your example. The purpose of refineries si to break it down one hydrocarbon at a time; the lighter stuff like methane and kerosene first, the heavier stuff like what goes into gasoline and diesel fuel next; then heavier stuff like motor oil, eventually leaving behind tar, or pure carbon black.

Nature is doing the same thing. The lighter stuff, it is estimated to be about 20%, has evaporated away. The next-to-lightest stuff is floating as scum on the surface. The "middle stuff" is floating around underwater, and may wash up occasionally as a tar ball. The heaviest stuff sinks to the ocean floor.

I posted two links back on page two, if you didn't read them, please take time to do so. One way we "lucked out" in this case is that the oil found in the Gulf of Mexico is rich in lighter hydrocarbons, so it is breaking up well on it's own as I described above. The shifting ocean currents are helping to disperse it, and the microbes are doing there thing.

The oil found on the North Slope in Alaska is much thicker, and made up of mostly heavier hydrocarbons. So, most of it remained in the water, and washed up on the beach. (The Exxon Valdez was also much closer to shore.)

That and more was brought out in the two links I shared. And like I wrote before, crude oil is not a manmade substance. Lots of if leaks out to the ground and ocean floor on it's own; or at least it used to until we extracted it.(Don't forget that point; all of the early finds came from observations of gas escaping or oil pooling on the ground.) So nature is quite used to taking care of it.

Nobody, including myself, is just shrugging their shoulders and saying "no big deal, let's just keep polluting." The fact is, the oil industry has done a good job in the past in finding, drilling, and extracting the oil as clean as humanly possible. This was an unusual event, not business as usual. It infuriates me that some groups are treating it otherwise to forward their agenda.

-James

jhefner
May 18th, 2010, 16:42
The Tenerife airport disaster was terrible: 583 fatalities, lots of burning fuel and smoke, two wrecked 747s:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife_airport_disaster

What if the government and environmentalists called for the ending of all airline flights until the cause was found, and we made sure it never happened again. Most of you would hit the roof, and rightly claim it was an isolated incident.

How many of you know, or remember, that many of the early oil strikes were followed by roaring sound; then the drill pipe came flying out of the hole, followed by a gusyer of oil. This is Lucas Geyser at Spindletop, the first big strike in the United States in 1901, which blew oil over 150 ft (46 m) in the air at a rate of 100,000 barrels per day (16,000 m<SUP>3</SUP>/d)(4,200,000 gallons). It took nine days before the well was brought under control.



8260

I can take you to that spot today, you would never know it ever occurred; except for the momument marking the spot, and the oil wells still in the area. Until this event, we haven't seen this is a very long time; there is a reason for that.

My Dad, a retired petroleum engineer; once told me about working all night in the 1960s to keep a well from blowing out, then jumping in the water pit used for the steam engines to cool off; angering the well engineer. It has been years since we had a blowout like that; that is what cementing a well and blowout protectors do.

It sounds like the oil fields off the contential shelf may have gas pressures far greater than what we usually encounter. Or, maybe someone goofed; that is what my Dad thinks. But either way, let's find out; and not let the media make us crazy over this.

-James

tigisfat
May 18th, 2010, 17:10
...... Or, maybe someone goofed; that is what my Dad thinks. But either way, let's find out; and not let the media make us crazy over this.

-James
The pipe going to the well severed when the rig capsized and went under, creating the geyser. If I understand you correctly, you're suggesting that an ovepressure or drilling problem caused this. I just wanted to make sure we were all on the same page.

jhefner
May 18th, 2010, 17:14
The pipe going to the well severed when the rig capsized and went under, creating the geyser. If I understand you correctly, you're suggesting that an ovepressure or drilling problem caused this. I just wanted to make sure we were all on the same page.

Two things happened. First, the wellhead blew out due to the gas pocket, killing those who were on the well deck at the time, and setting the rig on fire. This is the initial cause I was refering to; the cement and blowout proventers never should have allowed this to happen. But something, we are not sure what, went wrong.

After burning for awhile, the rig was weakened and sank, breaking the drill string. This caused the leak you are referring to; the gas pressure is still there, so like Spindletop, we have a geyser, only it is underwater.

-James

Ken Stallings
May 18th, 2010, 17:17
James,

Your contributions in this thread have been very wise, informed, and objective. I for one very much appreciate your expertise.

Your comparison to well documented airline disasters is spot on!

I openly wonder if those who call for ending such drilling operations would be so forceful in their articulations if it guaranteed their long term unemployment! Somehow, I suspect such a dire personal outcome would moderate their enthusiasm.

We may well learn this accident was caused by negligence. Or we may well learn that a one-in-a-million set of circumstances took place outside rational human ability to control. If it is the later, then rational response would be to preserve the status quo. If the former, then properly hold accountable those who's negligence caused the destruction, damage, and death.

Ken

tigisfat
May 18th, 2010, 17:20
Two things happened. First, the wellhead blew out due to the gas pocket, killing those who were on the well deck at the time, and setting the rig on fire. This is the initial cause I was refering to; the cement and blowout proventers never should have allowed this to happen. But something, we are not sure what, went wrong.

After burning for awhile, the rig was weakened and sank, breaking the drill string. This caused the leak you are referring to; the gas pressure is still there, so like Spindletop, we have a geyser, only it is underwater.

-James

Okay, thanks for bringing me up to speed. I thought the underwater geyser was solely cause by the rig going under for some other reason.

Thanks. :ernae:

jhefner
May 18th, 2010, 17:25
James,

Your contributions in this thread have been very wise, informed, and objective. I for one very much appreciate your expertise.

Your comparison to well documented airline disasters is spot on!

I openly wonder if those who call for ending such drilling operations would be so forceful in their articulations if it guaranteed their long term unemployment! Somehow, I suspect such a dire personal outcome would moderate their enthusiasm.

We may well learn this accident was caused by negligence. Or we may well learn that a one-in-a-million set of circumstances took place outside rational human ability to control. If it is the later, then rational response would be to preserve the status quo. If the former, then properly hold accountable those who's negligence caused the destruction, damage, and death.

Ken

Thank you very much; we should also be getting this kind of reporting from the news media if they were indeed "fair and unbaised"; the fact that you have to read it from a nobody in a FS Forum is why I and others have no respect for the MSM these days. Ditto the "Global Warming", opps, "global climate change" reporting....

EasyEd
May 18th, 2010, 18:36
Hey All,

Ken Stallings wrote...


One way is to pursue policies that force many people out of work, cause massive increases in costs of living, and put the world economy into recession.

Are we talking environmental economic policy here or Conservative deregulation of the American economic system? I'm confused. :d

That aside the way I see the gulf incident is not a failure to adequately understand risk or even perhaps a failure to implement appropriate safety measures - the failure is in the understanding of consequences assuming a worst case scenario which this probably isn't. But that said what will be the cumulative cost over time to all marine based industries in the gulf? Does an oil company have the right to put at significant risk the livelihood of gulf fisherman? What would Forrest Gump think? What will be the full cost to the recreation/tourism industry? Will Cuba be able to make a claim against the American taxpayer? How much is this going to cost the taxpayer/consumer in terms of increased testing of all food from the gulf - for how long? Do you really think BP is going to pay all current and future costs? In short how much is this going to cost? - is the oil worth it? - and none of this future values have small values today krap. The use of discount rates to maximize short term cash versus future needs or that minimize present costs of future consequences has gone on too long. Our descendants deserve better - but not to get off track. What is this going to cost and then you can add on all the environmental ethics, ecological goods and services and all that sort of thing.

The arguement that the earth will survive as it has "suffered" worse is nothing but a denial of responsibility. The earth unquestionably has "suffered" worse but those events were not caused by humans with the knowledge and responsibility to act upon that knowledge to avoid those kinds of events. Even if you claim we do not have a responsibility to the earth because it doesn't care we do have a responsibility to the people we share the earth with and to future generations. The arguement that future generations will just have to inherit what we leave them just like we inherited what we got is simply unacceptable because we have the knowledge to know we are taking severe risks perhaps creating/leaving a mess to them - a mess we didn't need to make - past generations did not necessarily have to bear the burden that knowledge creates - we and future generations do.

I don't know how this "event" is going to "tally up" - we'll see - an honest accounting I hope. Hopefully we'll see this as a real "wake up" call. Most of the same concerns apply to climate change where the question is - once again - full understanding of the potential consequences. If the consequences are severe enough the risk however small it may be percieved to be probably just isn't worth it.

JMO.

Oh an one last thing I learned from Snuffy...

In... before the lock! :d

-Ed-

Ken Stallings
May 18th, 2010, 19:41
Nice words, but I say again, are you willing to surrender YOUR job and YOUR way of life to support those words?

Because if you are not, then you might be playing loose and fast with other people's lives!

And ultimately, I don't see that as coservative or liberal. I see it as rational human policy. Because the best policies are those that cause the least harm to society.

Cheers,

Ken

stiz
May 18th, 2010, 21:11
Nice words, but I say again, are you willing to surrender YOUR job and YOUR way of life to support those words?


people have legs/bikes etc oil isnt the only way to move things around. People managed fine before it and people will manage when its gone. And to all those that say humans dont effect the enviroment and that mother nature will "clean up" .. well thats utter bollacks and you need to get out away from the towns/citys etc and take a good look around you, now go back to town. :kilroy:

wombat666
May 19th, 2010, 01:33
I haven't seen any video. And, if I heard the news report correct; the same research ship that reported the "oil mushroom clouds" reported later yesterday that the clouds were not in fact not clouds of oil. I just can't find the second story online.

Here is the original news story:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/18/2902320.htm

-James

Try looking under Special Broadcasting Services (SBS Australia) News.
And no, I can't be bothered posting a link.

However, as the oil sludge has made landfall in the Mississippi wetlands, part of the Florida Coast, and is heading North, along with the banning of fishing in over 40,000 square miles in the Gulf, the impact (even by Ken's 'Because the best policies are those that cause the least harm to society' standards) will be huge.
Aside from the loss of 35% of America's seafood fisheries, the knock on effect down the line from fishermen all the way to the consumer will be ugly.

And yes, I KNOW 'certain people' regard me as a member of a 'Terrorist Group'.
Remarks from the 'Head' of a certain nation's government fishing industry board to the effect that when Northern Bluefin Tuna become extinct it "Will be very good as the price of fish in our stocks will rise to a high level" make me very grumpy ......... not a good thing.
:173go1:

Cratermaker
May 19th, 2010, 03:10
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1259832/Deep-sea-oil-plumes-could-create-new-%27dead-zone%27

Unless we have the technology to plunge a camera from 1000s of ft. in the air to underwater in about 2 seconds, have it survive, then take images of huge underwater oil formations through the ocean like it is clear as tap water... I'd say those "mushroom clouds" are a CGI artist's rendition.

jmig
May 19th, 2010, 03:57
Hey All,

....
That aside the way I see the gulf incident is not a failure to adequately understand risk or even perhaps a failure to implement appropriate safety measures - the failure is in the understanding of consequences assuming a worst case scenario which this probably isn't. But that said what will be the cumulative cost over time to all marine based industries in the gulf? Does an oil company have the right to put at significant risk the livelihood of gulf fisherman? [clip]... If the consequences are severe enough the risk however small it may be percieved to be probably just isn't worth it.

JMO.

-Ed-

Very well expressed Ed. Your thoughts, concerns, and sentiments are very valid. I will not argue that they should be part of corporate decision making just as much as profits. In a perfect world they would be. I wish it was so. Unfortunately our world is not perfect. Your ideas are more valid to me than some others expressed here.

The idea that we could go back to riding bikes and walking is a nice and pleasant image, harping to the bucolic days of shepherds and quite country living. A lot of authors make a lot of money writing fantasy fiction with just these settings. If only...."if".

Let's look at what we would really give up if we quit drilling for oil and gas:

* Fresh fruits and vegetables - they are delivered by petroleum burning internal engine vehicles.

* Seafood - see above

* Anything plastic, car panels, computer cases, IPhones, etc. Plastics are made from natural gas.

* Airplanes, vacations abroad or across country

* electricity - except for coal fired and nuclear powered generators

* air conditioning - due to a lack of electricity (I could give up computers before this)

* clothing made with chemical products - Gore-tex, Nylon, etc.

You will also see a great increase in wood burning (goodbye forests) stoves, fireplaces and cooking.

Like it or not, we are stuck with oil and gas for the next 50 years, at least. We have to drill or turn our entire economy over to people in countries who, for the most part, don't like us very well.

Is that what we want?

Not me!

So we need oil and gas. We must and will find ways of getting it more safely. Accidents like this will continue. As the saying goes, $hit happens. As long as there are humans doing things, accidents will happen. As long as the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Chaos theory are in force, things will break.

No government or corporation's safety man will ever stop it completely.

Yes! It sucks! But as the French will say, C'est la Vie!

Snuffy
May 19th, 2010, 05:00
If this proves anything, it proves that the ancient way of building rigs will probably be brought back to the norm. This is speculation with regard to the floating and sinking rig problem.

Had this rig been of the rigid design with a foundation implanted in the sea bed, most likely the rig would not have sunk, and the pipe would not have failed at such a depth as it is now, and virtually impossible for man to withstand the water pressures of the location.

There still would be the geyser effect we're seeing now, but it would be a whole lot closer to depths that a man could survive in. IF it were under water at all.

Yes, I understand the leak is a mile or so below the surface, and yeah its a lot of steel/aluminum or whatever other material they could have chose to build the support structure from, but again, the cost of a mile of steel structure is a hell of a lot less than what its going to cost to clean up, as well as what its cost so far to have to repair this rupture.

Just my humble idle thought on this.

jhefner
May 19th, 2010, 07:28
If this proves anything, it proves that the ancient way of building rigs will probably be brought back to the norm. This is speculation with regard to the floating and sinking rig problem.

Had this rig been of the rigid design with a foundation implanted in the sea bed, most likely the rig would not have sunk, and the pipe would not have failed at such a depth as it is now, and virtually impossible for man to withstand the water pressures of the location.

There still would be the geyser effect we're seeing now, but it would be a whole lot closer to depths that a man could survive in. IF it were under water at all.

Yes, I understand the leak is a mile or so below the surface, and yeah its a lot of steel/aluminum or whatever other material they could have chose to build the support structure from, but again, the cost of a mile of steel structure is a hell of a lot less than what its going to cost to clean up, as well as what its cost so far to have to repair this rupture.

Just my humble idle thought on this.

You may be right. But, I think they will most likely look at improving blowout preventors and the process of cementing and drilling so that it won't happen again.

The equivalent dilemma in aviation is do you make planes so that they can float in the event of a total engine faliure, and equip them with lifeboats; or do you make the engines so reliable that they never have to worry about a water landing. The industry has chose to go with more reliable engines, although the discussion about landing on water and the Hudson River incident shows that under ideal conditions, a water landing is still survivable, and every plane is equipped with life vests. You look at it the situation, and come with the most practical and cost-effective solution.

Ed and jmig have covered why we drill and what the consequences are well. Petroleum is not going away; the question is do we get it from hostile countries overseas, obtain it from far off the continental shelf, or closer to shore. It has been decided that the risk of incidents like this is too great for many locations closer to shore; so we have been banned from drilling there, and we are left with the first two choices.

Ask London of 1952 what life was like before natural gas and oil fired powerplants in more remote locations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog

That wasn't that long ago; so reducing population is not the answer either.


However, as the oil sludge has made landfall in the Mississippi wetlands, part of the Florida Coast, and is heading North, along with the banning of fishing in over 40,000 square miles in the Gulf, the impact (even by Ken's 'Because the best policies are those that cause the least harm to society' standards) will be huge.
Aside from the loss of 35% of America's seafood fisheries, the knock on effect down the line from fishermen all the way to the consumer will be ugly.

Yes, it has made landfall, but in greatly diluted amounts, and much of it is non-toxic. I know, we are planning a trip to Galveston this weekend.

The effects are ugly, yes, but will probably be short lived. Watch and see. We can already say it is not the economic and environmental apocalypse that the early reporting said it would be.


And to all those that say humans dont effect the enviroment and that mother nature will "clean up" .. well thats utter bollacks and you need to get out away from the towns/citys etc and take a good look around you, now go back to town.

Sorry; it's a fact. Some tarballs washed up on the Florida Keys just in the past day or so, and guess what? An analysis of the oil determined that it is not from this oil spill. It either came from a ship -- or nature.

And I have spent the vast majority of my life in towns of 100,000 or less. Spindletop itself is on the edge of Beaumont, a town of about 100,000. The site of that original well is grass, trees, mosquitoes, birds, more mosquitoes, yet more mosquitoes, scattered pumpjacks, and even more mosquitoes; with US 287/69/96 passing by with the buinesses along it, and a railroad track; and not an environmental disaster area conveniently paved over with McDonalds and Wal-marts.

-James

jhefner
May 19th, 2010, 07:35
Oh, and surely you mean riding a steel frame Ordinary with natural rubber tires, and NOT a carbon fiber frame modern bicycle with synthetic rubber tires derived from the products of oil refining. :wiggle:

-James

Snuffy
May 19th, 2010, 07:52
Always trust a guy in Bib Overalls ...

k5SxX2EntEo

jhefner
May 19th, 2010, 08:16
Office of the White House
March 28, 1977

As you all know, a terrible incident involving two bloated 747s occured on the island of Tenerife in the Canary Islands. There were 583 fatalities, lots of burning fuel and smoke to further increase global warming, and the two 747s owned by the greedy airlines were destroyed.

The fact that the airlines would endanger lives by attempting to take off in fog proves that the airline industry has placed profits over safety. Furthermore, the fact that this incident was even allowed to occur proves that the FAA has become too cozy with the airline industry.

In response to this crisis, I have issued an executive order that calls for the following:

1. The grounding of all airline flights worldwide, effective immediately. Those already in the air will be allowed to continue to their destination.

2. I have asked for the immediate resignation of the current head of the FAA.

3. I have formed a blue ribbon panel to investigate this incident.

Signed;
The President of the United States

Odie
May 19th, 2010, 08:31
I think the alarms have been louder from this mishap than the actual problems it has caused. The Valdez mishap was a disaster due to the proximity to the shores. This one happened far enough out that the actual environmental impact is vastly more spread out.

It also seems that BP has finally managed to get a handle of the spill.

Name an industry and you'll find mishaps, many spectacular. I think the media have turned the petroleum industry into a whipping boy and this is done absent of smart economic considerations. Energy is the lifeblood of everyone's job. Reduce the supply and you literally put millions of people out of work very easily.

I think across the board there needs to be a lot less focus on ideals and more focus on sobering reality.

Ken

Hey Ken, wasn't the Valdez spill also a result of the ship captain's close proximity to alcohol, too? Good points.

Cratermaker
May 19th, 2010, 09:11
Office of the White House
March 28, 1977

As you all know, a terrible incident involving two bloated 747s occured on the island of Tenerife in the Canary Islands. There were 583 fatalities, lots of burning fuel and smoke to further increase global warming, and the two 747s owned by the greedy airlines were destroyed.

The fact that the airlines would endanger lives by attempting to take off in fog proves that the airline industry has placed profits over safety. Furthermore, the fact that this incident was even allowed to occur proves that the FAA has become too cozy with the airline industry.

In response to this crisis, I have issued an executive order that calls for the following:

1. The grounding of all airline flights worldwide, effective immediately. Those already in the air will be allowed to continue to their destination.

2. I have asked for the immediate resignation of the current head of the FAA.

3. I have formed a blue ribbon panel to investigate this incident.

Signed;
The President of the United States
:icon_lol: Nice.

I'm still waiting for the first photoshopped image of a polar bear, covered in oil, standing on a small piece of ice in the middle of the ocean to appear in a press release. :rolleyes:

jmig
May 19th, 2010, 09:14
If this proves anything, it proves that the ancient way of building rigs will probably be brought back to the norm. This is speculation with regard to the floating and sinking rig problem.

Had this rig been of the rigid design with a foundation implanted in the sea bed, most likely the rig would not have sunk, and the pipe would not have failed at such a depth as it is now, and virtually impossible for man to withstand the water pressures of the location.

There still would be the geyser effect we're seeing now, but it would be a whole lot closer to depths that a man could survive in. IF it were under water at all.

Yes, I understand the leak is a mile or so below the surface, and yeah its a lot of steel/aluminum or whatever other material they could have chose to build the support structure from, but again, the cost of a mile of steel structure is a hell of a lot less than what its going to cost to clean up, as well as what its cost so far to have to repair this rupture.

Just my humble idle thought on this.

Won't happen. The amount of steel needed to build a structure a mile high that can withstand the currents would make it economically impossible. That is why these structures float.

Also, these rigs are temporary. Three months to a year then it moves somewhere else.

On average there are about 90 deep water rigs drilling at one time in the Gulf of Mexico. This is the first time one of these type of rigs has had such a significant accident.

How long do we go with out an airliner crashing?

How long do we go without a train derailment?

The O&G Industry will learn from this accident. Better procedures and equipment will come out of it. Drilling will become safer.

Ken Stallings
May 19th, 2010, 18:15
people have legs/bikes etc oil isnt the only way to move things around. People managed fine before it and people will manage when its gone. And to all those that say humans dont effect the enviroment and that mother nature will "clean up" .. well thats utter bollacks and you need to get out away from the towns/citys etc and take a good look around you, now go back to town. :kilroy:

I suggest you take a hard look at such things as infant mortality, life expectancy, and many other vital facts prior to the industrial age and then after. I, for one, am not willing to return to those days simply to stop using oil.

You know, if we do bad things, it is entirely possible to return to the days of 30% infant mortality and life expectancy hovering in the late 50's vice the current 70's level.

For me, again, that's not insignificant. And I do hope people can balance such exuberant statements with just a bit more historical awareness.

Cheers,

Ken

Henry
May 19th, 2010, 19:13
Won't happen. The amount of steel needed to build a structure a mile high that can withstand the currents would make it economically impossible. That is why these structures float.

Also, these rigs are temporary. Three months to a year then it moves somewhere else.

On average there are about 90 deep water rigs drilling at one time in the Gulf of Mexico. This is the first time one of these type of rigs has had such a significant accident.

How long do we go with out an airliner crashing?

How long do we go without a train derailment?

The O&G Industry will learn from this accident. Better procedures and equipment will come out of it. Drilling will become safer.
i agreee
H

cheezyflier
May 19th, 2010, 20:06
I suggest you take a hard look at such things as ...

quite true. another thing people fail to comprehend is that modern farming and distribution of food and goods would also be impossible. the world and in fact, this country, could not feed the population we currently have.
there would be mass starvation. we've gone too far down the rabbit hole to turn around suddenly.

but i believe there are more responsible ways of doing what we do.

aeromed202
May 20th, 2010, 04:19
As the posts here seem to waver between the event at hand and the greater topics of energy sources and employment, there are some hard moral questions being hinted at or posed directly. I just wanted to commend those who are engaged in this discussion for your civility in what could have easily been a brief flurry of emotional outpouring before a shut down.:salute:

EasyEd
May 20th, 2010, 18:39
Hey All,

Steadily the truth comes out.

But first a comment about Ken's comment on giving up standard of living driving a car and all that. No I and most people in North America do not want to nor do we need to (yet) go back to the horse and buggy and bicycle. That said we need alternatives to oil and gas and likely sooner than we think. The problem with the situation in the gulf is as I indicated wrong headed thinking in not understanding the potentially huge consequences of something going seriously wrong and making intelligent choices in a situation where risk is small but consequence huge.

Fundamentally I believe the government of the USA does not have the right to make the policy decision that the energy supply to the USA outweighs all other economic values that the Gulf of Mexico supplies - without full disclosure and discussion of that decision with the people of the USA and those potentially affected including Cuba and Mexico. John says we don't want to put the energy supply of the USA in the hands of countries that don't like us much. My answer to that is tough - they mostly don't like us for (a) reason(s) (some unquestionably valid) so get over it and deal with them but if you don't want to do that then disclose the alternatives for public scrutiny. Have the debate and the discussion - maybe if the energy situation is perceived severe enough start a "Manhattan Project" focused on energy - In my opinion as a believer in the capitalist system - whatever you do DO NOT depend on the market to solve the problem. The market is an effective way of distributing the goods of the world but it has virtually NO ability to "think" forward 20, 30 even 50+ years into the future about what is needed. What if we had taken the idea of running out of oil truly seriously 30 years ago? Where would we be today? The market relies on price causing a switch to alternatives generally in a relatively short time frame but if the development time for the alternatives is long (like decades or longer) your skrood. In my opinion this is basically where we are at. Capitalism and the market mechanism has serious deficiencies that western economies need to start taking seriously (anybody notice the effects of deregulation on Wall Street lately?) - but that is a different discussion. Getting back to the Gulf...

1) Today BP indicated they are recovering about 5000 barrels a day and burning off as much as 14 million feet of natural gas a day. Uh what was the estimate of what the leak was putting out? Right now estimates are running as high as up to 14 times the original estimate leaking daily.

2) The dispersant BP is/was using is highly toxic and they have been ordered to suspend use of that and go to something else. Even though approved for use which is an EPA/Coast Guard Skroo-up BP should be following best management practices and using something less toxic right from the start. The chemicals they are/were using are not legal in other parts of the world. I'll ignore the apparent "connection" between BP and the company that produces the chemical.

3) BP is going to look at Kevin Costner's company's (with his brother) product whatever it is to help with the Gulf oil mess - BP and Hollywood - guess BP isn't as in control as oilfield "experts" would have us believe. Maybe it'll help. I kinda like the hay idea though. :jump:

4) BP has failed to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth - now they are being told to be transparent - about time.

5) If BP's "hole shot" this weekend doesn't work this situation IMO is no longer a minor inconvience - ignoring for now the fact that it's turning into not being an inconvience now - but a serious event with long lasting repercussions.

I am really hoping - probably against hope - that BP stops this oil leak this weekend and that this does turn out to be a true "wake up" call to people that risk and consequence are not to be trifled with. As a forest fire specialist I may have more sensitivity to that than many but irrespective I think people need to be far more clued into risk versus consequence. The climate change issue is looming and once again - a case of risk versus consequence. In my opinion the consequences of climate change are possibly so severe that the chance (whatever size you believe it is) of human caused climate change is worth taking very seriously.

-Ed-

As an aside just for those who do not know the USA imports more oil from Canada than any other country on earth - not the middle east.

tigisfat
May 20th, 2010, 19:14
As an aside just for those who do not know the USA imports more oil from Canada than any other country on earth - not the middle east.

Why would the middle east import oil from Canada? :icon_lol: I couldn't resist. :ernae:

Cratermaker
May 21st, 2010, 05:21
In my opinion the consequences of climate change are possibly so severe that the chance (whatever size you believe it is) of human caused climate change is worth taking very seriously.
Well, I don't believe the science is "settled" on human caused climate change, not by a long shot. But if you are serious about consequences being severe no matter how small the risk is, we should be putting all our money in to asteroid/comet defense. That's no theory, it's fact. It's happened before and it is going to happen again.

I'm all for developing alternative energy, but for the RIGHT reasons. I know some say that reducing carbon emissions and energy independence are the same thing, and in a way... they are! HOWEVER, it's the way some people want to go about doing this that I have problems with. Taxing carbon or otherwise artificially making carbon energy sources difficult to exploit while crippling the economy is NOT the way to do it.

safn1949
May 21st, 2010, 05:56
Ok,I am also for looking at alternative sources because I don't believe in keeping all your eggs in one basket,but other than oil,coal and nuclear energy what else will supply the vast amounts of energy needed to run a modern society? Nothing,not wind or ethanol or hyroelectric.

It's a matter of scale,you simply can't grow enough corn or put up enough windmills or dam enough rivers.It is simply impossible.The same with solar.Now having said that I feel that solar and wind have a limited place in our energy policy,ethanol is a loser.It take more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol then it makes,in other words if a gallon of ethanol produces 1000 btus of energy(just an example figure),it took 1500 btu's to make that gallon.

And here in the US the subsidy is $1 per gallon to make it.

I don't pretend to have the answer,but take a hard look at the world around you and take the emotion out of it.See how goods are produced and distributed and ask yourself what would really happen to me,personally if that chain were broken.And that chain,right now,runs on oil and other carbon based fuels and will for the rest of my life.

Can you say cold,dark and hungry? We may not like it but there it is,are you willing to give up your lifestyle and I don't mean just your car.Your food and clothing and electricity.All of these things will be in short supply.

Ken Stallings
May 21st, 2010, 16:18
I'm certainly not against alternative energy research and development, far from it!

However, I also believe that since in this country no one is being prevented from applying free enterprise in those efforts that just as soon as it becomes economically viable, it will happen -- sort of along the adage of the old saw about building a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door!

But, for the foreseeable future, the most efficient means of energy is fossile fuels (coal, oil, gas) and nuclear are the most economical methods. I would immediately support vastly increased use of nuclear power in America. But, that has gotten politicized, mostly by the same folks who condemn our dependency on oil, sadly enough!

Ken

jhefner
May 24th, 2010, 11:08
Remember Obama's emergency Gulf Oil 'SWAT' team inspections?

They found...nothing.


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Remember-Obamas-emergency-Gulf-Oil-SWAT-team-inspections-94727604.html#ixzz0osLF8fdq (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Remember-Obamas-emergency-Gulf-Oil-SWAT-team-inspections-94727604.html#ixzz0osLF8fdq)