Offshore oil drilling is safe?

MotoH

You don't think BP is going to take care of the families involved? Come on now.

mgb_phys

There are a few problems with owning international waters - such as who, how, where.

There are rules for spills and dumping at sea even in international waters, generally the response is for anyone effected to sue the owners of the vessel. Which for rigs and oil leaks is usually pretty easy to determine.

The worst offenders in the gulf of Mexico are cruise ships. A 1000bbl/day light crude leak is nothing compared to the amount of waste water/sewage/chemicals that 100 cruise ships a day - each with 5000 people on board generate.

mheslep

Though it is problematic, the potential benefits some privatization of the ocean are too large to ignore. I believe Iceland did something very innovative along those lines with their fisheries resulting in dramatic economic and ecological improvements.

mgb_phys

Iceland proposed a 200mile economic exclusion zone, rather than the usual 12mi nautical limit.
This was good for Iceland's fisheries, but it was only able to enforce it because of other political means - it was in a vital position in the cold war for anti-submarine bases.

There are a few problems with 200mi limits, especially where they benefit countries with former empires. So Britain gets a big junk of the south Atlantic because of the Falklands, and a lot of Spanish and Mediterranean water because of Gibraltar. France would have access to the fisheries of the Grand Banks and Nova Scotia oilfields because of the tiny territory of St-Pierre&Michelon. And much of the deep water oilfields in the gulf Mexico would be Cuban!

Russia is trying something similar by claiming the arctic ocean is it's territory while the US is claiming that the North West passage, even the parts that are inshore Canadian waters, are international.

Ultimately it comes down to do you have enough a political clout to make it stick and a large enough to enforce it.

mheslep

I meant something else. Iceland has done something fairly recently that, as I recall, allowed the buying and selling of fishery rights among the fishermen, a big step from a simple fishing license/allocation from the state. The result was that the best, most efficient fishermen ended up on the water, the poor performers sold out. The top fishermen then had something of great value to them, and thus had large incentives to husband the fishing grounds for future production. I wonder if these Iceland fishermen would react any differently than Gulf fishermen to a similar oil spill.

Greg Bernhardt

It's now grown to 210,000 gallons of oil a day.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/04/29/lou...ex.html?hpt=T1

mheslep

Well 'officials said' per that source. I heard BP disputing that characterization today. They still believe it is lower, but now concede the estimate error may range up to the higher 5000 bbl/day number. Yes:

Edit: I'm being highly sceptical of these claims, pending better information, in light of what just happened with the Icelandic volcano and the EU airspace closure fraud/overreaction. The PF volcano thread posted again and again representative graphics of the ash dispersion cloud supplied by the press and (surprisingly) no PFers posted due diligence on checking primary source material - satellite or air sample data. After the fact we find out the graphics were crap.

Borg

Does anyone know of a link to track the slick other than the static image in Greg's post?

mgb_phys

Iceland did a lot of things right and ended up with a system that protected the fisheries,

An Icelandic boat trawling for cod that catches some herring can buy/trade herring quota with other boats - a Scottish boat has to just throw the dead by-catch overboard. They also have systems for banking unused quota so you can have a busy season and then mothball a boat for a season.

The problem with the Eu is most decisions are really about politics. So one branch was removing quota from Scottish boats to save fish stocks while another was paying under-developed countries to modernize their industry.
A boat would be laid up in Scotland on friday, the owner being compensated by the eu, and then sail on monday with a Spanish owner who was subsidised by the Eu to buy this new efficient boat - to the same fishing grounds.

Borg

I found a link on the Coast Guard's web site for anyone that's interested.

Deepwater Horizon Response

turbo

BP is not going to compensate all the fishermen who lose their livelihoods when their shrimping, oystering, crabbing grounds are contaminated and unfishable. Fishing is a hard way to make a living, and most of the fishermen that I know are making payments on their boats, paying off loans for engine rebuilds, replacing damaged gear, etc. They are self-employed, and cannot collect unemployment benefits to support their families.

The federal government can do their best to force a settlement, but by the time BP's lawyers get done delaying and denying payments, fishermen will already have lost boats, homes, etc.

MotoH

That's the life of a fisherman. Comes with the territory. All BP can do is try and contain the leak, which they are doing, and keep the collateral to a minimum.

mheslep

That doesn't accurately portray the issues at hand, and even if it did, who's to say that's a fair application of property and other economic rights? See the Icelandic posts above for suggestions of alternatives.

MotoH

Quite trying to push this Iceland plan. You've used it in every thread where water has been mentioned. It may work for a small island, but not any large nation.

mheslep

Engage the larger idea of ocean property and rights as started by others in #34 as a solution to ocean spills, or not, as you like. And I wasn't talking about a small island, but rather 200 miles worth of surrounding North Atlantic fishing area.

Fabrication. I never mentioned outside of this thread.

Mech_Engineer

It seems to me that fisherman being able to sue BP for loss of fishing grounds is akin to me suing the fisherman for not being able to work because I couldn't get a delicious fish sandwich. BP can't be held responsible for a fisherman's poor financial choices where a month of poor fishing will make or break him...

pallidin

Hmmm... just read a current CNN news release. http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/04/29/lou...ex.html?hpt=T1

Sounds like it could be really bad.

Louisiana declared a state of emergency with respect to this spill.
The Fed's are now stepping in. Why does it take so long!

Anyone with half a brain cell could tell from the beginning that this is a serious ecological situation. PFer's noticed it. The government, well, apparently not, again.