Offshore oil drilling is safe?

[Astronuc]

The western Gulf may be protected. It appears the currents and wind will carry the oil toward the east. It will affect the delta, eastern La, Mississippi, Alabama and the panhandle of Florida.

One estimate puts the spill at an order of magnitude above 5,000 bbl/d. In the worst case, perhaps the spill rate would approach the production rate of the developed well.

While "the Coast Guard estimates now that at least 1.6 million gallons of oil have spilled since the April 20 explosion that killed 11 workers", "Ian R. MacDonald, an oceanography professor at Florida State University, said his examination of Coast Guard charts and satellite images indicated that 8 million to 9 million gallons had already spilled by April 28."

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100501/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill

 

[pallidin]

I don't understand.
In this day and age of technology is it truly difficult to stop this?

The well-head is of a certain diameter.

A tubular structure is made(in one day) that fits over the well-head.
While still spewing oil, this tubular structure is collared-tightened below the well-head mouth. This would not be a problem as oil flow would not significantly restrict placement or tightening. The methods of collar tightening are varied.

This "containment" over-pipe is very robust and has a shut-off valve near the top.

Once done, close the valve of the new over-pipe. All is good.

 

[Cyrus]

Your claim is implicit in the notion that you can assess this risk. If you can't, then really what you're saying about the money involved is meaningless as anything save an academic exercise. For the rest, incoming!

Of course you can assess the risk, why do you think otherwise? Risk assessment has inherently subjective components to it.

Thousands of components, couched in the notion of "upgrading" rather than a basic safety standard.

I never said anything of the sort. Please reread what I wrote, and what I did say does not require a citation - only common sense.

You suggest I re-evaluate my moral position, which implies you have one here as well. Please share.

I already elucidated my point about risk analysis.

What standards are there, that are relevant to this? What do you call a standard which is held in countries from Brazil to most of European nations. The standard of a blowout prevention valve was not employed, even though it is affordable to other nations who profit from oil exploration. In the absence of that, other measures would be meaningless under that kind of pressure (210,000 gallons per day from a well-head), and THAT is the "matter of time" issue. This is putting aside the possible causes for the explosion, which I am not going to speculate about.

Your above reply is a misreading and/or misunderstanding of my reply to Turbo. Again, you should reread what I wrote.

A lot of ifs there, but still being used to make an argument that is fairly important. This statement combined with your quote about risk assessment raises the following question: Without understanding the environmental impact of past and future slicks, and with no definitive statements or evidence, how are you engaging in anything but speculation in a different direction? While we're at it, you said pages ago that it seems BP is at fault, but that evidence of gross negligence is absent.

Dammit - no, I did not! I did not say "gross negligence is absent." I said, https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2695880&postcount=71", that no one has shown (in this thread or through an investigation) that BP has been negligent concerning this incident. So that you understand, that means they may or may not be found negligent after an investigation is conducted. But for now you cannot say that they are - you simply don't know yet. And so you don't play games with my words again, you guys posted links about BPs past history only after I raised that objection.

It seems your agenda is based in your own industry, which is an understandable emotional reaction, but unwarranted. Aerospace is vilified for a number of fair and unfair reasons, but above all people are just afraid of something falling out of the sky on them. That, is a very unreasonable fear, given a reasonable assessment of risk, but it doesn't qualify you to assess the risk of a far more global event such as this. To reference such a notion, implies that you believe it applies to this situation and that you know how to do so. Risk assessment in ignorance isn't really an assessment, it's a kid skateboarding on a rail without a helmet.

I have no idea why or how the above is relevant. I was not applying anything about aerospace to the topic at hand, in fact I did not get risk assessment from my aerospace background.

 

[rootX]

Dammit - no, I did not! I did not say "gross negligence is absent." I said, https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2695880&postcount=71", that no one has shown (in this thread or through an investigation) that BP has been negligent concerning this incident. So that you understand, that means they may or may not be found negligent after an investigation is conducted. But for now you cannot say that they are - you simply don't know yet. And so you don't play games with my words again, you guys posted links about BPs past history only after I raised that objection.

BP earned good profit this year: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8645740.stm. I doubt if media/government/people would treat it with fairness after seeing their profits.

 

[MotoH]

MIAMI – Teams of lawyers from around the nation are mobilizing for a gargantuan legal battle over the massive Gulf Coast oil spill, filing multiple lawsuits in recent days that together could dwarf the half-billion dollars awarded in the Exxon Valdez disaster two decades ago.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100501/ap_on_bi_ge/us_oil_spill_lawsuits"

And now it starts.

 

[Cyrus]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100501/ap_on_bi_ge/us_oil_spill_lawsuits"

And now it starts.

The sharks smell oil in the water.

 

[Shalashaska]

The sharks smell oil in the water.

Possibly because there's oil in the water...

26 lawsuits and counting!

 

[turbo]

Shrimpers and oystermen are looking at losing at least an entire season's income, absent a miracle. They can't hang back and wait for some massive class-action suit to creep its way through the courts while they lose their boats, their berths, and their homes.

Litigation can be nasty and contentious, but it may be the only way to settle individual claims in such a way as to prevent the bankruptcy of individual fishermen. The poorer fishermen with smaller operations will be at a disadvantage because lawyers will not take cases on contingent-fee basis without a chance of a big payout on settlement. The smaller operations may die out before any class-action suit is settled.

 

[Shalashaska]

Shrimpers and oystermen are looking at losing at least an entire season's income, absent a miracle. They can't hang back and wait for some massive class-action suit to creep its way through the courts while they lose their boats, their berths, and their homes.

Litigation can be nasty and contentious, but it may be the only way to settle individual claims in such a way as to prevent the bankruptcy of individual fishermen. The poorer fishermen with smaller operation will be at a disadvantage because lawyers will not take cases on contingent-fee basis without a chance of a big payout on settlement. The smaller operations may die out before any class-action suit is settled.

Outrage is a major factor in the public's assessment of risk, and losing food they enjoy, seeing what they believe to be "the little guy" and animals suffer immediately, compared with a (formerly) profitable oil company, the outrage is only going to grow. BP and Trans-Global clearly screwed the pooch here to one degree or another, but our government allowed them the latitude to do that. Let's face it, the harm done now rests on a lot of shoulders, but BP is going to be the one to take a hard one in the chops. That doesn't really make these lawsuits anything more than a process of getting meager recompense for the class members, and HUGE payouts for the lawyers involved. They will also serve as a means to flagellate BP and divert attention from our personal and governmental culpability in this.

In the end, I can live with that, and utterly lack in sympathy for BP. By the same token, I'm not filled with the milk of human kindness for the people who've been overfishing the Gulf, or farmers who allow runoff to create hypoxic zones, and politicians who improperly assessed risk, but still call it "good". This is going to be decades in the cleaning and recovery... BP "bought the ticket" now they get to "take the ride", with all of the unfair and fair vilification and lawsuits inherent in such a process. If they wanted to avoid that, they should have accurately assessed risk, and employed a 500,000 USD valve despite our own (under W.) lax regulations compares with other countries.

 

[mheslep]

Shrimpers and oystermen are looking at losing at least an entire season's income, absent a miracle. They can't hang back and wait for some massive class-action suit to creep its way through the courts while they lose their boats, their berths, and their homes.

Litigation can be nasty and contentious, but it may be the only way to settle individual claims in such a way as to prevent the bankruptcy of individual fishermen. The poorer fishermen with smaller operations will be at a disadvantage because lawyers will not take cases on contingent-fee basis without a chance of a big payout on settlement. The smaller operations may die out before any class-action suit is settled.

BP is hiring some of them to clean up the oil
http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/P1-AU996_Spill_G_20100430211543.jpg
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...5215714243494620.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

The company is also hiring shrimpers—who stand to lose the critical spring catch to the oil slick—to clean up the oil as it drifts toward the coast.

Nearly 1,000 fishermen, many wearing white rubber boots, packed a school gym Friday for an initial training session. They must take a formal course to get certified in oil clean-up techniques, such as laying down containment booms. Many said they had no choice

 

[Shalashaska]

BP is hiring some of them to clean up the oil
http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/P1-AU996_Spill_G_20100430211543.jpg
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...5215714243494620.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

I wonder if that will increase outrage or decrease it? The image of BP hiring people who are out of work could be good in the short term at least, but the image of fishermen desperately doing hazmat work might backfire. In the end it's our military that will do most of the work, but this is an interesting move.

 

[rootX]

In the end, I can live with that, and utterly lack in sympathy for BP. By the same token, I'm not filled with the milk of human kindness for the people who've been overfishing the Gulf, or farmers who allow runoff to create hypoxic zones, and politicians who improperly assessed risk, but still call it "good". This is going to be decades in the cleaning and recovery... BP "bought the ticket" now they get to "take the ride", with all of the unfair and fair vilification and lawsuits inherent in such a process. If they wanted to avoid that, they should have accurately assessed risk, and employed a 500,000 USD valve despite our own (under W.) lax regulations compares with other countries.

Do you even know what was the cause of this accident? It could be Transocean, Cameron International

 

[turbo]

Indeed! The "had no choice" comment is telling. These guys are doing dangerous work for which they are untrained in order to try to mitigate the loss of their normal income - shrimping season usually starts around the first of May.

 

[WhoWee]

I wonder if that will increase outrage or decrease it? The image of BP hiring people who are out of work could be good in the short term at least, but the image of fishermen desperately doing hazmat work might backfire. In the end it's our military that will do most of the work, but this is an interesting move.

I think you are over thinking the scenario. Everybody with a commercial boat has a vested interest. It's only natural they would want to help. It's only proprer that they should be paid - fuel, crews, maintenance and insurance are not free.

 

[mheslep]

In the end it's our military that will do most of the work, but this is an interesting move.

What makes you believe this is so? I am unaware that this has ever been the case for past spills, and I am unaware that the US military has a well equipped oil clean up capability.

 

[turbo]

What makes you believe this is so? I am unaware that this has ever been the case for past spills, and I am unaware that the US military has a well equipped oil clean up capability.

Right. The military is not equipped to deal with this, and the coast guard is not equipped to deal with this. The entity that should have been equipped to deal with this (BP, in this instance) chose not to stage adequate spill-abatement equipment. Just a business-decision, I'm sure.

With a failure rate of blowout preventers at about one per week globally, these fossil fuel giants should never be allowed to operate without proving that they have facilities on-hand to deal with such failures. They are not anomalies. The failures are inevitable, and they are not "accidents" because of that known failure rate.

 

[mheslep]

Right. The military is not equipped to deal with this, and the coast guard is not equipped to deal with this. The entity that should have been equipped to deal with this (BP, in this instance) chose not to stage adequate spill-abatement equipment. Just a business-decision, I'm sure.

What would be 'adequate' abatement gear for a spill of this magnitude? Booms for the entire Gulf coast?

 

[mheslep]

With a failure rate of blowout preventers at about one per week globally,

Where did you see that Turbo?

 

[turbo]

Where did you see that Turbo?

The story was carried in our provincial little local paper, and I linked it a few posts ago. Just back up a bit.

 

[Shalashaska]

What makes you believe this is so? I am unaware that this has ever been the case for past spills, and I am unaware that the US military has a well equipped oil clean up capability.

See previous posts for USCG, USN, and National Guard. Currently 6000 National Guard troops are deployed, the USCG has stated there is not enough boom material to contain the slick, and the USN is working to cap the damned well-head. Remember that the Coast Guard is a military organization (one of our 7 branches), and they lead cleanup http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/site/2931/ , for which, as you say, they are not prepared on this scale.

I think you are over thinking the scenario. Everybody with a commercial boat has a vested interest. It's only natural they would want to help. It's only proprer that they should be paid - fuel, crews, maintenance and insurance are not free.

The job they are trained for, and wish to do has been (for a while at least) destroyed. Their homes and fishing grounds are under threat, and now they are being employed as makeshift Hazmat workers. This would be a bit like asking the financial institutions effected by 9/11 to help clean rubble and put out fires. It's proper to have the capacity to handle a disaster without placing civilians between Scylla and Charybdis! Yes, they should be paid, but they also shouldn't have to do Hazmat work!

Do you even know what was the cause of this accident? It could be Transocean, Cameron International

... Contracted by BP, who under law is responsible for the cleanup. Transocean is on the hook for the rig, and if there's enough evidence possible negligence. Unless they substantially mislead BP however, BP is still in the crosshairs. In fact, I've talked about Transocean earlier in this thread.

With a failure rate of blowout preventers at about one per week globally, these fossil fuel giants should never be allowed to operate without proving that they have facilities on-hand to deal with such failures. They are not anomalies. The failures are inevitable, and they are not "accidents" because of that known failure rate.

Well said.

 

[WhoWee]

The job they are trained for, and wish to do has been (for a while at least) destroyed. Their homes and fishing grounds are under threat, and now they are being employed as makeshift Hazmat workers. This would be a bit like asking the financial institutions effected by 9/11 to help clean rubble and put out fires. It's proper to have the capacity to handle a disaster without placing civilians between Scylla and Charybdis! Yes, they should be paid, but they also shouldn't have to do Hazmat work!

And maybe they just want to help.

 

[Shalashaska]

And maybe they just want to help.

"we have no choice" hardly screams that, and I'm hard pressed to imagine that fishermen want to get into the Hazmat business, which FEW people in general do. I think the burden of proof is on, "they want to help".

 

[WhoWee]

"we have no choice" hardly screams that, and I'm hard pressed to imagine that fishermen want to get into the Hazmat business, which FEW people in general do. I think the burden of proof is on, "they want to help".

They COULD stay home, watch television reports, and shop for lawyers. Why wouldn't they want to help?

 

[Astronuc]

BP has the primary liability for damage caused by the spill, said Keith Hall, an attorney in New Orleans, who isn’t involved in the litigation. He cited a U.S. law passed after the Exxon Valdez oil spill at Alaska in 1989.

“Under the Oil Pollution Act, the fact that it was BP’s oil is enough,” said Hall, of Stone Pigman Walther Wittmann LLC. Plaintiffs “don’t have to show they were negligent or grossly negligent,” he said.
. . . .
Lawsuits also name Cameron International Corp., which provided blowout-prevention equipment, and Halliburton Energy Services Inc., which was involved in cementing the well.
. . . .

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-01/bp-transocean-lawsuits-surge-as-oil-spill-spreads-in-gulf.html

In absence of effective self-regulation (by the members of the oil industry) and effective (and enforced) regulation by the government, lawsuits seem to be the only alternative. Unfortunately, it's after the fact, and after the damage is done.

 

[Shalashaska]

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-01/bp-transocean-lawsuits-surge-as-oil-spill-spreads-in-gulf.html

In absence of effective self-regulation (by the members of the oil industry) and effective (and enforced) regulation by the government, lawsuits seem to be the only alternative. Unfortunately, it's after the fact, and after the damage is done.

I still don't understand why we don't have a fossil fuel regulatory body on par with our nuclear energy regulatory system. Granted, I would hope such a body would be more effective in regulation,and not simply banning practices outright, but this seems like a losing proposition for the company... not a losing prop for the executives however, who don't need to outlive their company.

This whole mess is a disgusting morass of poor regulation, negligence on all sides, and pure blind idiocy and short-sightedness. I may be an atheist, but it's situations like this that make me wish I could believe that some people could burn in a hell.

 

[Astronuc]

Well, there are those whose ideology maintains that government regulation is too stifling, and those whose ideology maintains that regulation is insufficient. Between the two extremes lies the correct path.

It is clear BP dismissed the risk of such a catastrophe, and therefore did not have the contingencies in place to mitigate the disaster. Of course, there could be straight negligence with respect to the activties related to the well head. That has yet to be determined.

Perhaps, as a result of the current disaster, more effective regulation will ensue.


As for the blowout preventer failure, I haven't seen the statistics on the failure rates in the field, but this article would certainly indicate a significant risk of failure.

‘Last Resort’ Safety Device Failed in Fatal Drilling Incident
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601072&sid=aKqG43JpQb2w

 

[Shalashaska]

Well, there are those whose ideology maintains that government regulation is too stifling, and those whose ideology maintains that regulation is insufficient. Between the two extremes lies the correct path.

It is clear BP dismissed the risk of such a catastrophe, and therefore did not have the contingencies in place to mitigate the disaster. Of course, there could be straight negligence with respect to the activties related to the well head. That has yet to be determined.

Perhaps, as a result of the current disaster, more effective regulation will ensue.As for the blowout preventer failure, I haven't seen the statistics on the failure rates in the field, but this article would certainly indicate a significant risk of failure.

‘Last Resort’ Safety Device Failed in Fatal Drilling Incident
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601072&sid=aKqG43JpQb2w

Proof, if such were needed, that knowledge and wisdom do not make a man happy. I agree completely with your "middle path" analysis, but how to get there?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

An interesting comment that I heard last night: There are about 4000 deep-drilling rigs in the Gulf - so many that ships would actually navigate by the constellations of oil rigs!

Drill, baby, drill!

 

[Shalashaska]

According to new reports, the booms to contain the oil are being overrun and washed away in some areas, and breaches are expected in the next few days. @#$&@&$&@&!

 

[mgb_phys]

I still don't understand why we don't have a fossil fuel regulatory body on par with our nuclear energy regulatory system. Granted, I would hope such a body would be more effective in regulation,and not simply banning practices outright

It would turn into a big turf war with all the other agencies - just like the TSA.

 

[Shalashaska]

It would turn into a big turf war with all the other agencies - just like the TSA.

It would have to be better than this:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/04/30/louisiana.oil.spill/index.html?hpt=Sbin

 

[mgb_phys]

It would have to be better than this:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/04/30/louisiana.oil.spill/index.html?hpt=Sbin

It wouldn't stop this, you can enforce the current regulations or increase them or have more resources in place to deal with spills.

But having another super agencies that overrides the FAA for a helicopter flight to a rig, or changes the coastguard regulations for a tug on a oil charter doesn't help anything.

 

[pallidin]

I disagree. It is clear to me that this disaster demands very hard and specific future regulatory legislation.

Additionally, this legislation should be retroactive regarding current wells and disaster potential. Their MILLIONS of dollars in profit should provide the money for this.

And what about those "booms"?
Doesn't seem to work all that well in turbulent waters. So, a re-design and associated costs should be borne by the oil companies.

 

[mgb_phys]

I disagree. It is clear to me that this disaster demands very hard and specific future regulatory legislation.

There are lots of regulations - like most of US industry the safety standards are lower than the best in the world, higher than most.
You also need enforcement, just like the FAA, the problem is that this is expensive and any enforcement of course is an attack on US industry!

Additionally, this legislation should be retroactive regarding current wells and disaster potential. Their MILLIONS of dollars in profit should provide the money for this.

They do, all oil leases include a payment to the Oil Pollution Act, essentially a government insurance scheme to pay for clean ups.
Additionally the companies will be liable for the costs - in theory at least , in practice big companies tend to win in court - Exxon haven't paid out for the Exxon Valdez yet.

 

[pallidin]

You also need enforcement, just like the FAA, the problem is that this is expensive and any enforcement of course is an attack on US industry!

Let's see... enforcement protects people and our environment, but it attacks industry?

Too bad. I favor life and ecology over industry, and industry should pay for that protection. And Federal regulations should make certain that that protection is adequate.
Bottom line.