News Is Offshore Oil Drilling Truly Safe?

[Ivan Seeking]

I would add that you neglected the option of effectively capturing the oil from a runaway well in an absolute worst-case scenario. But again, if that is too tall of an order, if it is beyond the ability of our engineers to manage a disaster, then maybe this deep drilling just can't be made safe and the drilling ban should be permanent.

For all that we know, there is another time bomb ticking away, or ten, or a hundred; or ones that will be if the drilling is ever allowed to continue. Everyone including BP admits that they have been pushing the limits of drilling technology. Maybe they have simply gone too far.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What was the original number that BP gave us wrt the size of the leak, 1000 barrels per day? Then it was 5000 barrels per day.

BP says that they captured about 10,000 barrels of oil over the last twenty-four hour period, so that is progress. Interestingly, just watching the video feeds, there is no perceptable change in the volume of oil escaping per unit time. It is still a gusher.

 

[jreelawg]

It is so hard to know. It could have been leaking 70,000 barrels and jumped to 84,000 after making the cut, putting the leak now with the siphon, at 74,000. Or it could have been leaking 12,000 barrels, then after the cut, 14,400, and now 4,400 barrels. Or it could have been 1000 barrels, then 1200, and now -8800. I think we will never know.

 

[stewartcs]

Somebody made the call to replace drilling mud with seawater. Ostensibly, that person had the authority (someone from BP?) to over-rule those who were more cautious/responsible.

It's almost certain that the company man onboard the rig made the call.

However, the drilling superintendent on the rig for Transocean has the authority to stop any job that is unsafe. In fact, everyone on the rig has the authority to at least temporarily stop the job to ensure it is done properly and safely. If anyone felt it was unsafe, they could have halted the operation and requested clarification on exactly what should happen.

CS

 

[magpies]

They probably ran out of drilling mud just my thought.

 

[stewartcs]

While we watch tens of millions of gallons of oil flood the gulf, your solution is to continue with the same mentality that led to this disaster in the first place? Your argument could have been made before his all happened, and we would still be right where we are right now. So clearly your logic fails. We can see the result.

This is not a failure of the equipment or the methodology that has successfully worked for literally thousands of deepwater wells in the GOM alone. It was a failure of a human being who did not follow the procedures and fundamental process in well control. Period.

The only point you can really argue is for tighter regulations to ensure that the current practices are adhered to.

CS

 

[jreelawg]

This is not a failure of the equipment or the methodology that has successfully worked for literally thousands of deepwater wells in the GOM alone. It was a failure of a human being who did not follow the procedures and fundamental process in well control. Period.

The only point you can really argue is for tighter regulations to ensure that the current practices are adhered to.

CS

Human error will always be a factor.

But really the main problem is that after the blowout, what happens, we have months and months of leaking. Pre-drilled emergency relief wells such as required in some other countries, would have made a huge difference.

Also this dispersant business, the dispersants BP chooses to use are actually banned in their own county because they are toxic.

 

[stewartcs]

I would add that you neglected the option of effectively capturing the oil from a runaway well in an absolute worst-case scenario. But again, if that is too tall of an order, if it is beyond the ability of our engineers to manage a disaster, then maybe this deep drilling just can't be made safe and the drilling ban should be permanent.

For all that we know, there is another time bomb ticking away, or ten, or a hundred; or ones that will be if the drilling is ever allowed to continue. Everyone including BP admits that they have been pushing the limits of drilling technology. Maybe they have simply gone too far.

Then we should ban driving as well. Cumulatively more people die in car accidents than do in offshore drilling rig explosions. Yet the car industry is deemed safe.

Automobiles put off enormous amounts of carbon monoxide that is damaging our environment as we speak but we still allow people to drive. Why would we do such a thing? Perhaps because no one really wants to walk everywhere they go so we are willing to take the chance and hope for the best. The same could be said for the oil and gas industry or the airline industry or the nuclear industry.

It's pretty easy to sit back while the disaster is happening and say let's ban it all together. That's the lazy thing to do. Why not ban the transport of oil in the oil tankers then? Remember the Exxon Valdez? Sure we can drill overseas and just transport the oil here. What if another one wrecks and spills damaging the environment? How then will we meet the worlds energy needs?

Better enforcement of the regulations is in order I agree. But banning something altogether is just a knee jerk reaction. Much like the recommendations given in the DOI report that are supposed to help prevent this from happening again. We are not even sure what exactly happened but yet the government already has a recommendation to fix everything.

CS

 

[stewartcs]

They probably ran out of drilling mud just my thought.

No. They were displacing the mud with seawater so that wasn't the problem. They recycle the mud anyway.

CS

 

[magpies]

No I think a ban on cars would be a responsible thing to do it's just people would revolt because most people would trade 10 years of life for 1 second of fun.

 

[jreelawg]

If a single person could fall asleep at the wheel, and the result was an economic, and environmental disaster for the entire country, then yes banning cars would be a good idea, but that's not the case.

 

[stewartcs]

If a single person could fall asleep at the wheel, and the result was an economic, and environmental disaster for the entire country, then yes banning cars would be a good idea, but that's not the case.

So if every well in the GOM were to leak just enough in total to equal the amount of the current spill then by your logic that is ok? The end result is that the cumulative effect is the same.

CS

 

[Pattonias]

All you have to do is get everyone in the United States to all agree to live like the Native American's and all our problems would be solved. Haven't you ever seen Avatar? Utopia until those stupid American corporations show up. All we need now is some strategically place Sequoias and blue paint.

 

[Office_Shredder]

All you have to do is get everyone in the United States to all agree to live like the Native American's and all our problems would be solved. Haven't you ever seen Avatar? Utopia until those stupid American corporations show up. All we need now is some strategically place Sequoias and blue paint.

We also need some flying uber dragons that swoop down and eat people on occasion; but we shot all those down already, so the plan's a bust

 

[jreelawg]

All you have to do is get everyone in the United States to all agree to live like the Native American's and all our problems would be solved. Haven't you ever seen Avatar? Utopia until those stupid American corporations show up. All we need now is some strategically place Sequoias and blue paint.

Yeah, or we could catch up with the times, and start using more advanced and cleaner energy technology at a faster pace.

Or we could just have good safety requirements like relief wells.

Or we could do both.

 

[Cyrus]

No I think a ban on cars would be a responsible thing to do it's just people would revolt because most people would trade 10 years of life for 1 second of fun.

Try thinking before posting. It goes a long way.

 

[jreelawg]

So if every well in the GOM were to leak just enough in total to equal the amount of the current spill then by your logic that is ok? The end result is that the cumulative effect is the same.

CS

Are you saying that it would be hypocritical to ban deep drilling in the gulf, and let people drive cars as well?

Granted a lot of people die in car accidents, why don't we just spill a bunch of oil as well in the ocean too, just to be fair?

 

[Pattonias]

I find it hinders the "creative" process.

Mapgies: Ban cars and what do you lose beyond fun? You lose trucking which has HUUUUUGE effects, you lose a valuable source of donated organs (sad, but true), and the means to transport them, and you kick the economy in the nutter butters. Now, if you believed that some greater level of automation was required, I could get on board with that, assuming it didn't make cars impossible to afford.

"kicking" the economy is a understatement. Destroy the economy. Start over with a new economy from scratch. Become a third world country and work back up. These would also describe that move.

 

[russ_watters]

While we watch tens of millions of gallons of oil flood the gulf, your solution is to continue with the same mentality that led to this disaster in the first place? Your argument could have been made before his all happened, and we would still be right where we are right now. So clearly your logic fails. We can see the result.

I can't understand how you so badly missed my point, Ivan. My point was to fix the enforcement of the existing regulations so that such failures aren't possible. I'm pretty sure that was clear in my posts.

If you are saying that a relief well poses too much risk, and there is no hope of developing an effective system to capture the oil from a runaway well, then we should just ban deep drilling altogether.

Ivan, slow down and start reading my posts. You're not getting what I'm saying at all. You're not correct on either of those counts on your representation of my post.

One thing is for sure, the attitudes found here strongly drive me in that direction. The solution to the biggest environmental disaster in US history is to continue with the same logic that caused it? That is just nuts.

One popular definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over while expecting different results.

Ivan, these attitudes you think you are seeing here are a figment of your imagination. They do not exist.

This is why I keep dropping out of this thread: A useful discussion cannot be held if people are reacting based on emotion and not comprehending relatively straightforward points of discussion!

 

[russ_watters]

It is widely agreed [based on reports] that the only sure means of shutting down a runaway well, is to bottom fill the well, using relief well...

A blowout preventer is also a fine means of shutting down a runaway well. Remember, a relief well also relies on a blowout preventer, so if we aren't ensuring that blowout preventers function properly, drilling a relief well just doubles the odds of a blowout!

No matter the level of confidence wrt failsafe equipment, I would demand that one, and perhaps even that two relief wells be drilled in parallel with any deep primary well.

Considering that BP is now drilling two relief wells, what level of confidence do you have in them that they aren't racing to finish those relief wells and cutting the same corners that they did with the primary well? They're giving themselves a chance of fixing the problem while simultaenously creating a chance of making it 3x worse.

See, even if we mandate drilling multiple relief wells, my solution (shoring-up inspection/enforcement of regulations on blowout preventers) is still required to ensure safety. And if you have working blowout preventers, then a relief well isn't necessary.

Heck, even using two blowout preventers would be a better solution than drilling a second well!

 

[jreelawg]

If we can't enforce the regulations now, how will we be able to enforce them later. Whether the MMS is just ran by idiots, or ran by oil profiteers, or bribed, or doing lines of cocaine and having sex with prostitutes at oil company parties. There is a factor of human error or maybe willful.

Meanwhile, a blowout is beyond worst case scenario when it comes to preparation.

Drilling a relief well, actually doesn't double your chances of a disaster though does it? If only one out of thousands of wells experience blowouts, what are the chances of 2 wells in the same spot blowing out? In my view it at least cuts the chances of a disaster in half.

 

[stewartcs]

Are you saying that it would be hypocritical to ban deep drilling in the gulf, and let people drive cars as well?

I'm saying that everyone is riding the band wagon on banning offshore drilling without thinking. That statement is to make those people, like yourself, realize that you are being hypocrites by saying ban deepsea drilling while stating with your actions (by driving a car) that it is OK to do something equally damaging to the environment (probably more damaging IMO).

Granted a lot of people die in car accidents, why don't we just spill a bunch of oil as well in the ocean too, just to be fair?

That's just ridiculous. The point is that there are certain levels of risk that we as a society are willing to accept for the given reward.

CS

 

[stewartcs]

If we can't enforce the regulations now, how will we be able to enforce them later. Whether the MMS is just ran by idiots, or ran by oil profiteers, or bribed, or doing lines of cocaine and having sex with prostitutes at oil company parties. There is a factor of human error or maybe willful.

Like we do with every other similar problem. Make the regulations more strict and provide more oversight.

CS

 

[stewartcs]

...Could you drill a relief and cement it closed, or bottom fill in such a way that re-opening it would take little time?

Sure. Happens all of the time. The well is cemented closed and then drilling vessel (and BOP) is removed. A production platform comes in and opens it back up after placing the subsea production architecture.

Even if we must use another BOP, as Stewart keeps pointing out, this was HUMAN failure. If we had a relief well with BOP, always "off", except for emergencies, there would be no element of human error.

What do you mean by always off? Shut perhaps? If so then please note that the BOP has to remain open while drilling since the drill string rotates through it.

I also want to point out again that we are not sure of exactly what has happened yet. Certainly human error was what caused all of this in the first place. However, we are not sure as to why the BOP's have not been able to seal the well as designed. This could have very well been due to human error as well in either the operation of or maintenance of the BOPs. But we just don't know yet.

CS

 

[rhody]

I posted this in my own thread, but thought it important enough to reproduce here:

Food for thought...

This sort of thing has been going on in Nigeria for decades and neither Europe or the US seems to care,
amazing: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/30/oil-spills-nigeria-niger-delta-shell"

Very sad...

Rhody...

Note to Russ:

This is why I keep dropping out of this thread: A useful discussion cannot be held if people are reacting based on emotion and not comprehending relatively straightforward points of discussion!

Hang in there, I am following your arguments, not based on emotion, and appreciate your posts.

 

[rhody]

Interesting interview: flash podcast: Buddy Cianci and Max Hadberger: deckhand mate on oilfield supply vessel. Supplies firsthand knowledge of BP, was a MUD Engineer, KILL Specialist, if you want just the interview fast forward to about 6 minutes, interesting stuff.

Rhody...

 

[Office_Shredder]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/08/national/main6561020.shtml?tag=stack

Deepwater Horizon: Not the only rig that's leaking.

Forget earthquakes. The end of the world will be 40 days and 40 nights of every oil rig leaking

 

[mheslep]

What do our resident experts think of this? http://www.newsinferno.com/archives/20988

Professor Liefer is part of the government group testing the flow rate,

I don't think so. Do you have source for that statement.

I see this statement

“It’s apparent that BP is playing games with us, presumably under the advice of their legal team,” Dr. Leifer said.

A scientist attempting to do a technical study on the flow that allows himself to be sidetracked into baseless speculation about the 'legal team' is a hack.

 

[mheslep]

Again, this is a member of the Flow Estimate Team, not a random academic. He claims that BP's own numbers indicate that ~100,000 bbl/day (they released an upper limit of 160,000 bbl/day for a completely free flowing pipe) could occur. Liefer points out that it could be more or less, and also is angry that BP withheld high resolution video for so long..

Ok Liefer was a non-government member of the Flow Team. Where's this 100,000 bbl/day claim from Liefer? Where's the 160k bbl/day free flow from BP? They're not in the newsinferno or PBS links?

 

[russ_watters]

Or that is one pissed-off scientist...

Pissed-off scientists and scientists who have previously shown poor judgement/scientific rigor (Werely) should be excluded from the group. That said, I'm not surprised by the group's estimate. As I said previously, if you assume the Coast Guard/NOAA's 5,000 bbl/d estimate is accurate for the size of the plume, 12-19,000 is a reasonable estimate for the size of the leak given the undersea plumes and the fact that much of the oil is evaporating.

 

[russ_watters]

If we can't enforce the regulations now, how will we be able to enforce them later.

It is verrrrrry simple:
1. Hire inspectors and give them the resources needed to be inspectors.
2. Make penalties that stick and hurt. Fines and shutdowns.

This method would also make our coal mines safer - remember, the last major mine accident was due to exactly the same problems as this and the solution is also exactly the same.

Drilling a relief well, actually doesn't double your chances of a disaster though does it? If only one out of thousands of wells experience blowouts, what are the chances of 2 wells in the same spot blowing out? In my view it at least cuts the chances of a disaster in half.

If the odds are 1:1000 for an individual well, then the odds are 2:1000 for two wells: that's double the odds.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ: Could you drill a relief and cement it closed, or bottom fill in such a way that re-opening it would take little time?

Sure, but...

Even if we must use another BOP, as Stewart keeps pointing out, this was HUMAN failure. If we had a relief well with BOP, always "off", except for emergencies, there would be no element of human error.

A relief well is a well like any other well. The risks of one well are exactly the same as the risks of another well. If the "relief well" is drilled first, then what is backing it up in case it has a blowout?

It sounds like you guys think that there are no risks associated with the relief well itself. As if it is somehow different from another well and therefore incapable of a blowout. It isn't.

 

[russ_watters]

However, we are not sure as to why the BOP's have not been able to seal the well as designed. This could have very well been due to human error as well in either the operation of or maintenance of the BOPs. But we just don't know yet.

In other words, a combination of human error and human error...

As I said before and provided examples of, this is par for the course with these types of failures. It requires multiple simultaneous human errors to overcome good engineering.

 

[russ_watters]

How do you conclude that this number is reasonable? What data do you have to back this claim, and to show some knowledge about these plumes, what is on the surface, anf the deployment of dispersants?

I explained it immediately following the sentence you quoted. Is there something specific you don't understand? In any case, why are you arguing by proxy? If you don't believe the new government estimate, argue against it, not me. I didn't make the estimate and have nothing requiring substantiation!

I have, twice now, provided a fair amount of evidence to back what I have said...

To back up what? When? Do you mean this claim?:

He claims that BP's own numbers indicate that ~100,000 bbl/day (they released an upper limit of 160,000 bbl/day for a completely free flowing pipe) could occur. Liefer points out that it could be more or less, and also is angry that BP withheld high resolution video for so long.

It's looking like this is far worse than even some of the pessimists here have assumed, and in a week or so we're going to have the FET's estimate.

In that claim, you're mixing out of context non-sequiturs together. Those BP numbers are not measurements, they are theoretical safety calculations from before the well was even drilled. They are utterly meaningless for this discussion and you certainly have no real basis for that last sentence you posted.

...The US CG has been wrong since day one, when they first estimated the leak at 1000 bbl/day and then 5000 bbl/day, so why would I be listening to them now?

You have no basis for a claim that the USCG was wrong. As I've said before, a USCG researcher would certainly never make the mistake of figuring that the size of the surface slick was equal to the size of the leak and we have nothing to indicate such a mistake was made.

You have failed to respond to what I have provided, except for a single sentence taken out of context. I do not appreciate that at all.

mhselp was handling the rest pretty well and I don't appreciate unsourced claims and misinformation.

 

[russ_watters]

A relief well is not active, and that would seem to present a lower chance of disruption.

A well is a hole drilled into an oil reservoir. A relief well is a hole drilled into an oil reservoir. It most certainly **is** just as active as any other well!

Let me flip this over to try to get you to think it through: what, specifically, do you think is the difference between a "well" and a "relief well"?

In addition, what are the odds of both well blowing out at the same time?

If the odds of one well blowing out today are 1:1000 then the odds of another well blowing out today are 1:1000 and the odds of two blowing out today are 2:1000

 

[russ_watters]

Here's a sketch of a relief well: http://rovicky.files.wordpress.com/2006/08/relief-well-2.jpg

A few components/differences:
1. The relief well doesn't actually go all the way into the reservoir (is there a reisk of not judging the depth correctly?) but rather intersects the main well.
2. Based on #1, obviously the relief well comes after the main well. They can be started and drilled more or less simultaneously, but the relief well has to be behind the primary well.
3. Once drilled and connected, you just have a two-outlet, headered-together set of pipes. At the top of each, they look absolutely identical and at the bottom where they join, the pressures are identical. Each has to have a blowout preventer on it and each carries similar risk of a blowout.
4. The point of the relief well is to do exactly what was supposed to be done with the primary well beforee the BP supervisor had the drilling "mud" removed from the well: Since the "mud" is heavy, it exerts pressure at the bottom to keep the oil and gas from being pushed-up by the pressure in the reservoir.

So what's the difference between the "top kill" and "bottom kill"? In a top kill, there are two big problems, neither condition existing for the "bottom kill":
1. The pipe pumping the "mud" into the well goes in the side of the BOP and the top of the BOP is open, so the "top kill" mud can just spill out the top of the well and onto the seafloor, relieving the pressure and not forcing the oil down. For the "bottom kill", if the "mud" goes up the maini well, it eventually just fills up the well and still ends up stopping the oil.
2. Since the "bottom kill" happens an extra couple of miles down, it has a lot more pressure above it to force the "mud" down and can also rely somewhat on the weight of the oil. Ie, the pressure differential at the bottom is smaller than it is at the wellhead.

 

[mheslep]

12-19,000 is a reasonable estimate for the size of the leak given the undersea plumes and the fact that much of the oil is evaporating.

I've just seen that an estimated 20% of the Valdez spill evaporated. I would expect that much or more in the Gulf's warmer temperatures.

 

[jreelawg]

I am skeptical, that the estimate of 12-19k barrels per day is accurate. Why has BP been legally forced to, against their will, just yesterday release high definition video of the BOP after being cut? If the leak is as small as the estimates, then why are they still trying to cover up the necessary evidence in making an educated estimate?

BP pays a fine based on how many barrels have leaked.

The best way to get them to start being honest, would be to start the fine at the worst case scenario of 250,000 barrels. That way the truth will actually benefit them, maybe they would actually cooperate.

 

[jreelawg]

If your logic about 2 wells failing has any truth to it, then how do casinos make money.

What are the odds of winning the lotto once, compared to winning it twice in a row?

 

[mheslep]

It is verrrrrry simple:
1. Hire inspectors and give them the resources needed to be inspectors.
2. Make penalties that stick and hurt. Fines and shutdowns.

I find tougher regulation alone unsatisfactory as a solution. Government oversight is always subject to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture" in this political world as we have amply seen in this case; there's no corollary that says paying inspectors more or increasing penalties does away with capture.

instead, I favor a free market approach. 1) Grant substantial property rights to fisherman and tourism businesses, etc. If they own they parts of the Gulf, they'll make it their business to watch the drillers. 2) Require very large insurance policies by the drillers that pay out to those impacted by the spill to avoid the excessive legal wrangling (we are about to see). No policy, or policy canceled and drilling stops. Insurance companies have ample incentives to watch the operation of their policy holders.

 

[Office_Shredder]

I find tougher regulation alone unsatisfactory as a solution. Government oversight is always subject to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture" in this political world as we have amply seen in this case; there's no corollary that says paying inspectors more or increasing penalties does away with capture.

instead, I favor a free market approach. 1) Grant substantial property rights to fisherman and tourism businesses, etc. If they own they parts of the Gulf, they'll make it their business to watch the drillers. 2) Require very large insurance policies by the drillers that pay out to those impacted by the spill to avoid the excessive legal wrangling (we are about to see). No policy, or policy canceled and drilling stops. Insurance companies have ample incentives to watch the operation of their policy holders.

So you expect fishermen to regulate the oil industry, insurance companies to gladly pay out ten digit settlements without a fight, and the host of laws that would be required to detail what ocean ownership entails to just work itself out (this in itself would require as much regulation as we currently have probably)

 

[Pattonias]

I find tougher regulation alone unsatisfactory as a solution. Government oversight is always subject to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture" in this political world as we have amply seen in this case; there's no corollary that says paying inspectors more or increasing penalties does away with capture.

instead, I favor a free market approach. 1) Grant substantial property rights to fisherman and tourism businesses, etc. If they own they parts of the Gulf, they'll make it their business to watch the drillers. 2) Require very large insurance policies by the drillers that pay out to those impacted by the spill to avoid the excessive legal wrangling (we are about to see). No policy, or policy canceled and drilling stops. Insurance companies have ample incentives to watch the operation of their policy holders.

I think the result of this would be the fishing industry being bought up by the oil industry and the oil industry having legal ownership of the Gulf.

 

[mheslep]

So you expect fishermen to regulate the oil industry,

You're missing the point, which is (1) to develop a self interested, local lobby to prevent the oil industry from dominating the political conversation as they apparently do now, and (2) threaten the drillers with much higher legal damages, high enough to essentially cause the forfeiture of the offending drillers business.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

BP stock has lost half of its value since the crisis began
http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp...25024&chls=IntervalBasedLine&q=NYSE:BP&ntsp=0

 

[mheslep]

insurance companies to gladly pay out ten digit settlements without a fight,

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2004/10/01/46438.htm"

 

[Office_Shredder]

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2004/10/01/46438.htm"

Payouts from hurricane damage is basically old news. All legal wrangling has been completed years ago, and everyone knows the drill. It's when something extraordinary happens that requires insurance payouts that it's worth the time of the insurance company to exploit any gray areas and ambiguities that might exist (precisely because people are unfamiliar with the procedures can such a thing happen

Like when a hurricane causes a levy to collapse... is it hurricane or flood damage?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...o-1-million-katrina-flood-victims-506294.html

Or whether the WTC was one or two terrorist attacks (also mentioned in that article)

Whatever legal loopholes BP is currently jumping through to avoid paying, an insurance company would be doing exactly the same thing

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It is hard to say how bad this will get. My impression is that a near complete collapse of the Gulf ecosystem is well within the range of possibilities; esp depending on the weather. It all depends on how lucky we get and which way the wind blows. So far, the winds have been shifting, which has helped to keep the oil out at sea. Hopefully this will continue and the most sensitive wetlands can be saved. But in any case, I strongly suspect that this is going to produce the most dedicated generation of environmentalists that we have ever seen. The images of oil-soaked birds, and what's to come, I fear, will be seared into the memories of children and young adults, all over the world. I guess if there is a silver lining to this nightmare, that would be it.

I predict that this event marks the final death blow to the good-ole-boy, drill-baby-drill mentality, and the anti-environment movement. I cannot believe that a reckless disregard for environmental concerns is an attitude to be found in US politics again; at least, not to a siginficant degree, and not until the next generation comes along with no memory of this event, but we should be safe for the next twenty years or so.

 

[drankin]

It is hard to say how bad this will get. My impression is that a near complete collapse of the Gulf ecosystem is well within the range of possibilities; esp depending on the weather. It all depends on how lucky we get and which way the wind blows. So far, the winds have been shifting, which has helped to keep the oil out at sea. Hopefully this will continue and the most sensitive wetlands can be saved. But in any case, I strongly suspect that this is going to produce the most dedicated generation of environmentalists that we have ever seen. The images of oil-soaked birds, and what's to come, I fear, will be seared into the memories of children and young adults, all over the world. I guess if there is a silver lining to this nightmare, that would be it.

I predict that this event marks the final death blow to the good-ole-boy, drill-baby-drill mentality, and the anti-environment movement. I cannot believe that a reckless disregard for environmental concerns is an attitude to be found in US politics again; at least, not to a siginficant degree, and not until the next generation comes along with no memory of this event, but we should be safe for the next twenty years or so.

I don't see this ending the "drill-baby-drill" attitude at all. We need to end our reliance on foreign oil. This accident doesn't change that. It will cause us to better scrutinize the process though.

 

[russ_watters]

If your logic about 2 wells failing has any truth to it, then how do casinos make money.

What are the odds of winning the lotto once, compared to winning it twice in a row?

That is exactly how casinos make money. I was going to suggest to Geigerlick that he never go to a casino or play the lottery!

Twice as many players means twice as high overall odds of a winner but twice as many games being played for a constant profit margin per game and double the overall profit.

 

[stewartcs]

It is hard to say how bad this will get. My impression is that a near complete collapse of the Gulf ecosystem is well within the range of possibilities; esp depending on the weather. It all depends on how lucky we get and which way the wind blows. So far, the winds have been shifting, which has helped to keep the oil out at sea. Hopefully this will continue and the most sensitive wetlands can be saved.

It's funny how everyone is so concerned with the wetlands now that BP has their checkbook open.

Coastal Louisiana experiences the greatest wetland loss in the nation, and delta wetlands are now disappearing at an average rate of 17 square miles per year or about 50 acres per day (Gosselink, 1984; Conner and Day, 1988; Barras et al., 2003).

50 acres per day and no one gives a damn. But let some oil spill on it and it's the end of the world. Just another example of how people use a disaster to push their personal and political agendas. It's pathetic if you ask me.

Why don't the environmentalist care any other time?

CS