News Is Offshore Oil Drilling Truly Safe?

[russ_watters]

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.

Problem: Since failures are so rare, there is essentially zero fear for a drilling company in liability. That's the whole problem that led to this disaster! They didn't make the logical connection between cutting the corners and a failure because they hadn't ever seen a failure result from cutting corners.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

That's my fear as well and a new generation of irrational environmentalists is most certainly not a good thing, as the anti-nuclear fiasco clearly demonstrates. We've lost 30 years of nuclear power development/expansion and replaced it with 30 years of fossil fuel expansion because of their bad judgement.

But the economic and environmental realities are different today than they were 30 years ago, so I have some hope that the same problem won't repeat.

I predict that this event marks the final death blow to the good-ole-boy, drill-baby-drill mentality, and the anti-environment movement.

Unlikely. Once the irrational radicals get out of college, the economic realities will take over and push them back toward rationality or at least mute their cries.

 

[russ_watters]

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

It's obvious to me, but not to everyone so I'll say it again: "environmentalists" don't care unless there is a disaster because they are irrational.

 

[turbo]

It's obvious to me, but not to everyone so I'll say it again: "environmentalists" don't care unless there is a disaster because they are irrational.

What a wonderful piece of unsupported dogma. I garden organically for the sake of the soil. I cut trees and burn them for heat. I shoot and eat animals.

People who care about sustainability are routinely trashed by people who have no appreciation for what is involved in living in a sustainable manner. Yes, I am an "environmentalist" because I want to preserve wild fisheries, and protect our environment. I also worked for over 20 years in the pulp and paper industry, much of the time as a consultant to some of the largest companies in the field.

If you want to engage in productive discourse, please drop the "environmentalist" and "hippie" comments. The world is not black and white.

 

[russ_watters]

What a wonderful piece of unsupported dogma.

I put "environmentalist" in quotes because I'm specifically talking about exactly what Ivan said and he made the point and I provided an additional example of the same problem. Heck, I'm pretty sure he's said it several times in this thread that accidents such as this generate passion. We're basically in agreement except in whether it is a good or bad thing!

I should also point out that there was recently a discussion about the Tea Party movement and this was also the basic complaint people had against it (the passionate ones are the irrational/extremists). That the same people don't realize that human nature works the same for the left wing as it does for the right is pretty funny to me.

If you want to engage in productive discourse, please drop the "environmentalist" and "hippie" comments. The world is not black and white.

That there may be other environmentalists who are not irrational and driven by fear and passion is not part of what I'm talking about, so don't take my harping on that group as a sign that I don't see that others exist. If you see signs of what I'm talking about in yourself, so be it, but I'm not going to discuss your particular mindset/action. I have no interest in making this personal and using you as en example of either group.

 

[turbo]

Russ, you continually harp on everything that is green, environmentalist, and "hippie". You get a free ride on PF, despite your inability to back up all the hyperbole. I consulted with pulp and paper industries that cut down and digested millions of trees while I was working with them. That doesn't mean that I don't want to see improvements.

Perhaps in another 20-30 years, you will gain some perspective.

 

[russ_watters]

Another example:

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...

This generated no responses here and doesn't make the news in the US even though the problem is far worse. Why? Because it isn't here, so people don't care. If the passion were rationally based, it would be based on the severity of the problem, not the sexyness of it being a local, well publicized problem.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, you continually harp on everything that is green, environmentalist, and "hippie". You get a free ride on PF, despite your inability to back up all the hyperbole.

Do I? How many times in the past month have I used the word "hippie?" Do a search. Frankly, I shouldn't be letting people bully me as much as I am. Maybe I should put something about it back in my sig, but I don't tend to wear my opinions like a badge as many other members do. I'm not in this to stir up trouble, I'm in it because a rational/scientific approach to real world problems of all types matters to me.

What I harp on is unscientific behavior and it happens that this is one prominent movement that uses it as a primary modus operandi - and gets a lot of air time on this forum.

I consulted with pulp and paper industries that cut down and digested millions of trees while I was working with them. That doesn't mean that I don't want to see improvements.

Again, I don't care and I'm not going to make this personal.

Perhaps in another 20-30 years, you will gain some perspective.

Or perhaps in another 20-30 years, the irrational passion over this event will fade like it did for nuclear power. Hopefully, it won't take that long as the stakes are much higher than they were 30 years ago when TMI happened.

 

[dlgoff]

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



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

Hear hear. This is what I've been thinking from the beginning.

BTW Thanks for your outstanding explanations in the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=405948" thread in the Engineering Systems & Design forums. You're the man IMO.

 

[mheslep]

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

The payoffs to Gulf residents might trigger on a spill of amount X, and X can be fairly small. Doesn't matter how responsible or careless was the driller, spill happens, insurance pays. The haggling would then come between the insurance company and the drillers to determine fault, and I don't really care how long that stays in court. Anyway, the payouts are somewhat beside the point. The main point is to avoid the spills in the first place by having the drilling operations over seen by someone has a large, enormous even, incentive to avoid spills, and having little or no incentive to get the oil out.

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

If you are making the point that insurance doesn't guarantee a quick payout 100% of the time, sure I agree. But the idea that insurance payoffs have any comparison to the amount of legal hassles involved in tort law suits is mistaken. The WTC haggling above makes my case, not yours. Though there was some dispute, the payoffs still occurred far, far faster than if the owners had to suit, say, the airlines for causing the crash (had it been an accident)

Look at the case of the spill in Alaska. Every single person claiming harm in order to receive reimbursement had to either get a lawyer, join a group led by lawyers, or fall under the the umbrella of the state of Alaska's law suits. Now if Exxon was required to hold insurance that paid off no fault to the State and anywhere near the spill, (paid for by an oil company fund), the insurance would almost absolutely have paid off most people immediately, no lawyers involved at that point. Later, the insurance company would have in turned have sued Exxon, maybe even canceled their (theoretical) policy.

 

[edward]

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

They do and they have. You just don't bother to read on the subject.

Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana (CRCL). Founded in 1988, CRCL was initially composed of environmental organizations and their representatives. Its membership now includes individuals and a growing number from business, industry, government, and the like. Its sole purpose is to further the protection of coastal wetlands. It does so by monitoring legislation that will or may impact wetlands, educating people about wetlands issues, and working with other NGOs and governments to enhance wetlands protection. It is considered by most to be the clearinghouse for wetlands thinking and action in Louisiana. Noteworthy publications include Coastal Louisiana: Here Today, Gone Tomorrow (CRCL, 1989); Coast Watcher’s Guide: How to Preserve and Protect Louisiana’s Wetlands and Coastal Zone (Clipp, 1995); and No Time to Lose. Facing the Future of Louisiana and the Crisis of Coastal Land Use (CRCL, 1999).

Link for source;

http://www.americaswetlandresources.com/background_facts/detailedstory/solutions.html

 

[mheslep]

They do and they have. You just don't bother to read on the subject.

Well they certainly don't get picked up on CNN/Fox every night to discuss the 50 acres of marsh lost daily in the Gulf due to erosion/development, nor have 'environmentalists' taken the trouble to post here on PF about the daily 50 acres.

 

[edward]

Well they certainly don't get picked up on CNN/Fox every night to discuss the 50 acres of marsh lost daily in the Gulf due to erosion/development, nor have 'environmentalists' taken the trouble to post here on PF about the daily 50 acres.

Wetland loss started with the Dams the Corp of engineers built to stop flooding. The silt from the floods replenished the Louisiana wetlands. There has been an ongoing battle to save the wetlands ever since.

The last time it was even considered newsworthy was when Katrina hit.

 

[mheslep]

Problem: Since failures are so rare, there is essentially zero fear for a drilling company in liability. That's the whole problem that led to this disaster! They didn't make the logical connection between cutting the corners and a failure because they hadn't ever seen a failure result from cutting corners.

That's why neighboring property rights and mandatory insurance works better. If I own a home next to a guy with a bunch of large dead trees or a large dog I think dangerous, I'm going to get involved and take some action, even if a tree's never fallen from next door nor has the dog ever bitten anyone and the owner has become complacent.

 

[mheslep]

The last time it was even considered newsworthy was when Katrina hit.

There we are, back at stewartcs's point.

 

[stewartcs]

Wetland loss started with the Dams the Corp of engineers built to stop flooding. The silt from the floods replenished the Louisiana wetlands. There has been an ongoing battle to save the wetlands ever since.

The last time it was even considered newsworthy was when Katrina hit.

That's not when the wetland "loss" started. It certainly doesn't help though. The main factors are due to people living in those areas and the sea level rising.

Human activities intended to reduce damage to life and property from climate extremes have unintentionally increased the vulnerability of coastal areas to climate change by altering the natural hydrologic functions of wetlands (National Research Council, 2005; CPRA, 2007).

These wetland ecosystems depend heavily on water availability, as does the region’s economic development. However, the natural capacity of coastal wetlands in the Gulf Coast region to store, distribute, and purify water has been greatly diminished by coastal development and the construction of water management systems

Although flood control projects provided temporary relief from flooding, they also interfered with the natural hydrological processes that are necessary to sustain the structure, function, and extent of wetland ecosystems and reduced the natural capacity of the wetlands to mitigate flooding (Boesch et al., 1994; Davis and Ogden, 1997).

Net wetland elevation is determined by the balance between soil building processes (accretion) and land sinking (soil subsidence) relative to the rate of sea-level rise. Wetland soils develop from and are sustained by mineral sediments carried by rivers and deposited by floods, and from organic material produced by plants within the wetland landscape. These soil-building processes enable wetlands to gain elevation (accrete) as sea-levels rise (Mitsch and Gosselink, 2000).

Human activities slow down accretion by regulating water flow and, therefore, sediment and nutrient supply. Humans also cause soil subsidence and erosion through such processes as groundwater extraction, oil and gas withdrawals, and dredging of navigation channels (Morton et al., 2003).

Natural compaction processes also contribute to subsidence. In effect, sea-level rise adds to the rate of subsidence as the sea surface rises relative to the land. In order for wetland elevation to remain stable or to rise, therefore, the rate of soil accretion must equal or exceed the combined rates of natural and human-induced soil subsidence plus sea-level rise.

So if environmentalist were really concerned they would be lobbying against anyone living in those areas instead of complaining only when someone leaves a soap box laying around for them to stand on.

CS

 

[stewartcs]

They do and they have. You just don't bother to read on the subject.

I do bother reading about the subject, too bad the environmentalist don't. They only see one view (the one that leads to them getting what they want) instead of an objective one.

Again, the whole point is that none of this (wetlands) matters until someone is available to point the finger at and say "hey, you're going to pay for this...it's your fault!".

When in reality, it's not their fault. The wetland problem has been around for a long time, way before the first drop of oil was spilled from MC252.

So why don't we see about it on the news unless there is some disaster associated with it? With Katrina, the US Government was in BP's position. Just another "person" with a check book who left a soap box laying around for someone to stand on to advance their personal and political views.

CS

 

[DavidSnider]

Well they certainly don't get picked up on CNN/Fox every night to discuss the 50 acres of marsh lost daily in the Gulf due to erosion/development, nor have 'environmentalists' taken the trouble to post here on PF about the daily 50 acres.

Why would they? There is no story there.

The news is entertainment. You might as well ask why there hasn't been an episode of 'House' that featured the Gulf Coast since katrina.

It's not the fault of environmentalists that the news won't let them on to say anything other than 'I told you so'.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Cripes. We are facing the biggest environmental disaster in US history, but the objections are that no one complains enough about the loss of wetlands? Get a grip. The loss of coastal wetlands has been a front-line issue for years now. No, CNN doesn't do a report every time we lose another 50 acres. The objection is nonsense.

I love the charge of "irrational environmentalists". It goes so well with the spill that is now thought to be 20k-40k barrels per day, [67 million gallons so far] with no solution until late August. I think this disaster proves once and for all, for any reasonable person, just who is irrational - anyone who can look at this and still make excuses and use evasive arguments, in order to defend the logic that got us here.

There is nothing like a big dose of reality - perhaps as much as a quarter of a billion gallons, or more, before we're done - to put things in the proper perspective.

What were those objections to Wereley's early estimates again? I guess it doesn't matter now.

It appears that the water temps off the NW coast of Africa have reached or are quickly reaching the hurricane trigger point, with a well-defined track right into the gulf. Again, I think the key temp is about 82 degrees F.

 

[mheslep]

What were those objections to Wereley's early estimates again? I guess it doesn't matter now.

That at 80k bbl/day they lacked a rationale basis (and still do).

 

[Borg]

Unfortunately this probably the most accurate estimate.

[PLAIN]http://graphjam.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/129191362530359858.png

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That at 80k bbl/day they lacked a rationale basis (and still do).

Says who, you? Our flow experts at PF? The guy making the claim is a real expert.

Basing their calculations partly on pressure readings from the wellhead and acoustic soundings, a team of federal and independent scientists said Tuesday the current daily well flow ranges from 35,000 to 60,000 barrels per day.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/gre...5000-to-60000-barrels-per-day-panel-says.html

1 ,5, 10, 15, 25, 25-40, now 35-60. Next week, maybe we'll make 100K.

60k barrels per day is 2.52 million gallons per day. This is about day 56.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

...Long-Dead Expert and Walruses in the Gulf?
[Rep] Markey said that the five oil giants had disaster response plans that were "virtually identical," with equipment he called "ineffective."

Markey said that "two other plans are such dead ringers for BP's that they list a phone number for the same long-dead expert."

Indeed, BP's 582-page response plan, filed in 2009, listed Professor Peter Lutz from the University of Miami as a wildlife expert, though he has been dead since 2005. The document, outlining the company's planned response to a Gulf spill, listed walruses, sea lions and seals as animals that could be affected -- though none of them live in the Gulf of Mexico's warm waters.

Waxman provided examples of sentences from different companies' plans that are identical, save for the name of the company.

"When you look at the details, it becomes evident these plans are just paper exercises. BP failed miserably when confronted with a real leak, and one can only wonder whether ExxonMobil and the other companies would do any better," said Waxman...

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Broadcast/...ism-disaster-response-plans/story?id=10919846

I don't think one does have to wonder if the other companies could do any better. If ExxonMobile could step in and do anything, they would.

 

[turbo]

AP reports that 52% of Americans are unhappy with the way Obama has addressed the oil spill. Not surprising. Probably 100% of the progressives in the US think he hasn't done enough, many liberals feel that he hasn't done enough or done enough fast enough, and most of the neo-cons would pan him no matter if he personally manned a deep-submersible from Woods Hole and capped the well himself.

AP's "polling" is on a par with "have you stopped beating your wife?" type questioning. Lame.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100615/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_ap_poll_obama_oil_spill;_ylt=Am7.jB8RYpEe_LppN3Sr.Dqs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTFobW8xN24yBHBvcwMyNgRzZWMDYWNjb3JkaW9uX3RvcF9zdG9yaWVzBHNsawNhcHBvbGxtb3N0dW4-

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Provided that Obama comes through with the promises made tonight, esp the independent claims manager, he should come out of this just fine. Some of the confusion and anger was actually misdirected, and really a result of good thinking and planning. For example, there was a great deal of complaining from Gov Jindal, about not getting approvals to start the levies intended to protect the most sensitive wetlands. The fact is, had the Governer's plan been implemented, the containment efforts themselves would have killed the wetlands. It would have driven up salinity levels to the point of toxicity. So Obama's team knew what they were doing, but it looked like a failure to respond. In fact they were trying to come up with a levy design that would block the oil, without killing the wetlands by trapping the water.

Oh yes,

BP has announced plans to raise recovery capacity in phases to 80,000 barrels a day by mid-July.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-06-15/bp-well-leaking-up-to-60-000-barrels-a-day-u-s-says-update2-.html

 

[turbo]

I'm quite happy that BP is willing to up its efforts and recover 80,000 bbl/day. Perhaps they can recover a fraction of the 5000 bbl/day leak? Where is the extra recovery coming from? The "non-existent" underwater plumes, perhaps?

 

[mheslep]

Says who, you? Our flow experts at PF?

I say there's no logical mass flow argument in the https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2727339&postcount=24" he delivered to Congress that allows one to arrive at 80k bbl/day. In addition some petroleum engineering experts, which Wereley is not, have said an 80k estimate was counter to the flow rates made by any single well in the Gulf.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/deepwaterhorizon/7011584.html

The guy making the claim is a real expert.

A 'real' expert? An expert on what? Wereley is not a petroleum or chemical engineer.

1 ,5, 10, 15, 25, 25-40, now 35-60. Next week, maybe we'll make 100K.

Why not a million? Why not Billions and Billions?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm quite happy that BP is willing to up its efforts and recover 80,000 bbl/day. Perhaps they can recover a fraction of the 5000 bbl/day leak? Where is the extra recovery coming from? The "non-existent" underwater plumes, perhaps?

The point is that even they are now planning for a leak this size - 80,000 barrels per day. I'm not sure what you mean by referencing 5000 barrels per day. They have been capturing 15k barrels per day for almost a week now, with little to no noticable effect on remaining leak. It's still a gusher even minus the 15K bpd.

I saw a photo of the spill crisis room, in the White House. I don't know the date of the photo, but it was taken at least a few weeks ago. There is a white board in the background showing facts, figures, and estimates. On it you could see the large print reading 20k-100k barrels per day. So it seems that the White House has been allowing for 100K for some time.

Most siginficantly, Obama claims they have a plan that will allow 90% of the oil escaping to be captured. I am soooooooo happy, esp right now, that we have Chu [nobel-prize-winning physicist] as Energy Sec. It is such a relief to have competent people manning the ship of State.

 

[nismaratwork]

Why on Earth does CNN have T. Boone Pickens spinning doom and gloom with that living mummy Larry King?! These constantly changing estimates make everything terribly uncertain, when we should be waiting for actual measurements. Who cares what BP or the White House says; one has to pay per barrel, and the other gets paid by the barrel! I'll wait for independent analysis that is verifiable. Until then, can we please stop hearing from old oilmen who didn't grasp the concept of transmitting power from nonresistant wind farms to the places that need the power?

Offshore oil drilling seems relatively safe when regulations are enforced, just like everything else in life, and when they are not enforced, it becomes unsafe. Not exactly the shock of a lifetime.

 

[stewartcs]

Says who, you? Our flow experts at PF? The guy making the claim is a real expert.


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/gre...5000-to-60000-barrels-per-day-panel-says.html

1 ,5, 10, 15, 25, 25-40, now 35-60. Next week, maybe we'll make 100K.

60k barrels per day is 2.52 million gallons per day. This is about day 56.

The flow rates have changed since the riser was removed. The revised estimates prior to the riser being cut off was ~20k per day.

Of course now that the riser is not obstructing the flow the estimates have gone up. Which is to be expected. However, that oil is still not leaking into the Gulf since it is being captured by the top side vessels.

CS

 

[Proton Soup]

Why on Earth does CNN have T. Boone Pickens spinning doom and gloom with that living mummy Larry King?!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._Boone_Pickens#The_Pickens_Plan

 

[stewartcs]

I am soooooooo happy, esp right now, that we have Chu [nobel-prize-winning physicist] as Energy Sec. It is such a relief to have competent people manning the ship of State.

The Nobel Prize in Physics 1997 was awarded jointly to Steven Chu, Claude Cohen-Tannoudji and William D. Phillips "for development of methods to cool and trap atoms with laser light".

Yeah...I'm sure those methods to cool and trap atoms with laser light will come in handy with this oil spill.

CS

 

[stewartcs]

Offshore oil drilling seems relatively safe when regulations are enforced, just like everything else in life, and when they are not enforced, it becomes unsafe. Not exactly the shock of a lifetime.

It is safe when done properly and regulated properly.

CS

 

[turbo]

The point is that even they are now planning for a leak this size - 80,000 barrels per day. I'm not sure what you mean by referencing 5000 barrels per day. They have been capturing 15k barrels per day for almost a week now, with little to no noticable effect on remaining leak. It's still a gusher even minus the 15K bpd.

Maybe I should have used a smiley to indicate irony. BP and its handmaidens (including the CG) have been low-balling this spill since it started.

 

[Pattonias]

Everyone has been "high-balling" the spill as well. My determination, no one has any idea how much oil is spilling. Its way too much regardless. They will keep cleaning until its all gone anyway. Not like they are going to collect all the oil in one place and see if they collected as much as they "estimate" came out during the spill. It is a useless number that has really no impact on anything. We know the leak is still there and we will all be happier when no more oil is coming out.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Earlier in the thread I quoted a CNN panelist who stated that in a worst-case scenario, much like what we are seeing, the total losses from this event could reach into the hundreds of billions of dollars. I was accused of being unreasonable. At first I intended to start digging for examples of how losses can multiply, but I thought it far easier to just wait for the examples in this case to manifest. We have our first example of a hundred-billion dollar loss.

While a bit ironic in the context of this thread, it is the first directly measurable casualty, and it is BP. BP stock, 38% of which is U.S. owned, has lost half of its value - about 80 billion dollars. Today, with the commitment of 20 billion to the relief fund, they have lost over 100 billion dollars.
http://www.tallahassee.com/article/20100615/BREAKINGNEWS/100615007/BP-stock-has-lost-80-billion-since-oil-spill

Again, while it is a somewhat inverted example of what was intended, it is still an example of the sorts of losses that can spinoff from events like this. One cannot consider only the fishing and tourism industries losses that can be measured directly; the value of which are in the tens of billions of dollars annually for each State, IIRC. We also have to consider the duration of the losses, which may continue for decades in some cases, and secondary and other losses, such as loss of real estate value. How many companies dependent on fishing or tourism will fold? How many companies will suffer losses in stock values? How will this affect trade in the region? While it is impossible to fully anticipate all of the consequences of an event this magnitude, we can be sure that the ramifications from this will be profound, and of long duration. One cannot, in a worst case, dismantle the economy over an entire region of the country, esp a highly productive region like the Gulf coast, and expect anything less.

My best read on this is that we are now at the mercy of the weather. If the weather holds out and we have a relatively calm summer, and if they can get the well under control, maybe the absolute worst case can be avoided. On the other hand, it we have a number of severe storms or hurricanes, which is expected, the biological and financial future of the gulf, and the future of BP, may depend entirely on which way the wind blows. If the oil is driven into the marshes and wetlands by storm surge, or even if we have wind-carried oil coating an entire coastal section of the gulf, it is difficult to even imagine the long-term ramifications. What would be the effect on the economy, for example, if the South suffers a crash in the value of real estate? How would the effects spread throughout the economy; esp during a critical time in our recovery; esp when we are subject to stresses resulting from the European financial crisis? The possibility that the total losses related to this event could be hundreds of billions of dollars, is a no-brainer. And we see that already in the value of BP. Generally, even a relatively small effect on the national economy can results in financial losses that rise to that level.

 

[RonL]

Earlier in the thread I quoted a CNN panelist who stated that in a worst-case scenario, much like what we are seeing, the total losses from this event could reach into the hundreds of billions of dollars. I was accused of being unreasonable. At first I intended to start digging for examples of how losses can multiply, but I thought it far easier to just wait for the examples in this case to manifest. We have our first example of a hundred-billion dollar loss.

While a bit ironic in the context of this thread, it is the first directly measurable casualty, and it is BP. BP stock, 38% of which is U.S. owned, has lost half of its value - about 80 billion dollars. Today, with the commitment of 20 billion to the relief fund, they have lost over 100 billion dollars.
http://www.tallahassee.com/article/20100615/BREAKINGNEWS/100615007/BP-stock-has-lost-80-billion-since-oil-spill

Again, while it is a somewhat inverted example of what was intended, it is still an example of the sorts of losses that can spinoff from events like this. One cannot consider only the fishing and tourism industries losses that can be measured directly; the value of which are in the tens of billions of dollars annually for each State, IIRC. We also have to consider the duration of the losses, which may continue for decades in some cases, and secondary and other losses, such as loss of real estate value. How many companies dependent on fishing or tourism will fold? How many companies will suffer losses in stock values? How will this affect trade in the region? While it is impossible to fully anticipate all of the consequences of an event this magnitude, we can be sure that the ramifications from this will be profound, and of long duration. One cannot, in a worst case, dismantle the economy over an entire region of the country, esp a highly productive region like the Gulf coast, and expect anything less.

My best read on this is that we are now at the mercy of the weather. If the weather holds out and we have a relatively calm summer, and if they can get the well under control, maybe the absolute worst case can be avoided. On the other hand, it we have a number of severe storms or hurricanes, which is expected, the biological and financial future of the gulf, and the future of BP, may depend entirely on which way the wind blows. If the oil is driven into the marshes and wetlands by storm surge, or even if we have wind-carried oil coating an entire coastal section of the gulf, it is difficult to even imagine the long-term ramifications. What would be the effect on the economy, for example, if the South suffers a crash in the value of real estate? How would the effects spread throughout the economy; esp during a critical time in our recovery; esp when we are subject to stresses resulting from the European financial crisis? The possibility that the total losses related to this event could be hundreds of billions of dollars, is a no-brainer. And we see that already in the value of BP. Generally, even a relatively small effect on the national economy can results in financial losses that rise to that level.

How about "the perfect storm II" ?
If all operations are abandoned because of an approaching hurricane, might there be enough oil floating and gas erupting, to produce any amount of combustionable mixture, ignited by a lightning strike? A wild thought, but what would the added heat do for the energy of a hurricane.

 

[apeiron]

Everyone has been "high-balling" the spill as well.

Well the high-balling greenies certainly beat out the industry apologists on this forum .

The interesting thing is what comes next. Given the coming global production crunch over the next four years, economies may need BP more than it needs them. So expect real politiks to win over harsh words, harsh penalties. Confidently predict that the goal is still that 40% of US domestic petroleum comes from deep sea drilling by 2020. As nothing less gives even close to business as usual.

And when it comes to environmental damage, are a few giga-spills in the gulf going to be any more of a cost than the slow but sure destruction of Canada's open pit oil sand mining? Or China's exponential increase in coal burning?

Hey, is that the edge of a cliff I can see looming? Quick, jam the foot down harder. And you clever techo-boffins in the back see if you can rustle up some wings for this here dang old car .

 

[nismaratwork]

It is safe when done properly and regulated properly.

CS

That's what I mean, but clearly regulations were not being enforced, and even broken outright by the enforcers. Really a shame, for the gulf and for those 11 men and their families. I wonder if the coke-heads at Minerals Management will ever see a court of law for negligent homicide? They should... they won't.

 

[nismaratwork]

Well the high-balling greenies certainly beat out the industry apologists on this forum .

The interesting thing is what comes next. Given the coming global production crunch over the next four years, economies may need BP more than it needs them. So expect real politiks to win over harsh words, harsh penalties. Confidently predict that the goal is still that 40% of US domestic petroleum comes from deep sea drilling by 2020. As nothing less gives even close to business as usual.

And when it comes to environmental damage, are a few giga-spills in the gulf going to be any more of a cost than the slow but sure destruction of Canada's open pit oil sand mining? Or China's exponential increase in coal burning?

Hey, is that the edge of a cliff I can see looming? Quick, jam the foot down harder. And you clever techo-boffins in the back see if you can rustle up some wings for this here dang old car .

That's well said, and probably the most accurate statement in the 15 or so pages I've read.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Hey, is that the edge of a cliff I can see looming? Quick, jam the foot down harder. And you clever techo-boffins in the back see if you can rustle up some wings for this here dang old car .

That's acutally quite nice metaphorical imagary. I assume the subtext is that we should slow down and not speed up.

Well to further the analogy, slowing down isn't an option as you've got a huge traffic jam that can't see the cliff that is constantly accelerating behind you. If you brake you get shoved over the cliff whether you want to go or not.

 

[signerror]

If all operations are abandoned because of an approaching hurricane, might there be enough oil floating and gas erupting, to produce any amount of combustionable mixture, ignited by a lightning strike? A wild thought, but what would the added heat do for the energy of a hurricane.

Well, let's see. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill" . I think much of the oil is either already onshore, or underwater (in micelles created by BP's detergent) where it can't combust, so this 10^-4 meter figure is a conservative estimate of how thick the sea-surface oil is.

Crude oil has an energy density of http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fuels-higher-calorific-values-d_169.html" .

For comparison, the thermal energy of seawater that is accessible to hurricanes, as estimated by http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/cyclone/data/method.html" , is on the order of 10⁵ J/cm², or 10⁹ J/m². About 300 times higher.

(Or flipping it: the most hurricane-favorable seas have the heat potential of a 25 mm (1 inch) layer of crude oil.)

 

[mheslep]

A look back at US consumption during the 1973 oil embargo and subsequently:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/eh/images/figure11.jpg
In '73 the US was essentially forced to cut its oil consumption ~ 1.5 Mbbl/day (~9%) in response to the OPEC embargo and price hikes of 100%, then 300%. The US later cut consumption ~5 Mbbl/day over 3-5 years on its own via efficiency improvements and largely doing away with oil based electricity generation. The '73-'75 period in particular was difficult, but it didn't create a police state or radical reorganization of the society in the US, nor anywhere else that I recall. I do not see how the current oil forecasts portend anything worse.

 

[apeiron]

The '73-'75 period in particular was difficult, but it didn't create a police state or radical reorganization of the society in the US, nor anywhere else that I recall. I do not see how the current oil forecasts portend anything worse.

The shocks did cause social disruption elsewhere (the US was only just hitting its domestic production peak then). But yes the shock was fleeting as a swift clip to the ear for OPEC led to the 20 years of back-to-cheap-oil that paid for the yuppie years.

There was another oil shock was at the turn of the 1980s when the Iranian revolution was followed by war between Iran and Iraq. The cost of a barrel of oil soared to $140 for five years. But as the West tapped new oil fields in Alaska, Russia and Mexico, the price plummeted to about $40 a barrel and stayed there for another go-go decade.

It was only with the oil shock of 2007 that we even got back to those early 1980 levels. And that was a blip of a few months.

The credit crunch has cut demand and cut prices since. So we have only suffered oil blips in fact.

Anyway, further current discussion about the efficiency trade-off story.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6503#more

So of couse, oil stress will lead to oil efficiencies. The hard question is how much resilience there actually is in the world system. Hopefully plenty. And real shocks will change behaviours rapidly with less disruption than some anticipate. This would be the optimistic view taken by us pessimists.

 

[apeiron]

BTW, EIA forecasts a http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/excel/figure_2data.xls" , i.e. by 2020, (all types including ethanol). I don't follow how that creates a shock leading to a police state.

Well you can extrapolate the demand trends or analyse the production capacity plans. Do that an discover the disconnect.

Anyway, this is the trend of EIA production forecasts.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6556

You can either focus on the way the prediction is revised downwards every year, or instead admire the way it still keeps soaring away unconstrained after the current predicted production shock.

But what is not in question now is the fact of an imminent world production bottleneck (which will either cause a global economy shock, or only be avoided by one (a recession continuing to kill demand) - so pain either way).

 

[mheslep]

There was another oil shock was at the turn of the 1980s when the Iranian revolution was followed by war between Iran and Iraq. The cost of a barrel of oil soared to $140 for five years. But as the West tapped new oil fields in Alaska, Russia and Mexico, the price plummeted to about $40 a barrel and stayed there for another go-go decade.

$140/bbl in the 80s? The price of oil per barrel, in nominal terms, never exceeded $40 until roughly 2004. Inflation correction would correct the price higher especially because of the inflationary 70s, but still would not hit "$140 for five years"

http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif

 

[Evo]

Temporary shutdown in order to bring this thread under control.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Just to mark the date: For the first time, the flow from the main pipe has been stopped. After about 90 days - starting date April 20th - they may finally have this under control.

perhaps 180 million gallons spilled [plus or minus 20%, or so]. This does not allow for the oil collected, or burned.