News Is Offshore Oil Drilling Truly Safe?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MotoH
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Oil
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the safety of offshore oil drilling in light of a recent explosion and ongoing oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Participants express skepticism about the industry's claims of improved safety, particularly questioning the effectiveness of emergency fail-safes that were supposed to prevent such disasters. Concerns are raised about the lack of preparedness for a blowout, with experts indicating it could take weeks or months to stop the leak. The conversation also touches on the environmental impact of the spill and the adequacy of current containment measures. Overall, the thread highlights a significant distrust in the oil industry's safety protocols and a call for better preparedness before drilling operations commence.
  • #61
MotoH said:
I am going to guess you watched the ABC news broadcast about this.

I don't watch network news, so no. I also don't watch fox news, cnn, or msnbc. Is there a reason that you chose to reduce my post to a single insult? If you can't or won't respond to substance, please don't resort to this kind of behavior. I have lived in regions which depend on brief seasonal fishing, and I'm familiar with shrimping. Turbo-1 is giving you some very good facts.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
MotoH said:
I am going to guess you watched the ABC news broadcast about this.
Did you read the "Fair and Balanced" link I gave you MotoH? If you think that a corporate-shill, right-wing "news" outlet such as FOX would not put out such a fatalistic story on Gulf fisheries if it is evidently true, what will you believe? Louisiana's shrimp fishery is the largest in the Gulf, and if the fishermen lose the next couple of months to contamination, the whole industry might collapse. My friend's flash-freezing/packing company will certainly collapse with hundreds of jobs lost - perhaps thousands of jobs with the ripple-effects that accompany catastrophe.

And that's just the processing side. Countless thousands of shrimpers will be put out of work, perhaps permanently for many.

Shrimpers could lose a whole season's income to this, and lose their boats, gear, homes...everything. All this to protect BP's profits? We need new rules.
 
  • #63
turbo-1 said:
Did you read the "Fair and Balanced" link I gave you MotoH? If you think that a corporate-shill, right-wing "news" outlet such as FOX would not put out such a fatalistic story on Gulf fisheries if it is evidently true, what will you believe? Louisiana's shrimp fishery is the largest in the Gulf, and if the fishermen lose the next couple of months to contamination, the whole industry might collapse. My friend's flash-freezing/packing company will certainly collapse with hundreds of jobs lost - perhaps thousands of jobs with the ripple-effects that accompany catastrophe.

And that's just the processing side. Countless thousands of shrimpers will be put out of work, perhaps permanently for many.

Shrimpers could lose a whole season's income to this, and lose their boats, gear, homes...everything. All this to protect BP's profits? We need new rules.

WHO is trying to protect BP's profits?
 
  • #64
I dun eat shrimp.
 
  • #65
WhoWee said:
WHO is trying to protect BP's profits?
Let's see... The US has to mobilize military and civil resources to prevent further damage to our fisheries, and may still fail at that since the rate of discharge is apparently 5x that which was "estimated" by BP. BP will vigorously fight any attempt to charge them for the damage that they have done, and in the years before any settlement is reached, many thousands of fishermen will have lost their livelihoods, boats, and homes. It would take many years for oysters, shrimp, and crabs to recover from this disaster. The collusion of our government, media, and industry "experts" have combined to shelter BP from immediate responsibility, and push real effective response years away. By that time, BP will have recovered from its minor losses, and small businesses and countless fishermen will have lost their livelihoods.

What part of this do you not understand? Our government is designed to protect the powerful and wealthy, and screw the small businesses and self-employed.
 
  • #66
turbo-1 said:
Let's see... The US has to mobilize military and civil resources to prevent further damage to our fisheries, and may still fail at that since the rate of discharge is apparently 5x that which was "estimated" by BP. BP will vigorously fight any attempt to charge them for the damage that they have done, and in the years before any settlement is reached, many thousands of fishermen will have lost their livelihoods, boats, and homes. It would take many years for oysters, shrimp, and crabs to recover from this disaster. The collusion of our government, media, and industry "experts" have combined to shelter BP from immediate responsibility, and push real effective response years away. By that time, BP will have recovered from its minor losses, and small businesses and countless fishermen will have lost their livelihoods.

What part of this do you not understand? Our government is designed to protect the powerful and wealthy, and screw the small businesses and self-employed.

Didn't BP request help from Washington? Aren't the Federal teams moving to contain damage and facilitate clean-up? I haven't heard anyone say that BP shouldn't be held responsible for damages.
 
  • #67
WhoWee said:
Didn't BP request help from Washington? Aren't the Federal teams moving to contain damage and facilitate clean-up? I haven't heard anyone say that BP shouldn't be held responsible for damages.
Has anybody said that BP would pay thousands of fishing-captains for their lost seasons, and the possible years of lost seasons? How about the folks that supply Gulf oysters and crabs? I'm just skimming the surface here, since the Gulf is such a rich fishery. The media can't contemplate the depth of the possible damage, due to the complexity of the situation, PLUS they don't earn money from advertisers by delving into details after they have stated the obvious.
 
  • #68
turbo-1 said:
Has anybody said that BP would pay thousands of fishing-captains for their lost seasons, and the possible years of lost seasons? How about the folks that supply Gulf oysters and crabs? I'm just skimming the surface here, since the Gulf is such a rich fishery. The media can't contemplate the depth of the possible damage, due to the complexity of the situation, PLUS they don't earn money from advertisers by delving into details after they have stated the obvious.

What was Rahm Emanuels' line...something like never let a good crisis go to waste? I think it's more likely the Government will try to increase taxes on the industry until gasoline prices hit about $8 to $10 per gallon.
 
  • #69
MotoH said:
I dun eat shrimp.

Your patriotism seems to be highly selective MotoH. You don't eat shrimp, so who cares. I assume the fate of the wildlife is similarly meaningless to you? One flag, one language, one loyalty, but to hell with anything that doesn't fit in that view, including the gulf-coast of these United States! Our military is having to cope with this disaster, but I assume you care about THAT right? Damn MotoH, a foreign interest has caused a local disaster, and your commentary is that you "dun eat shrimp". Why bother to comment?

Turbo-1 The Coast Guard has already confirmed that they DO NOT have enough equipment to contain this slick, or manage it. We're going to spend a lot of money up-front, and really who knows what this is going to do to the ecology of the region? You're right about the complexity, which is vast, and it's going to hurt us all, whether or not some choose to accept that.
 
  • #70
WhoWee said:
What was Rahm Emanuels' line...something like never let a good crisis go to waste? I think it's more likely the Government will try to increase taxes on the industry until gasoline prices hit about $8 to $10 per gallon.

I would be interested in citations to support such an extreme view.
 
  • #71
Interesting and telling comments posted by some here...

Anyways, my comment is this. It appears BP is at fault for this incident, and would therefore be responsible for the damages it caused. That being said, it also does not mean BP should be vilified the way they have by some members. First, I have seen no sources which show that BP was grossly negligent, or has a historic record of poor safety: basically, that this incident was 'just a matter of time.' Second, the fact that BP went to the government for help indicates that they too want to manage the situation at hand. Believe it or not, that is huge profits BP is loosing as that oil literally drifts away into the ocean. So, for those of you complaining about BP asking for help: get over it. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Would you prefer that BP not ask the government for help, and allow the situation to get worse?

While it is good to consider the fishing industry, I would suggest taking things one step at a time. Let them contain the situation, then assess the damages afterwards. There is too much speculating going on about what damages might happen.
 
  • #72
Shalashaska said:
Your patriotism seems to be highly selective MotoH. You don't eat shrimp, so who cares. I assume the fate of the wildlife is similarly meaningless to you? One flag, one language, one loyalty, but to hell with anything that doesn't fit in that view, including the gulf-coast of these United States! Our military is having to cope with this disaster, but I assume you care about THAT right? Damn MotoH, a foreign interest has caused a local disaster, and your commentary is that you "dun eat shrimp". Why bother to comment?

Turbo-1 The Coast Guard has already confirmed that they DO NOT have enough equipment to contain this slick, or manage it. We're going to spend a lot of money up-front, and really who knows what this is going to do to the ecology of the region? You're right about the complexity, which is vast, and it's going to hurt us all, whether or not some choose to accept that.


Why do you hate freedom?:wink::-p:smile::rolleyes:


I don't have a view on this. Yes it is bad that the fishermen could possibly lose their livelihood. It is also bad that BP is losing tons of crude. It will be solved in a timely manner, and no matter how much bickering goes on on an internet forum, it won't help solve jack ****.
 
Last edited:
  • #73
MotoH said:
Why do you hate freedom?
Your views are so right and everyone else's are so wrong. There is no reason to shut down people because they don't agree with you. There is a lot less reason to cite nationalistic catch-phrases. "Why do you hate freedom?" sounds like something that Sister Sarah would fling at a rational American that rubbed her the wrong way because they were not parroting her idiotic views.

There are a lot of people in this country. Not all of them are supportive of corporate socialism, rampant nationalism, and wave-the-flag cheerleading. There are some smart and productive people who can help tackle some of our problems, but they are often drowned out by mindless jingoism. The hate and contempt is counter-productive.
 
Last edited:
  • #74
MotoH said:
Why do you hate freedom?


I don't have a view on this. Yes it is bad that the fishermen could possibly lose their livelihood. It is also bad that BP is losing tons of crude. It will be solved in a timely manner, and no matter how much bickering goes on on an internet forum, it won't help solve jack ****.

Cute joke, here's my riposte: Why do you hate discourse that doesn't conform to your rigid views?

So you have no view on this except that it will all work out in its own time, amen? I'll ask again, why are you commenting and bickering then? As for the timely manner, please cite this, because it does not seem imminent.
 
  • #76
I have added a smiley to indicate sarcasm
 
  • #77
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #78
Cyrus said:
Interesting and telling comments posted by some here...

Anyways, my comment is this. It appears BP is at fault for this incident, and would therefore be responsible for the damages it caused. That being said, it also does not mean BP should be vilified the way they have by some members. First, I have seen no sources which show that BP was grossly negligent, or has a historic record of poor safety: basically, that this incident was 'just a matter of time.' Second, the fact that BP went to the government for help indicates that they too want to manage the situation at hand. Believe it or not, that is huge profits BP is loosing as that oil literally drifts away into the ocean. So, for those of you complaining about BP asking for help: get over it. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Would you prefer that BP not ask the government for help, and allow the situation to get worse?

While it is good to consider the fishing industry, I would suggest taking things one step at a time. Let them contain the situation, then assess the damages afterwards. There is too much speculating going on about what damages might happen.

I agree. It's a difficult situation.
 
  • #79
This isn't the first oil well catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico.

http://www.ocsbbs.com/accidents.asp

I don't have the numbers on the other incidents, but the 1983 spill was 80 million gallons. No collapse of the shrimping or fishing industry.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #80
Shalashaska said:
I honestly can't tell if you're pulling my leg here. I assume you are, so good joke WhoWee. If not, wow. Just, wow.

How about this one.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2008/12/obama-energy-pi.html?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
 
  • #81
Evo said:
This isn't the first oil well catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico.

http://www.ocsbbs.com/accidents.asp

I don't have the numbers on the other incidents, but the 1983 spill was 80 million gallons. No collapse of the shrimping or fishing industry.

in '83 the Gulf was in MUCH better shape than it is now. Note also that the currents and prevailing winds are blowing this slick inland. This is more like the Exxon-Valdez (87 million gallons), but with a constant source 5000 feet below the ocean.

I don't know about collapse, but death and suffering of everything living in that water and the shore seems to be bad enough, don't you think?

P.S. I would add here, that I'm not demonizing BP, I am horrified by the deaths that will occur however, and the eleven rig-worker who died. Some people seem to be lumping in the horror at the environmental impact with some kind of hatred of oil in general. I recognize the necessity, I just don't like it and hope that this raises awareness that alternatives such as nuclear energy are really far better options.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #82
Shalashaska said:
in '83 the Gulf was in MUCH better shape than it is now. Note also that the currents and prevailing winds are blowing this slick inland. This is more like the Exxon-Valdez (87 million gallons), but with a constant source 5000 feet below the ocean.

I don't know about collapse, but death and suffering of everything living in that water and the shore seems to be bad enough, don't you think?
The oil is pretty much contained on top of the water at this point and can be vacuumed off. So, no, there isn't going to be death of everything living in the water, it's never happened before, can you post a study that shows that has ever been the case with any oil spill?

Severe weather, such as a hurricane would cause the oil to mix with the water and cause much more trouble.
 
Last edited:
  • #83
Evo said:
The oil is pretty much contained on top of the water at this point and can be vacuumed off. So, no, there isn't going to be death of everything living in the water, it's never happened before, can you post a study that shows that has ever been the case with any oil spill?

I can't unfortunately, but I believe the Coast Guard when they say that they lack the material to contain and scrub this spill. To be honest, I think we're about to watch a study in action, and I certainly hope you're right. All I have turned up are ongoing investigations into BP's Alaskan pipes by the FBI and EPA, but they investigate many things with and without merit.

I find this disturbing however: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/us/27rig.html

Note the date, and how the story has evolved in these days.

As for one indication of changes in the Gulf over the past decades, here is one example among a figurative ocean: http://www.gulfhypoxia.net/research/Shelfwide%20Cruises/2009/Files/2009_Hypoxia_Forecast.pdf (US Army research)

P.S. Surfactants are already being employed alongside controlled burns, which already indicates that skimming and filtration alone will not suffice. I will try to find the reference to the specific USCG spokesman who confirmed their inability to contain this, or fully mitigate its coastal impact
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #84
It appears the difficulty is that the leak is from a ruptured pipe going to the rig. They say the pipe is snaking along the bottom, 10,000 feet down. The toxic surfactant sounds like a really bad idea.

I lived in Houston for years and have many fond memories of oil spills. When the tar washes up on the beach, sand blows over the goop and you can't tell there is oil under the sand until you step in it. You, your towels, shoes, clothes and cars will all be destroyed by the stinky, gluey tar.

I had read about the hypoxia a year or two ago.

It's bad. but most of the gulf is overfished and the trawlors are going further out into the ocean to make catches. I'll see if I can find anything that maps where they go now. That might also be a good thing that they have been venturing much farther out for their catch.

Good articles. Thanks!
 
Last edited:
  • #85
Shalashaska said:
in '83 the Gulf was in MUCH better shape than it is now.

While that may (or may not) be true, I'm not sure how that is relevant to the incident at hand. Is the decline in the gulfs shape specifically due to off shore platforms?

I don't know about collapse, but death and suffering of everything living in that water and the shore seems to be bad enough, don't you think?

Again, I don't know of what death and suffering of living things you are referring to. Yeah, some things will die from this accident - that's life. It's not like it was done on purpose.
P.S. I would add here, that I'm not demonizing BP, I am horrified by the deaths that will occur however, and the eleven rig-worker who died.

I have no idea what 'deaths that will occur' is supposed to mean.

Some people seem to be lumping in the horror at the environmental impact with some kind of hatred of oil in general. I recognize the necessity, I just don't like it and hope that this raises awareness that alternatives such as nuclear energy are really far better options.

This is not a strong argument for nuclear energy.
 
  • #86
Evo said:
This isn't the first oil well catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico.
The US generally has lower safety standards, specifically in this incident US licensed rigs aren't required to have the remote shut-off valves that are mandatory in the North Sea.

And although the rig was leased to BP, guess which favorite US company was operating it? Haliburton - looks like they are going to have to do a Blackwater style rename soon.
 
  • #87
Not able to confirm it with another source yet, but...

according to Robert Kennedy Jr., just now on CNN, GW Bush specifically waived the requirement for the use of accoustic regulators, in the Gulf. These devices are designed to be triggered remotely as a failsafe in situations just like this. Apparently this was tied to a waiver for the use of accoustic technologies, by the Navy, which I believe was overturned by a court.

From what I saw, the regulators cost about $500,000.

He [Kennedy] is also involved a class-action lawsuit just filed against the Fed government, on behalf of fisherman, shrimpers, and others affected.

No this does not help the nuclear argument at all. We are supposed to trust that nuclear power can be made safe when we can't even make a safe pipe?
 
Last edited:
  • #88
mgb_phys said:
The US generally has lower safety standards, specifically in this incident US licensed rigs aren't required to have the remote shut-off valves that are mandatory in the North Sea...
How does one remotely operate a shut off valve a mile down? Cabling doesn't help much if the surface rig sinks.
 
  • #89
mheslep said:
How does one remotely operate a shut off valve a mile down? Cabling doesn't help much if the surface rig sinks.
Valves can be made to fail in a closed position. They remain open only as long as they are being powered. These are very common in industrial process-control systems.
 
  • #90
mheslep said:
How does one remotely operate a shut off valve a mile down? Cabling doesn't help much if the surface rig sinks.

Accoustically.

btw, from what I saw, Halliburton is involved. Apparently they had something to do with the well head.
 

Similar threads

News Will Obama's New Plans for Domestic Oil Drilling Lower Gas Prices?
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
News Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of Energy Independence
  • · Replies 133 ·
5
Replies
133
Views
27K
News The Long Emergency: Oil Crisis & US Economy Impact
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
News Is America Post-Racial or Is It Media Fiction?
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
Praise My feedback, one month and half experience in PF so far
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Three new books to read about expertise vs. democracy
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
News Should the US intervene in world problems?
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
10K
EMF induced in a coil encircling an ideal solenoid
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
The Truth about 911 gutting the disinformation, LETS GET IT ON
  • · Replies 109 ·
4
Replies
109
Views
64K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K