mheslep said:BP is hiring some of them to clean up the oil
http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/P1-AU996_Spill_G_20100430211543.jpg
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...5215714243494620.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read
Shalashaska said:In the end, I can live with that, and utterly lack in sympathy for BP. By the same token, I'm not filled with the milk of human kindness for the people who've been overfishing the Gulf, or farmers who allow runoff to create hypoxic zones, and politicians who improperly assessed risk, but still call it "good". This is going to be decades in the cleaning and recovery... BP "bought the ticket" now they get to "take the ride", with all of the unfair and fair vilification and lawsuits inherent in such a process. If they wanted to avoid that, they should have accurately assessed risk, and employed a 500,000 USD valve despite our own (under W.) lax regulations compares with other countries.
Shalashaska said:I wonder if that will increase outrage or decrease it? The image of BP hiring people who are out of work could be good in the short term at least, but the image of fishermen desperately doing hazmat work might backfire. In the end it's our military that will do most of the work, but this is an interesting move.
What makes you believe this is so? I am unaware that this has ever been the case for past spills, and I am unaware that the US military has a well equipped oil clean up capability.Shalashaska said:In the end it's our military that will do most of the work, but this is an interesting move.
Right. The military is not equipped to deal with this, and the coast guard is not equipped to deal with this. The entity that should have been equipped to deal with this (BP, in this instance) chose not to stage adequate spill-abatement equipment. Just a business-decision, I'm sure.mheslep said:What makes you believe this is so? I am unaware that this has ever been the case for past spills, and I am unaware that the US military has a well equipped oil clean up capability.
What would be 'adequate' abatement gear for a spill of this magnitude? Booms for the entire Gulf coast?turbo-1 said:Right. The military is not equipped to deal with this, and the coast guard is not equipped to deal with this. The entity that should have been equipped to deal with this (BP, in this instance) chose not to stage adequate spill-abatement equipment. Just a business-decision, I'm sure.
Where did you see that Turbo?turbo-1 said:With a failure rate of blowout preventers at about one per week globally,
The story was carried in our provincial little local paper, and I linked it a few posts ago. Just back up a bit.mheslep said:Where did you see that Turbo?
mheslep said:What makes you believe this is so? I am unaware that this has ever been the case for past spills, and I am unaware that the US military has a well equipped oil clean up capability.
WhoWee said:I think you are over thinking the scenario. Everybody with a commercial boat has a vested interest. It's only natural they would want to help. It's only proprer that they should be paid - fuel, crews, maintenance and insurance are not free.
rootX said:Do you even know what was the cause of this accident? It could be Transocean, Cameron International
turbo-1 said:With a failure rate of blowout preventers at about one per week globally, these fossil fuel giants should never be allowed to operate without proving that they have facilities on-hand to deal with such failures. They are not anomalies. The failures are inevitable, and they are not "accidents" because of that known failure rate.
Shalashaska said:The job they are trained for, and wish to do has been (for a while at least) destroyed. Their homes and fishing grounds are under threat, and now they are being employed as makeshift Hazmat workers. This would be a bit like asking the financial institutions effected by 9/11 to help clean rubble and put out fires. It's proper to have the capacity to handle a disaster without placing civilians between Scylla and Charybdis! Yes, they should be paid, but they also shouldn't have to do Hazmat work!
WhoWee said:And maybe they just want to help.
Shalashaska said:"we have no choice" hardly screams that, and I'm hard pressed to imagine that fishermen want to get into the Hazmat business, which FEW people in general do. I think the burden of proof is on, "they want to help".
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-01/bp-transocean-lawsuits-surge-as-oil-spill-spreads-in-gulf.htmlBP has the primary liability for damage caused by the spill, said Keith Hall, an attorney in New Orleans, who isn’t involved in the litigation. He cited a U.S. law passed after the Exxon Valdez oil spill at Alaska in 1989.
“Under the Oil Pollution Act, the fact that it was BP’s oil is enough,” said Hall, of Stone Pigman Walther Wittmann LLC. Plaintiffs “don’t have to show they were negligent or grossly negligent,” he said.
. . . .
Lawsuits also name Cameron International Corp., which provided blowout-prevention equipment, and Halliburton Energy Services Inc., which was involved in cementing the well.
. . . .
Astronuc said:http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-01/bp-transocean-lawsuits-surge-as-oil-spill-spreads-in-gulf.html
In absence of effective self-regulation (by the members of the oil industry) and effective (and enforced) regulation by the government, lawsuits seem to be the only alternative. Unfortunately, it's after the fact, and after the damage is done.
Astronuc said:Well, there are those whose ideology maintains that government regulation is too stifling, and those whose ideology maintains that regulation is insufficient. Between the two extremes lies the correct path.
It is clear BP dismissed the risk of such a catastrophe, and therefore did not have the contingencies in place to mitigate the disaster. Of course, there could be straight negligence with respect to the activties related to the well head. That has yet to be determined.
Perhaps, as a result of the current disaster, more effective regulation will ensue.As for the blowout preventer failure, I haven't seen the statistics on the failure rates in the field, but this article would certainly indicate a significant risk of failure.
‘Last Resort’ Safety Device Failed in Fatal Drilling Incident
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601072&sid=aKqG43JpQb2w
Shalashaska said:I still don't understand why we don't have a fossil fuel regulatory body on par with our nuclear energy regulatory system. Granted, I would hope such a body would be more effective in regulation,and not simply banning practices outright
mgb_phys said:It would turn into a big turf war with all the other agencies - just like the TSA.
Shalashaska said:It would have to be better than this:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/04/30/louisiana.oil.spill/index.html?hpt=Sbin
There are lots of regulations - like most of US industry the safety standards are lower than the best in the world, higher than most.pallidin said:I disagree. It is clear to me that this disaster demands very hard and specific future regulatory legislation.
They do, all oil leases include a payment to the Oil Pollution Act, essentially a government insurance scheme to pay for clean ups.Additionally, this legislation should be retroactive regarding current wells and disaster potential. Their MILLIONS of dollars in profit should provide the money for this.
mgb_phys said:You also need enforcement, just like the FAA, the problem is that this is expensive and any enforcement of course is an attack on US industry!
pallidin said:Let's see... enforcement protects people and our environment, but it attacks industry?
Too bad. I favor life and ecology over industry, and industry should pay for that protection. And Federal regulations should make certain that that protection is adequate.
Bottom line.
Of course, you make drilling more expensive / less profitable then you increase reliance on foreign oil and so put God fearing American drivers in the hands of Ay-Rabs - what are you some sort of terrorist? (please ignore the fact that the majority of imported oil comes from Canada and Venezuela - I'm on a roll here ;-)pallidin said:Let's see... enforcement protects people and our environment, but it attacks industry?
You're OK unless Bruce Willis arrives in a white t-shirtIvan Seeking said:Does anyone want a plot for a disaster movie?
Hurricane season in the Gulf begins in less than thirty days - June 1st.
Shrimp season has been cancelled. All the shrimpers who have been waiting for months to hit the Gulf, nursing their savings, mending their gear, and pre-buying diesel fuel are out of luck. I feel sorry for them. Fishing is such hard work and the profits are not guaranteed - you have to deal with what nature gives you and what the harvest/landing limits allow you to get.Ivan Seeking said:Does anyone want a plot for a disaster movie?
Hurricane season in the Gulf begins in less than thirty days - June 1st.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetlands_of_LouisianaSouthern Louisiana contains 40-45% of the wetlands found in the lower 48 states. This is because Louisiana is the drainage gateway to the Gulf of Mexico for the Lower Mississippi Regional Watershed. The Lower Mississippi Regional Watershed drains more than 24 million acres (97,000 km²) in seven states from southern Illinois to the Gulf of Mexico...
http://www.grist.org/article/2010-0...l-spill-fishery-to-industrial-sacrifice-zone/The Gulf of Mexico is a magnificent resource: a kind of natural engine for the production of wild, highly nutritious foodstuff. Here's how the EPA describes it:
Gulf fisheries are some of the most productive in the world. In 2008 according to the National Marine Fisheries Service, the commercial fish and shellfish harvest from the five U.S. Gulf states was estimated to be 1.3 billion pounds valued at $661 million. The Gulf also contains four of the top seven fishing ports in the nation by weight. The Gulf of Mexico has eight of the top twenty fishing ports in the nation by dollar value.
According to the EPA, the Gulf is the home of 59 percent of U.S. oyster production. Nearly three-quarters of wild shrimp harvested in the United States call it home. It is a major breeding ground for some of the globe's most prized and endangered fish, including bluefin tuna, snapper, and grouper...
Oil production in the Gulf of Mexico is around 1.7M bbl/day at $80/bbl about $130M/daythe commercial fish and shellfish harvest from the five U.S. Gulf states was estimated to be 1.3 billion pounds valued at $661 million.
mgb_phys said:Oil production in the Gulf of Mexico is around 1.7M bbl/day at $80/bbl about $130M/day
Shalashaska said:Long-lived fish, which are going to eat contaminated smaller fish... which will then become contaminated themselves if they don't die outright. Mercury step aside, there's a new "crude" kid in town.
This really is just upsetting as hell. We are absolutely ****ed.
Shalashaska said:Yet, we cannot eat crude, and we can't cause fishing beds and grasses that will be slowly overwhelmed over the next few months to magically re-appear. Which is more challenging, maintaining a complex and absolutely NECESSARY biological system, or getting more $$$ from oil out of that same region?
Shalashaska said:You have a point to make, beyond baiting me?
Shalashaska said:I'm prepared to hear your thoughtful analysis of the situation, sans the patronizing tone.
Shalashaska said:By all means, please describe the complexities which you are aware of, that lead you to this conclusion? Clearly I wasn't attempting to encapsulate the whole of the matter in that statement, but clearly you have a great deal of knowledge about the complexities here. I'd be interested to have you spell that out in detail.
Yet, we cannot eat crude, and we can't cause fishing beds and grasses that will be slowly overwhelmed over the next few months to magically re-appear. Which is more challenging, maintaining a complex and absolutely NECESSARY biological system, or getting more $$$ from oil out of that same region?
For the risk-assessment: You mentioned subjective elements earlier. I'd like to understand how you believe that people who are ignorant of the possible fallout of their actions can accurately assess risk? They can engage in an exercise they call risk assessment, but they're still bound by GIGO.
Beyond that, I've asked quite a few questions of you earlier, which thus far you have dismissed or declined to answer. I'd still enjoy your response to them, if you're feeling a bit chatty.
Cyrus said:As was alluded to earlier by https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2700125&postcount=185" the oil revenue in the Gulf is a large contributor to the economy. Just as recently as the last presidential election, reducing foreign oil dependence was a major talking point of both parties. When you make such statements as quoted below:
It is about as deep as the layer of oil floating over the water of the Gulf. I'm not sure what purpose the above statements are supposed to make. They certainly don't give any insights, and ignore the complexity of the issue. You've repeatedly tried to pass off this type of argument, particularly with your "and this is why Nuclear is a better option" statements. This is nothing but Greenpeace like talking points.
Again, a loaded question. Who and what are "ignorant" of the possible fallout of their actions.
You are still missing the point of what I mean by risk-assessment. Maybe I need to explain it to you, because you're using it out of context repeatedly.
I answered them.
Cyrus said:Since you asked, I will give you an explanation about risk analysis. When you have an engineering system (this could be any system), it is not uncommon to use what is known as Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA). Basically, it is a subjective weighting on the relative risk index of a component or subsystem failing. As one can imagine, this can quickly lead to a huge array of all possible failures and combinations of failures. Consequently, one needs a set of metrics to determine the 'most likely' failure mode, because simply upgrading every possible failure mode is unattainably expensive.
One such metric is the risk priority number (RPN) defined as:
RPN = (severity of failure) X (Occurrence of failure) x (detecting rating)
The 'subjectivity' comes in the fact that the severity of failure is a ranking system determined by experienced and licensed engineers. Performing FMEA is extremely difficult, can be very complex, and requires experienced people to perform accurately.
So, these "oh just fix one valve" statements, completely miss the issue. I hope my explanation has been sufficiently clear. Designing and maintaining big expensive oil rigs isn't easy mickey mouse work. Hindsight of what did fail, after the fact is a nice luxury. The engineers doing the work before hand don't get that foresight. Again, for the last time, this is why an independent investigation needs to be done to make sure BP has followed up on a good FMEA analysis.
Shalashaska said:1: BP will likely prolong the process of paying fines, and recompense for the cleanup effort as long as possible. This is standard practice. While the US government is forced to place resources, both human and material in place, which represents and immediate expenditure, BP is essentially borrowing from us, without interest.
2: See Ivan Seeking's posts, regarding the importance of the Gulf of Mexico in terms of fishing, and its place in the ecosystem.
3: Unless Greenpeace has radically changed, nuclear energy on a massive scale is not a talking point of theirs, nor is acknowledging the need for oil. I am not a crystal-gripping freak, but I'm not heartless either. Please do not lump me in with those poor fools.
4: This thread contains references to the failure in question, being roughly 50 times in a year, while also presenting evidence that BP "dismissed" that risk. Other countries such as Brazil, European nations, and others require safety equipment we do not. This is clearly affordable, as they are currently profiting from oil as well.
5: Let's take EPA, NOAA, and USCG, and Fish & Game officers at their word for the moment, and this has the potential to be a protracted catastrophe which threatens the integrity of the regions in which shrimp, oysters, krill and more breed.
6: Thus far, we as a society have been unable to create a viable artificial biosphere, and while we need oil for our society to function, we need a stable ecosystem to survive. This is effecting the bottom of the food chain in the gulf, profoundly, which in turn should effect the various species of fish mentioned in Ivan's reference. In addition, the slick has already begun to contaminate protected lands established decades and decades ago for excellent reasons. If all of this can be recovered, the cost is currently unknown, but it will be an up-front investment by the American taxpayer, not BP.
7: A departure from the financial: How do you reconcile the suffering of people who's livelihoods are in the process of being destroyed, and the animals which (if history serves as an indicator) are already suffering, and will likely die en masse, with your conscience? Is it really worth doing this amount of damage for the contribution to our economy?
In terms of their statements and track-record vs. reality, it seems they do not have a good concept of their exposure in this matter, or the impact both personal and environmental. That, or they simply do not care, which seems a bit mad.
Ivan Seeking said:This whole business just makes me sick. This has the potential to be at the top of the list of the greatest manmade disasters of all time.
sylas said:I agree that this is dreadful; it brings a lump to my throat to see it all playing out, and my heart goes out to those who will be impacted directly in coming months.
However, bear in mind that there's a lot of competition for impressive man-made disasters. A particularly relevant and similar spill occurred in the Gulf of Mexico in 1979, when the Ixtoc I exploratory oil rig had a blowout and fire, and sank. It was drilling at a depth of about 3600 meters, and the resulting oil spill was the second largest in history (beaten only by the Gulf War spill). (See http://www.incidentnews.gov/incident/6250 at NOAA.) In total, over 450 thousand tonnes of oil was spilled. Much of it reached Texas, although there was time to prepare booms and other protective measures.
By comparison, the Exxon Valdez released about 37 thousand tonnes.
sylas, who can't say cheers in this thread.
The Exxon valdez spilled 10.8 million gallons.Ivan Seeking said:Check my math here, but at 450,000 tons, and 7 lbs per gallon, I get 128 million gallons. The reasonable upper limit on this spill suggested so far is that this could release 90 million gallons. The Valdez released about 18 million gallons of heavy crude.
Edit: You were using tonnes, not tons, so that spill would have been more like 142 million gallons.
