News Is Offshore Oil Drilling Truly Safe?

[Shalashaska]

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

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

 

[rootX]

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

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

 

[turbo]

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

 

[WhoWee]

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

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

 

[mheslep]

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

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

 

[turbo]

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

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

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

 

[mheslep]

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

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

 

[mheslep]

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

Where did you see that Turbo?

 

[turbo]

Where did you see that Turbo?

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

 

[Shalashaska]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well said.

 

[WhoWee]

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

And maybe they just want to help.

 

[Shalashaska]

And maybe they just want to help.

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

 

[WhoWee]

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

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

 

[Astronuc]

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

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

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

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

 

[Shalashaska]

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

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

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

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

 

[Astronuc]

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

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

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


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

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

 

[Shalashaska]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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

Drill, baby, drill!

 

[Shalashaska]

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

 

[mgb_phys]

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

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

 

[Shalashaska]

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

It would have to be better than this:

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

 

[mgb_phys]

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

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

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

 

[pallidin]

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

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

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

 

[mgb_phys]

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

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

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

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

 

[pallidin]

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

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

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

 

[Shalashaska]

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.

It may be naivete on my part, but I agree with Pallidin. Each administration has too much power to change existing bureaucracies to fit their whim (such as the EPA). A strong regulatory agency could at least act as a buffer with sheer force of bureaucracy.

If not regulation, then what? This simply cannot be allowed to continue...

 

[mgb_phys]

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

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 ;-)

That's the problem with an Oil Regulatory Commission - it would be responsible for promoting oil and for enforcing safety. It's the reason that the NTSB was set up in the 70s, the FAA had been resposible for both promoting air travel (and US carriers/aircraft makers) and enforcing safety standards - the result was that every accident was the fault of someone other than the carrier/maker.
I would much rather have OSHA/MSHA have more teeth than another layer of FEMA type government agency.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Does anyone want a plot for a disaster movie?

Hurricane season in the Gulf begins in less than thirty days - June 1st.

 

[mgb_phys]

Does anyone want a plot for a disaster movie?
Hurricane season in the Gulf begins in less than thirty days - June 1st.

You're OK unless Bruce Willis arrives in a white t-shirt

 

[turbo]

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.

Edit: The shrimp season has not been officially cancelled, but fishing anywhere near the slick is now off-limits, and this is the unofficial beginning of the season. With several months at a minimum projected to slow and potentially stop the blow-out, shrimpers are out of luck. My friend who runs the largest flash-freezing shrimp-processing operation in that region will probably have to shut down - for who knows how long. He supplies private-branded frozen shrimp to markets all over the country. Got two or three private-brand frozen shrimp in your local supermarket? His plant might have processed and packed them all.