Offshore oil drilling is safe?

[Cyrus]

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.

 

[MotoH]

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?:tongue2::rofl::uhh:


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 ****.

 

[turbo]

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.

 

[Shalashaska]

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.

 

[WhoWee]

I would be interested in citations to support such an extreme view.

Increased taxes on oil is an extreme view? As for Obama, do you think he likes big oil?

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/rahmemanue409199.html

http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/main...n-Dont-Fall-For-Obamas-Energy-Shell-Game.aspx

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,489476,00.html

 

[MotoH]

I have added a smiley to indicate sarcasm

 

[Shalashaska]

Increased taxes on oil is an extreme view? As for Obama, do you think he likes big oil?

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/rahmemanue409199.html

http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/main...n-Dont-Fall-For-Obamas-Energy-Shell-Game.aspx

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,489476,00.html

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.

 

[WhoWee]

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.

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[WhoWee]

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

 

[Shalashaska]

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.

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[Shalashaska]

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

 

[Evo]

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!

 

[Cyrus]

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.

 

[mgb_phys]

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.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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?

 

[mheslep]

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.

 

[turbo]

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.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

 

[mheslep]

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?

Nuclear power is not relevant to replacing the oil supply (yet). Neither is the safety of oil drilling particularly relevant to nuclear safety. For instance, light water PWR nuclear plants don't catch fire, burn for days and kill 11 guys.

 

[mheslep]

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.

Sure, but a fail safe valve is not the same as remote shut off valve.

 

[turbo]

Sure, but a fail safe valve is not the same as remote shut off valve.

The point is, if you no longer have the ability to control the valve, it should fail in the closed position. That solves the problem of "how do we control it"? Valves such as that are standard equipment in dangerous systems, such as high-pressure boilers.

 

[pallidin]

I can only assume that there must be something wrong with the fail-safe shut-off valve mechanism. Possibly due to the explosion itself.

 

[russ_watters]

Sure, but a fail safe valve is not the same as remote shut off valve.

Not "fail safe", "fail closed". Virtually every electronically controlled valve has the option for a failure position where loss of power/signal causes the valve to go to a default position by spring or pneumatic action. The valve requires a continuous signal to stay open - the "signal" to close the valve is to shut off the signal, so whether it's done by flipping a switch or blowing up and sinking the rig, the result is the same.

In HVAC, this is an important consideration and valves for roof mounted equipment are often "fail open" to reduce the possibility that water in the coils might freeze in the event of control failure.

 

[Shalashaska]

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 guess you didn't read my posts much at all. I don't believe offshore oil has had any real effect on the gulf thus far, but that it is vulnerable now in ways that it has not been in the past. See Evo's excellent points about overfishing, the effect of runoff from farming (see hypoxic zones and algael blooms) and more.

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

You don't know what the effect of a large oil slick is on marine life and birds? I don't believe that for a moment, and the issue of this being an accident is as much a comfort to the families of the dead rig workers as it is to animals that will die as a result. This is hardly an unpredictable event Cyrus, which is precisely why they have safety measures in place to prevent them. Their failure would seem to indicate that this may have been purely accidental, or it could be negligence. Either way, unless you know things that the USCG and USN don't, it's a long way from being determined. Have you seen me post that this is some maniac plot?

This is not a strong argument for nuclear energy.

:uhh: It's one of many strong arguments for alternative sources of energy, and nuclear is at the front of that list. I don't know what else to say; you haven't offered anything substantial beyond flat denials, so I can only respond to what you've said, which is minimal.

Ivan, Kennedy has filed a class-action, but I can't find a reference related to W. lowering those restrictions, not that it would surprise me for a second. I would point out that sinking a pipe 5000 feet below the ocean and drilling into an uncertain pressure vessel is actually pretty challenging. Compare that to something like a pebble-bed reactor, and I have more faith in the safety of that. I'm not a nuclear engineer however, although I gather that some people here are. I'm guessing they could explain the nature of fail-safes and SCRAM systems better than I can. You can stop a reaction cold in a number of ways, from re-arranging the fuel, inserting control rods, or in extremes injecting neutron poisons into the reaction chamber. Frankly, that's easier and more reliable than a 5000 foot pope poking at the ocean floor.

mheslep: The point is that a light water reactor also doesn't contaminate such a volume of water. Nuclear energy is also EXTREMELY tightly regulated for a number of reasons, compared to the oil industry which has failed numerous times compared to nuclear power. I would far rather see biodiesel from algae, and I realize that coal is analogues to nuclear power, whereas oil is analogues to ethanol or biofuels. That said, many homes burn oil, and nuclear plants could alleviate some of that stress.

Pallidin: Maybe the valve was faulty, or maybe it's related to gasses that blew it out. I've seen a lot of talk of possible negligence in the news, but really I think it's early to conclude anything. That said, the whole point of a fail-SAFE mechanism is as turbo-1 said: that it's default position is safe. Clearly due to design, or negligence, or radical circumstances, it was not up to the task.

addition... Russ beat me to the point of fail-safe devices. darn.

 

[Cyrus]

I guess you didn't read my posts much at all. I don't believe offshore oil has had any real effect on the gulf thus far, but that it is vulnerable now in ways that it has not been in the past. See Evo's excellent points about overfishing, the effect of runoff from farming (see hypoxic zones and algael blooms) and more.

While that is a fair enough statement, I'd need some sort of verification to the statement: "it is more vulnerable now in ways it has not been in the past," as it is not immediately clear to me if this is indeed the case or not.

You don't know what the effect of a large oil slick is on marine life and birds? I don't believe that for a moment, and the issue of this being an accident is as much a comfort to the families of the dead rig workers as it is to animals that will die as a result.

Again, wait until the damage is done before making premonitions.

This is hardly an unpredictable event Cyrus, which is precisely why they have safety measures in place to prevent them. Their failure would seem to indicate that this may have been purely accidental, or it could be negligence. Either way, unless you know things that the USCG and USN don't, it's a long way from being determined. Have you seen me post that this is some maniac plot?

That's exactly right, we don't know all the facts - which is why I have asked people to hold off and wait until the situation is assessed to the damages (or lack thereof). As for the predictability argument, I don't buy it. Again, show me statistically how common this type of problem is, and then we can make statements about the "predictability" of it occurring.

:uhh: It's one of many strong arguments for alternative sources of energy, and nuclear is at the front of that list. I don't know what else to say; you haven't offered anything substantial beyond flat denials, so I can only respond to what you've said, which is minimal.

No, I simply said - you have not made a case for nuclear power. Period. Nuclear power has its own waste issues. Simply waiving your wand and saying "see, this is why we need nuclear" leaves much to be desired.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

By my count, it has been eight days since the rig sank. At 200k gallons per day, we expect 1.6 million gallons of light sweet crude have been released so far. The Exxon Valdez spilled about 10.8 million gallons [according to wiki]. At least this isn't heavy sour crude, as with the Exxon Valdez. That helps. But if this continues for months, and it may according to the experts, it could easily exceed the size of the Exxon disaster: 90 days would put us at 18 million gallons. So the current thinking is that this could get ten times worse before we even start to recover.

 

[pallidin]

Why is there not an emergency Federal response?

That is, the military going-in and shutting those leaks down.
Submarines, special-ops SEAL teams, whatever...

Or are we going to have "engineer's" around a table discussing this for 2-weeks before any actual ACTION??

 

[Shalashaska]

While that is a fair enough statement, I'd need some sort of verification to the statement: "it is more vulnerable now in ways it has not been in the past," as it is not immediately clear to me if this is indeed the case or not.

Fair enough; the link I provided Evo as well as NOAA, USN data are very reliable compared to independent research in this field which is often skewed to the environmentalist view, or an industry view.

Again, wait until the damage is done before making premonitions.

I can't imagine a scenario in which strong inland waves and winds blowing 200,000 gallons of oil per day towards the coastlines anything but damaging. As Evo said, first you get big tar-balls from the oil that has had a chance to congeal in the water and evaporate some volatiles. Then you get thicker soupier slugs, and then slick. It's not as bad as 87 million gallons just dumped on the surface (a la Exxon-Valdez), but it's still going to have a serious effect.

Examples off the top of my head:

1: All filter feeders, such as bivalves are going to be effected. Eat an oyster from the gulf after they spend some time sucking crude, and you can taste it. Now, filter feeders tend to be build to handle crap, but the fish, crustaceons, cephalopds, et al do not.

2: Sea birds. This has been, sadly, very well studied.

3: Whales

This wouldn't be so terrible if they could perform more controlled burns, but there's too much chop and wind! I'm not saying this is the end of world, but while the magnitude is unusual, the event itself is not.

That's exactly right, we don't know all the facts - which is why I have asked people to hold off and wait until the situation is assessed to the damages (or lack thereof). As for the predictability argument, I don't buy it. Again, show me statistically how common this type of problem is, and then we can make statements about the "predictability" of it occurring.

It's predictable, not the failure, but the need for the valve to prevent this kind of disaster. Whatever happened to actually blow the rig sky-high, that valve should still have failed SHUT. That's not to say that someone with a black hat stood there twirling their mustache; I doubt that rig workers or owners wanted to lose that investment, and lives, not to mention all of this oil. I'm not placing blame, but drilling into unpredictable pressure vessels is inherently risky, and disaster is predictable. Planes will crash, boats will capsize, and pipes will fail. You're being very sensitive to this issue, maybe you work in oil, either way I understand. Please know that I'm not placing blame anywhere, but that doesn't mean that such risks cannot be predicted. These companies don't spend half a million USD on a safety valve for fun, they do it because accidents and disasters occur.

You can ask people not to speculate, but that's never going to happen. The best I think we can hope for is that this isn't used an excuse to slam oil in general, but that it DOES highlight inherent risks beyond the pollutant issue.

No, I simply said - you have not made a case for nuclear power. Period. Nuclear power has its own waste issues. Simply waiving your wand and saying "see, this is why we need nuclear" leaves much to be desired.[/QUOTE]

The problem with nuclear waste is political, not practical. The technology exists to create a central dump for it, with dedicated rail if we made the choice. It's a NIMBY issue, like wind-farms, only radioactive. Yucca Mountain was just foolish given the location, but that doesn't mean the basic idea isn't sound. At some point we have to tackle that issue... why not now?

 

[Shalashaska]

Why is there not an emergency Federal response?

That is, the military going-in and shutting those leaks down.
Submarines, special-ops SEAL teams, whatever...

Or are we going to have "engineer's" around a table discussing this for 2-weeks before any actual ACTION??

Both. Normally concrete would be poured, but in this case any SEALS we send in would end like a frat-boy's beer can (crushed). ROV's and subs are the only real option, and dropping a very large concrete dome or slab(s).

As for why the response is relatively slow, I don't know if it is, or isn't. I'm a bit confused myself on that front, but it's the Federal government: Official Motto: "It isn't a problem if we haven't thought of it!"

Ivan Seeking: That, is genuinely depressing. Hopefully the response to this will be in keeping with the magnitude of what COULD happen. I don't want to upset Cyrus, but working with a high pressure leak under 5000 feet of water is going to be hellishly difficult, especially given they've already identified 3 sources of leaks. Unlike the Valdez, this slick is also really tough to see until it coalesces on the surface, which may also help to answer why the response was slow: this wasn't expected.

I am not very hopeful here, given the engineering challenges that are easy to see, and all of those which may not be.

 

[mheslep]

The problem with nuclear waste is political, not practical. The technology exists to create a central dump for it, with dedicated rail if we made the choice. It's a NIMBY issue, like wind-farms, only radioactive. Yucca Mountain was just foolish given the location, but that doesn't mean the basic idea isn't sound. At some point we have to tackle that issue... why not now?

Fine, but nuclear power doesn't have any relevance to this oil thread, at least not today. Oil runs the transportation sector - planes, trains, and automobiles - and for the moment there's no alternative.

 

[pallidin]

Indeed, nuclear issues have nothing to do with this, specifically.
Back to the issue at hand...

 

[mgb_phys]

How does one remotely operate a shut off valve a mile down?

Generally underwater you use acoustics - sound goes a long way underwater.
The wellheads and ROVs are positioned relative to a network of fixed acoustic beacons on the seabed that give you underwater GPS like positioning, you can also send back (low bandwidth) serial data from the well head by acoustic signals in the water.

You even send control signals down to the directional drilling head and get data back by tapping an acoustic signal in the wall of the drill string, or even as pressure pulses in the circulating drill mud.

Blue-green lasers also work and a lot of more modern system, including some ROVs use ethernet over laser.

 

[Shalashaska]

Generally underwater you use acoustics - sound goes a long way underwater.
The wellheads and ROVs are positioned relative to a network of fixed acoustic beacons on the seabed that give you underwater GPS like positioning, you can also send back (low bandwidth) serial data from the well head by acoustic signals in the water.

You even send control signals down to the directional drilling head and get data back by tapping an acoustic signal in the wall of the drill string, or even as pressure pulses in the circulating drill mud.

Blue-green lasers also work and a lot of more modern system, including some ROVs use ethernet over laser.

Could the explosion have disrupted any signals sent, either by drowning out an acoustic signal or detritus blocking or diffracting the laser? The Ethernet cable would probably just snap in any situation this catastrophic.

To all: I get the hint regarding nuclear energy, I'll leave it be.