| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/04/2010 03:20:12 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by signal2noise:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
If the only lesson we learn form this sad state of affairs are applied to individuals and not systems, if we continue to believe that government is too large and only individual choice can be relied upon to follow procedure then we had better get better at cleaning up the messes, because be it blowups on Wall Street, or blowouts in the gulf, we are going to have more of them. |
Can't really address your point on government being too large, as I don't see how that pertains to the spill, but I believe that the magnitude, fallout, cost and ramifications of this spill will all but guarantee that it doesn't happen again and the additional oversight and regulation to follow will be applied to all exploration activity - onshore, offshore, shallow, deep and ultradeep... and probably not just in the US, but globally. When other E&P companies see the cost in fines & damages, lost production and lost leasing opportunities, etc. beyond the increase in standard operational costs, we'll see a focus on personnel safety and equipment reliability and environmental impact increase exponentially. To an extent, that would happen without additional regulation, but with it, virtually guaranteed. |
I still remember Valdez though. So all we will really guarantee is we won't have a spill in exactly this way again. We'll likely have another, but it will be due to something else unforseen or deemed unimportant or too onerous to regulate. |
That's my point, as long as you drill for oil you'll always have these incedents.
So we can
1. Stop drilling for oil - bad idea
2. limit the scope of the damage when this does happen for whatever reason - good idea.
I tells ya, Disaster Recovery Planning, that's the key.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2010 03:21:20 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by signal2noise:
but I believe that the magnitude, fallout, cost and ramifications of this spill will all but guarantee that it doesn't happen again |
You have more faith in long term learning than I do. Short cycle quarterly driven profits are the expectation in business.
Who would you think would have learned the most from the Exxon Valdeze? Exxon? They paid a lot of money to clean up Prince William Sound. The double hull law will be completely phased in (due to action by Congress) in 2015, making single hulls illegal for oil transport, but who do you suppose used the most single hull ships of any oil company?
"Even after 79 percent of the world's supertanker fleet has been replaced by vessels with two hulls, Exxon Mobil Corp. remains the biggest Western user of the older designs. It hired more of the tankers last year than the rest of the 10 biggest oil companies combined, according to data compiled by Bloomberg News.
Exxon, the world's largest oil company, keeps using tankers with one hull even after 151 countries decided two are better than one for preventing oil spills and pledged to ban single-hull vessels by 2015. The European Union called the single-hull design "more accident-prone" in 2003, when it started a prohibition that takes full effect next year. London-based BP PLC says it won't hire them because of the risk of leaking." Washington Times 2009
Ironic that BP is the good actor here, no? |
|
|
|
06/04/2010 03:29:42 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I still remember Valdez though. So all we will really guarantee is we won't have a spill in exactly this way again. We'll likely have another, but it will be due to something else unforseen or deemed unimportant or too onerous to regulate. |
That's my point, as long as you drill for oil you'll always have these incedents.
So we can
1. Stop drilling for oil - bad idea
2. limit the scope of the damage when this does happen for whatever reason - good idea.
I tells ya, Disaster Recovery Planning, that's the key. |
Yes, addressing and mitigating the unforseen remains... problematic at best. David's correct, a DR plan is absolutely essential for continued exploration and production.
Following EV, many martime regulations were enacted and some would say with very positive results... then a few months ago a tanker carrying thousands of tons of coal veers into the great barrier reef. Why? Lack of oversight or regulation? No. Captain/Crew asleep or absent from the wheel. Was there an adequte DR plan in place? No. |
|
|
|
06/04/2010 03:38:56 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by signal2noise:
but I believe that the magnitude, fallout, cost and ramifications of this spill will all but guarantee that it doesn't happen again |
You have more faith in long term learning than I do. Short cycle quarterly driven profits are the expectation in business.
Who would you think would have learned the most from the Exxon Valdeze? Exxon? They paid a lot of money to clean up Prince William Sound. The double hull law will be completely phased in (due to action by Congress) in 2015, making single hulls illegal for oil transport, but who do you suppose used the most single hull ships of any oil company?
"Even after 79 percent of the world's supertanker fleet has been replaced by vessels with two hulls, Exxon Mobil Corp. remains the biggest Western user of the older designs. It hired more of the tankers last year than the rest of the 10 biggest oil companies combined, according to data compiled by Bloomberg News.
Exxon, the world's largest oil company, keeps using tankers with one hull even after 151 countries decided two are better than one for preventing oil spills and pledged to ban single-hull vessels by 2015. The European Union called the single-hull design "more accident-prone" in 2003, when it started a prohibition that takes full effect next year. London-based BP PLC says it won't hire them because of the risk of leaking." Washington Times 2009
Ironic that BP is the good actor here, no? |
I don't argue that at all, but would question this - Was the single hull tanker the issue here or the captain that ran it aground? I need to see if the coal tanker that recently ran into the Great Barrier Reef was single or double hulled. If double, does that mean we need to go to a triple hull design to prevent this from happening again or a maritime law requiring someone of authority at the helm at all times. I would go for the maritime law.
Edited to add quote regarding Chinese tanker hitting GBR: Its double hull has been seriously breached, its fuel tanks continue to leak, it can't be allowed to "float off" in its present condition.
Message edited by author 2010-06-04 15:54:28. |
|
|
|
06/04/2010 04:13:14 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by signal2noise:
Was the single hull tanker the issue here or the captain that ran it aground? |
I would say it was the Captain who was asleep at the time and the 3rd mate who ran it aground who was to blame. But the double hull law lessens the chances of unfortunate behavior resulting in major spills without creating an undue burden, as triple or quadruple hulls would be. To go back to your seatbelt analogy, we don't really need seatbelts if the assumption is that responsible drivers don't get into wrecks. But the fact is that human error has always happened and always will.
We need laws to force onto the market changes that are costly, and unwanted by industry (like seatbelt) that will lessen the effects of those inevitable human failures; And we need policing to ferret out bad actors before they cause wrecks: And we need a system to deal with what happens when both of the previous systems fail.
On the highway, we need well informed drivers, safe cars designed to cushion drivers in an impact, police to encourage observation of existing traffic laws, and emergency response vehicles to deal with what happens when all the other systems fail. An either or solution won't work here, or there.
P.S. I am glad to hear on this thread that the two guys who are in the industry sound so smart and capable,
Message edited by author 2010-06-04 17:01:40. |
|
|
|
06/04/2010 11:23:28 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by signal2noise:
Was the single hull tanker the issue here or the captain that ran it aground? |
I would say it was the Captain who was asleep at the time and the 3rd mate who ran it aground who was to blame. But the double hull law lessens the chances of unfortunate behavior resulting in major spills without creating an undue burden, as triple or quadruple hulls would be. To go back to your seatbelt analogy, we don't really need seatbelts if the assumption is that responsible drivers don't get into wrecks. But the fact is that human error has always happened and always will.
We need laws to force onto the market changes that are costly, and unwanted by industry (like seatbelt) that will lessen the effects of those inevitable human failures; And we need policing to ferret out bad actors before they cause wrecks: And we need a system to deal with what happens when both of the previous systems fail.
On the highway, we need well informed drivers, safe cars designed to cushion drivers in an impact, police to encourage observation of existing traffic laws, and emergency response vehicles to deal with what happens when all the other systems fail. An either or solution won't work here, or there.
P.S. I am glad to hear on this thread that the two guys who are in the industry sound so smart and capable, |
Don't think we disagree there... and thanks. |
|
|
|
06/04/2010 11:46:02 PM · #82 |
One positive thing about this disaster is that they are working out how to deal with a wild well a mile below sea level, which is something that has never been tried before at that depth.
The learning curve is on this well now, and maybe if they have another even bigger one someday, they will have some equipment prepared, and a better grip on how to deploy it more effectively and much sooner.
The same goes for the monitoring and cleanup process.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2010 12:38:04 AM · #83 |
Originally posted by BeefnCheez:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by jbsmithana:
Very distressing. |
Very Very Sad!!! Makes me want to go beat some BP ass! |
makes me want to go help the bird from drowning in a shallow grave it can't fly out of rather than take pictures and video... |
If you read a bit below the video, it states that the birds were taken to a rescue and survived, and then re-released again. |
|
|
|
06/05/2010 12:48:10 AM · #84 |
Originally posted by njsabs:
If you read a bit below the video, it states that the birds were taken to a rescue and survived, and then re-released again. |
BP has set up a hotline that you can call into and report distressed birds. One reporter I listened to today did, and he watched as two of the three birds he called on were recovered for cleaning and shipment to Florida. BP may not be doing enough, but I was surprised to hear that the recovery line was anything more than a sham. Cynical me. |
|
|
|
06/05/2010 01:09:53 AM · #85 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
BP may not be doing enough, but I was surprised to hear that the recovery line was anything more than a sham. Cynical me. |
They are on the record having made some pretty definitive statements about their responsibilities and intentions towards the clean-up; they haven't left themselves very much wiggle-room. |
|
|
|
06/05/2010 01:45:07 AM · #86 |
Originally posted by MelonMusketeer:
One positive thing about this disaster is that they are working out how to deal with a wild well a mile below sea level, which is something that has never been tried before at that depth.
The learning curve is on this well now, and maybe if they have another even bigger one someday, they will have some equipment prepared, and a better grip on how to deploy it more effectively and much sooner.
The same goes for the monitoring and cleanup process. |
The totally irresponsible and unethical part of this whole mess is that no one had worked out what to do before this happened yet they still went ahead with it. For this, I blame BP, Transocean, Halliburton and the MMS. They should all be tarred and feathered...like the wildlife in the gulf.
No matter, BP et al will buy some congressman, hire the best PR firms and in a few years be back to business as usual; fucking us all at the pump. |
|
|
|
06/05/2010 02:11:43 AM · #87 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by MelonMusketeer:
One positive thing about this disaster is that they are working out how to deal with a wild well a mile below sea level, which is something that has never been tried before at that depth.
The learning curve is on this well now, and maybe if they have another even bigger one someday, they will have some equipment prepared, and a better grip on how to deploy it more effectively and much sooner.
The same goes for the monitoring and cleanup process. |
The totally irresponsible and unethical part of this whole mess is that no one had worked out what to do before this happened yet they still went ahead with it. For this, I blame BP, Transocean, Halliburton and the MMS. They should all be tarred and feathered...like the wildlife in the gulf.
No matter, BP et al will buy some congressman, hire the best PR firms and in a few years be back to business as usual; fucking us all at the pump. |
Interesting thing is that this has happened in the past to Transocean.....same diaster in 1979, in the Gulf, same issues with the containment. The Deepwater Horizon oil spill and the Ixtoc oil spill, also in the Gulf of Mexico, that occurred in 1979, have striking similarities. Not only was that rig owned by the company that is now TransOcean, but the cause of the leak was the same as at Deepwater -- a failed blowout preventer. BP has been attempting the exact same means of containment and employing the same methods of cleanup that were used over 30 years ago with the Ixtoc leak.
They should have learned from their past mistakes
|
|
|
|
06/05/2010 08:29:57 AM · #88 |
| I caught the end of a statement made in a news show last night, it was either CBS national or local CBS New Orleans news. The person was commenting/saying or suggesting that every deep water oil well should also have a relief well drilled at the same time for use as a standby in case of a blowout like the present BP one. I don't know much about the oil drilling business but that sounded like a great idea to me. |
|
|
|
06/06/2010 12:42:33 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
1. Stop drilling for oil - bad idea |
Is it really a bad idea? My understanding is that U.S. oil reserves account for only about 2 to 4 percent of total world oil reserves, and deep-water reserves in the U.S. are only a fraction of that. So if we cease not all drilling but just deep-water drilling and extraction in the U.S., aside from the loss of jobs and the effect on the economies of one or two states, what would the negative consequences be for the U.S. and worldwide on the price of oil? My further understanding is that the effect of the loss of that oil from the world market would be extremely negligible, adding perhaps a few cents to the price of a gallon of gasoline...
Message edited by author 2010-06-06 12:43:12. |
|
|
|
06/06/2010 02:37:10 PM · #90 |
They should be drilling 3 to 4 relief wells instead of just two. If they miss with the first two, they will have to begin drilling relief wells again, possibly making it sometime next year before they get it shut down.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2010 03:35:01 PM · #91 |
| Stuff the pipe with Sarah Palin. |
|
|
|
06/06/2010 03:56:00 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by MelonMusketeer:
They should be drilling 3 to 4 relief wells instead of just two. If they miss with the first two, they will have to begin drilling relief wells again, possibly making it sometime next year before they get it shut down. |
"On those relief wells, listen to David Rensink, president-elect of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists and a veteran of oil industry offshore exploration: "If they get it on the first three or four shots, they'd be very lucky." That’s not exactly surprising given that the process has been “compared to hitting a target the size of a dinner plate with a drill more than two miles into the earth.” Rensink also suggests that the odds of a first-time success are about the same as winning the lottery. What, then, can be learned from the historical record? The last time such a well was drilled in the Timor Sea off Western Australia, it took five tries over 10 weeks to succeed (and in the process, the well’s rig went up in flames) -- and that was in only 250 feet of water."
Excerpted from Can Obama Seize the Energy Moment? |
|
|
|
06/06/2010 06:17:06 PM · #93 |
| The earth receives more energy from the sun in just one hour than the world uses in a whole year. |
|
|
|
06/06/2010 06:26:25 PM · #94 |
| Sickened overall by the whole situation. And there is far too much marine life to be rescued and saved, and it's for them that I feel the most sorry. |
|
|
|
06/07/2010 12:13:54 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by MelonMusketeer:
They should be drilling 3 to 4 relief wells instead of just two. If they miss with the first two, they will have to begin drilling relief wells again, possibly making it sometime next year before they get it shut down. |
No, if they miss, they simply back-track the bit and change the trajectory, they don't start from scratch. horizontal drilling techniques have come a long way and are GPS guided. If the first try doesn't work, it's just a few days before they try to intersect again. |
|
|
|
06/07/2010 08:22:16 PM · #96 |
Am I too conspiratorial if I am suspicious that gasoline prices started dropping as the headlines for the oil spill started really hitting the news? Historical gas prices chart Usually gas starts going up over Memorial Day weekend because "we're driving more" and "we are using summer blends". But this year it goes down. I think the oil companies have much more control over gas prices than we think and are even able to collude to a great extent to control the price. I think the way gas prices are operating now reinforces the idea. Big oil is getting so much bad press they thought at least they can lower the price so we don't also bitch about the usual "summer prices".
Someone want to set me straight? |
|
|
|
06/07/2010 08:39:44 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Am I too conspiratorial if I am suspicious that gasoline prices started dropping as the headlines for the oil spill started really hitting the news? Historical gas prices chart Usually gas starts going up over Memorial Day weekend because "we're driving more" and "we are using summer blends". But this year it goes down. I think the oil companies have much more control over gas prices than we think and are even able to collude to a great extent to control the price. I think the way gas prices are operating now reinforces the idea. Big oil is getting so much bad press they thought at least they can lower the price so we don't also bitch about the usual "summer prices".
Someone want to set me straight? |
I agree with you on this one! LOL! I've been saying it for years. I think when it hit a certain price point too many people went out of their way to avoid having to buy gas. People are buying cars with better milage, riding bikes, subways, etc. I think the oil companies are using supply & demand to a certain point and they also figured out just how far they can go. They're already raking in millions per day in profit, why push it. |
|
|
|
06/07/2010 08:54:17 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Am I too conspiratorial if I am suspicious that gasoline prices started dropping as the headlines for the oil spill started really hitting the news? |
The timing wasn't that close (or related). Oil futures went up for a couple of weeks after the rig incident, then fell hard on European debt concerns. The market impact of a spill of even this magnitude is negligible compared to the prospect of another recession in Europe that may spread to other regions. The graph for oil futures since April looks a lot like the graph for the Dow. Gas prices and the Dow are both currently about where they were in mid-February. |
|
|
|
06/07/2010 09:49:53 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Am I too conspiratorial if I am suspicious that gasoline prices started dropping as the headlines for the oil spill started really hitting the news? |
The timing wasn't that close (or related). Oil futures went up for a couple of weeks after the rig incident, then fell hard on European debt concerns. The market impact of a spill of even this magnitude is negligible compared to the prospect of another recession in Europe that may spread to other regions. The graph for oil futures since April looks a lot like the graph for the Dow. Gas prices and the Dow are both currently about where they were in mid-February. |
Well, let's make sure we're talking about the same thing. I'm talking gasoline prices, not oil. And it's a good point that oil has dropped in price on European concerns, but we do traditionally see a Memorial Day summer rise in gasoline prices which has not materialized yet. |
|
|
|
06/07/2010 10:36:51 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by signal2noise:
Originally posted by MelonMusketeer:
They should be drilling 3 to 4 relief wells instead of just two. If they miss with the first two, they will have to begin drilling relief wells again, possibly making it sometime next year before they get it shut down. |
No, if they miss, they simply back-track the bit and change the trajectory, they don't start from scratch. horizontal drilling techniques have come a long way and are GPS guided. If the first try doesn't work, it's just a few days before they try to intersect again. |
If it's GPS guided, why would it miss at all? |
|
