PDA

View Full Version : BP Gives Up Efforts to Cap Well


Davian93
06-01-2010, 07:08 PM
How pathetic is that?

How about we stop all off-shore drilling until we can actually fix a disaster like this in a timely fashion?

Link (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=akSN5OpOOiLg&pos=8)

Efforts to End Oil Flow From BP Well Are Over, Coast Guard Says

By Jim Polson

June 1 (Bloomberg) -- BP Plc has decided not to attach a second blowout preventer on its leaking well in the Gulf of Mexico and efforts to end the flow are over until the relief wells are finished, according to the U.S. Coast Guard’s Thad Allen, who spoke at a press conference today.

bowlwoman
06-01-2010, 07:14 PM
How long until the relief wells are finished?

This whole thing is a clusterfuck of epic proportions.

Uno
06-01-2010, 07:16 PM
BP DENIES RUMORS THAT IT'S ABORTING LATEST ATTEMPT TO PLUG LEAK

UPDATE II: BP spokesperson John Curry denied reports of any problems with the Lower Marine Rise Package, which begins drilling today.

Reports that BP had canceled all rescue plans were based on a headline from Bloomberg: Efforts to End Oil Flow From BP's Leaking Well Are Over, Coast Guard Says. While BP is ending efforts to halt the flow, it will continuing efforts to capture the flow.



http://www.businessinsider.com/disaster-bp-already-aborts-plan-to-attach-second-blowout-preventer-2010-6

Davian93
06-01-2010, 07:20 PM
BP DENIES RUMORS THAT IT'S ABORTING LATEST ATTEMPT TO PLUG LEAK

UPDATE II: BP spokesperson John Curry denied reports of any problems with the Lower Marine Rise Package, which begins drilling today.

Reports that BP had canceled all rescue plans were based on a headline from Bloomberg: Efforts to End Oil Flow From BP's Leaking Well Are Over, Coast Guard Says. While BP is ending efforts to halt the flow, it will continuing efforts to capture the flow.



http://www.businessinsider.com/disaster-bp-already-aborts-plan-to-attach-second-blowout-preventer-2010-6

Good to hear...thanks for the link, Uno!

EDIT: I should have known better than to trust a Bloomburg link.

Ivhon
06-01-2010, 09:45 PM
Point still stands. Got no business engaging in a potentially massively destructive process if you have NO contingencies for worst-case scenarios. This and the continuing numbers of mining "accidents" are the end results of de-regulation gone too far.

"Drill baby drill" sounds a bit stupid right now.

Sinistrum
06-01-2010, 09:57 PM
Sure, lets just give up on all domestic energy and continue buying oil from the Islamic faci...er Arabs or wait around until some hippy who watched Captain Planet one too many times as a kid comes up with an alternative energy source that runs on sticks and mud or cow farts.

Take what you want and pay for it. Events like this are the price for having high technology and not funding terrorism and radical theocracy with our energy consumption.

Neilbert
06-01-2010, 10:22 PM
Take what you want and make some other miserable sap pay for it. Events like this are the price for having high technology and not funding terrorism and radical theocracy with our energy consumption.

Fixed it for ya.

Yeah, completely ignore BP's history of negligence here. It's just "the price of business" amirite?

Kimon
06-01-2010, 10:29 PM
Sure, lets just give up on all domestic energy and continue buying oil from the Islamic faci...er Arabs or wait around until some hippy who watched Captain Planet one too many times as a kid comes up with an alternative energy source that runs on sticks and mud or cow farts.

Take what you want and pay for it. Events like this are the price for having high technology and not funding terrorism and radical theocracy with our energy consumption.

Events like this are the price of a complete disregard for safety protocols. And while it should not call into question the practice of drilling in entirety, it should call into question the safety of drilling in such deep waters and in conditions of such lax regulations.

Sei'taer
06-01-2010, 10:31 PM
Funny thing is, I've capped tons of wells. I've capped wells in 100+ feet of water, I've capped old wells, new wells, wells in sand, wells in parks, wells in playgrounds, wells in subdivisions. I've capped water wells, oil wells, sludge pits, trash dumps, etc. It's a fairly easy process. If the wells weren't regulated to the areas where they have to go down 5000 feet to actually hit bottom and start drilling, then the well would have been capped already...probably a few hours after the initial explosion. I capped a 42" water well in a day that was blowing 40,000 gallons an hour.

It all boils down to the depth. The deeper you go, the harder it is. If they had been in an area where they could actually get humans down to it, then they would already have it fixed. Unfortunately, the pressure at 5000 feet is something like 2000psi. It's a wonder they've done as well as they have.

Red Adair capped a shitload of flaming wells in Kuwait in a matter of months. It can be done and it's not hard when you actually have access.

Sinistrum
06-01-2010, 10:37 PM
No one is ignoring BP's negligence in this specific instance. They can and should pay for what they've caused. However, negligence is an unavoidable part of the human condition. Its bound to happen in any human system no matter how many fail safes you put in. Given that, all this "lets give up on all offshore drilling until we can get it perfectly safe" talk is nothing more than shortsighted, hamfisted rhetoric that does nothing to acknowledge the imperfect reality of our energy needs or the imperfect processes that meet them.

GonzoTheGreat
06-02-2010, 02:27 AM
No one is ignoring BP's negligence in this specific instance. They can and should pay for what they've caused.No, they can and should pay for what they are legally obliged to pay: $75 million. Demanding anything more would be theft.
Do you think that you can justify enslaving BP?

If you don't like the legal limits which the US government set, then do something about it: never ever again vote for a politician who is getting corporate money.
Changing the laws after the fact and then holding BP liable under those new laws for what happened before those laws were even conceived is not fair. It would even have been illegal, if the US Constitution still meant anything.

Gilshalos Sedai
06-02-2010, 08:00 AM
No, they can and should pay for what they are legally obliged to pay: $75 million. Demanding anything more would be theft.
Do you think that you can justify enslaving BP?

If you don't like the legal limits which the US government set, then do something about it: never ever again vote for a politician who is getting corporate money.
Changing the laws after the fact and then holding BP liable under those new laws for what happened before those laws were even conceived is not fair. It would even have been illegal, if the US Constitution still meant anything.


Gonzo, are you agreeing with Sinistrum or not? But I may not count since I get paid by an evil oil company.


Sei'Taer: I agree with everything you just said.

Ishara
06-02-2010, 08:04 AM
Funny thing is, I've capped tons of wells. I've capped wells in 100+ feet of water, I've capped old wells, new wells, wells in sand, wells in parks, wells in playgrounds, wells in subdivisions. I've capped water wells, oil wells, sludge pits, trash dumps, etc. It's a fairly easy process. If the wells weren't regulated to the areas where they have to go down 5000 feet to actually hit bottom and start drilling, then the well would have been capped already...probably a few hours after the initial explosion. I capped a 42" water well in a day that was blowing 40,000 gallons an hour.

It all boils down to the depth. The deeper you go, the harder it is. If they had been in an area where they could actually get humans down to it, then they would already have it fixed. Unfortunately, the pressure at 5000 feet is something like 2000psi. It's a wonder they've done as well as they have.

Red Adair capped a shitload of flaming wells in Kuwait in a matter of months. It can be done and it's not hard when you actually have access.

This.

If you knew going in, that you weren't going to be able to get people in - then you shouldn't have drilled there. If you knew going in, that your typical safety and recovery scenarios were not going to address the problem effectively - then you shouldn't have drilled there. If you knew going in, the environment impact that a failure could have - then you shouldn't have drilled there.

Neilbert
06-02-2010, 08:48 AM
However, negligence is an unavoidable part of the human condition. Its bound to happen in any human system no matter how many fail safes you put in.

Which is exactly why the oil industry should be nationalized. It's vital to the economy, national defense, and the environment, and so should have as many fail safes put in as possible and absolutely shouldn't, under any possible circumstances, be under the control of people who's primary concern is profit.

BP is evil as hell. They've got people being paid $10ish an hour to clean up incredibly carcinogenic oil and dispersant chemicals and they are being given (if anything at all) some coveralls.

I gaurenfuckingtee you some insurance adjuster at BP has run a cost benefit analysis and found that if people in the gulf get cancer, and BP delays paying out like they inevitably do, BP will save a ton of money.

If you have any doubts of the above, have you seen the "three little pigs" memo?

Sei'taer
06-02-2010, 09:09 AM
This.

If you knew going in, that you weren't going to be able to get people in - then you shouldn't have drilled there. If you knew going in, that your typical safety and recovery scenarios were not going to address the problem effectively - then you shouldn't have drilled there. If you knew going in, the environment impact that a failure could have - then you shouldn't have drilled there.

Right, we should have drilled closer to shore. The problem is that the enviromentalists and the governments won't let us drill closer to shore. Now they are paying for the short-sightedness of that approach.

Which is exactly why the oil industry should be nationalized. It's vital to the economy, national defense, and the environment, and so should have as many fail safes put in as possible and absolutely shouldn't, under any possible circumstances, be under the control of people who's primary concern is profit.

Yep, the gov't is doing such a great job of taking care of it right now. I'm pretty impressed with the response, the permits and the help they've given to LA in building the sand breakers, the wide open go for it they have given to Costner's foundation to use the centrifuges to remove the oil and the go ahead to use the Saudi technology for removing oil from the water and still being able to use the oil...oh yeah, they haven't done any of that yet because it's all crammed up in a bureaucratic shithole of do nothingness or not-invented-here attitude. 42 or 43 days now...and we've got a clip of Obama saying "plug the damn hole!" Boy...that's way better than what BP is doing.

The problem isn't that BP doesn't know how to plug it. They know exactly how to do it. An old redneck like me knows how to do it. The problem is that they are regulated by our gov't to areas that make access to the pipe nearly impossible. If they were regulated differently and allowed to drill closer to the shore and in the shallower water, we wouldn't be in this mess. Instead they are pushed way out to sea and less focus is put on the way they are working. Out of sight, out of mind...that's why they push them way off shore.

BP screwed up. From what I can find talking to people I know who are in the business, the Company Man made an incredibly bad call when they started pulling up samples of mud and soil that had rubber material in it. Everyone knew it was the sealers around the pipe coming apart and they wanted to stop and make the repairs. The Company Man wouldn't let them. He made them keep drilling. This is why responsibility for the spill should and will fall directly on BP's shoulders. That's not to say the the regulations the gov't has in place shouldn't be looked at and the rig inspectors (who are gov't employees) that signed off on the drilling shouldn't be canned or fined or brought up to answer for why they signed off on a platform that was obviously pulling up seal material. Mistakes were made. Punish the people involved, clean the shit up and let's get back to work.

irerancincpkc
06-02-2010, 09:14 AM
Right, we should have drilled closer to shore. The problem is that the enviromentalists and the governments won't let us drill closer to shore. Now they are paying for the short-sightedness of that approach.


:mad: Yes, go ahead and toe that line Palin set up, blame it on the enviromentalists... yeah, okay... :rolleyes:

Neilbert
06-02-2010, 09:17 AM
Yep, the gov't is doing such a great job of taking care of it right now. I'm pretty impressed with the response, the permits and the help they've given to LA in building the sand breakers, the wide open go for it they have given to Costner's foundation to use the centrifuges to remove the oil and the go ahead to use the Saudi technology for removing oil from the water and still being able to use the oil...oh yeah, they haven't done any of that yet because it's all crammed up in a bureaucratic shithole of do nothingness or not-invented-here attitude.

Sorry, sometimes I like to live in a fantasy world where regulation hasn't been completely gutted by industry.

GonzoTheGreat
06-02-2010, 09:19 AM
Gonzo, are you agreeing with Sinistrum or not?Probably not, but I am often not much better at figuring out what his position is than he is with mine, so I am not entirely sure.

I think that the government was extraordinarily stupid and negligent to limit the liability of the oil companies. Yet, when that was done, that was the limit to which BP should have been held responsible. That is the consequence of following the democratic process: if you find out that you've botched it (as Congress did in this case) too late, then you are still the one responsible.
So BP should not pay more than the $75 million in damages they are required by law, and the members of Congress should explain to their voters why that is the case, and why this law was made.

Neilbert
06-02-2010, 09:21 AM
AFIK that cap only applies if BP wasn't negligent.

The problem isn't that BP doesn't know how to plug it. They know exactly how to do it. An old redneck like me knows how to do it. The problem is that they are regulated by our gov't to areas that make access to the pipe nearly impossible. If they were regulated differently and allowed to drill closer to the shore and in the shallower water, we wouldn't be in this mess. Instead they are pushed way out to sea and less focus is put on the way they are working. Out of sight, out of mind...that's why they push them way off shore.

I've always wondered about this. Is there any possible advantage (from an environmentalist standpoint) to drilling far from shore as opposed to near?

I mean, ignoring the disruption to ecology inherent in putting an oil rig up. I think in light of what has happened that can be viewed as negligible. It always struck me as a meaningless bone to environmentalists, drill far instead of drill not at all..

WinespringBrother
06-02-2010, 09:22 AM
Which is exactly why the oil industry should be nationalized. It's vital to the economy, national defense, and the environment, and so should have as many fail safes put in as possible and absolutely shouldn't, under any possible circumstances, be under the control of people who's primary concern is profit.

BP is evil as hell. They've got people being paid $10ish an hour to clean up incredibly carcinogenic oil and dispersant chemicals and they are being given (if anything at all) some coveralls.

I gaurenfuckingtee you some insurance adjuster at BP has run a cost benefit analysis and found that if people in the gulf get cancer, and BP delays paying out like they inevitably do, BP will save a ton of money.

If you have any doubts of the above, have you seen the "three little pigs" memo?

For suggesting that the Oil industry be made into a non-profit, I hereby award you the Wishful Thinking Award of the Year ;)

Sei'taer
06-02-2010, 09:31 AM
:mad: Yes, go ahead and toe that line Palin set up, blame it on the enviromentalists... yeah, okay... :rolleyes:

That's not a palin line, that's a Sei'taer line. If you think this would have been anywhere near the catastrophe it is turning out to be if they had been in an area where they could have gone down and fixed the leak in a matter of a couple of days, then you are living a dream. 2 or 3 days at the current levels of out-flow and then a fix Vs. 43 days of not being able to do anything. Now we are going to oil up the entire gulf coast and there's not a heck of a lot we can do about it. I could have plugged it under pressure in 4 days max up to 200 feet down. It all boils down to access. Shallower water gives better access....it's just a fact of life.

When people are dreaming up these ideas, they often don't think of what they will do if an accident happens. It's a natural "it'll never happen here" attitude. I've done enough work in these areas and been an inspector long enough to know that you have to plan for the "what if..." scenario. Engineers are usually black and white thinkers. They don't like gray areas. That's why they have inspectors. We live in the gray areas, we dream up the what if scenarios and when we do our jobs right, we save a lot of peoples butts. Looks like the inspectors on this rig screwed up just as bad as the BP guys did.

GonzoTheGreat
06-02-2010, 09:31 AM
I've always wondered about this. Is there any possible advantage (from an environmentalist standpoint) to drilling far from shore as opposed to near?A maxim which I found in a science fiction book might be useful here: "shit flows downwards".
In this case, things tend to flow from the shore out into the deeper parts. So what happens close to shore also effects everything further out. But what happens far in the deep sea has far less impact on the shore areas. (Generally, at least.)
So making a disruption (oil rig) close to shore will also disturb the parts where they are now actually drilling, which are much further out.

Of course, that's when all goes well. If not, panic!

Sei'taer
06-02-2010, 09:36 AM
I've always wondered about this. Is there any possible advantage (from an environmentalist standpoint) to drilling far from shore as opposed to near?

I mean, ignoring the disruption to ecology inherent in putting an oil rig up. I think in light of what has happened that can be viewed as negligible. It always struck me as a meaningless bone to environmentalists, drill far instead of drill not at all..

There's no advantage and there's a ton of disadvantages, as we can see now. It costs a lot more, the rigs have to be bigger, the support is more expensive because of travel distances, the time is greater to drill and to answer an emergency and it's harder to fix if you have a failure. The only advantage that I can see is the one I stated earlier...out of sight, out of mind.

Sei'taer
06-02-2010, 09:40 AM
A maxim which I found in a science fiction book might be useful here: "shit flows downwards".
In this case, things tend to flow from the shore out into the deeper parts. So what happens close to shore also effects everything further out. But what happens far in the deep sea has far less impact on the shore areas. (Generally, at least.)
So making a disruption (oil rig) close to shore will also disturb the parts where they are now actually drilling, which are much further out.

Of course, that's when all goes well. If not, panic!

But, you are not thinking in terms of timely repairs. Closer to shore things could have been fixed a lot faster and we wouldn't have had much of a spill to begin with. We could have brought in clean up rigs and people and been done and out of there already.


ETA: shit rolls downhill, is what you were meaning.

GonzoTheGreat
06-02-2010, 10:02 AM
But, you are not thinking in terms of timely repairs.Yes, I was. Specially for that eventuality I had included the "panic" option.

ETA: shit rolls downhill, is what you were meaning.Probably, though I am not sure how it was formulated in the book. The one that thought it there was specifically thinking about sewer management, where things should flow. If everything goes all right. If not, panic is a good first approach to the resulting problem.

Basel Gill
06-02-2010, 10:20 AM
Anyone who has a problem with oil companies needs to start by walking to work or ride a bike instead of driving, getting an old fashioned manual reel mower instead of a gas powered one, grow your own food in your backyard so you don't have to support an industry that ships food to you via gas powered trucks and ships and actively avoid spending money with a company that has any vehicles that utilize petroleum products...oh wait, that's unreasonable isn't it?

Dangerous jobs mean possible catastophes folks. While there is certainly blame to go around and certainly need for reasonable regulations, the only reason anyone drills is because WE are addicted to oil (and by WE I do NOT mean Americans, I mean the world). Remove the demand if you believe in it that much otherwise, we might need to let the folks who have the best chance of cleaning it up have a chance without political pressure before we start sending out the lawyers.

The gulf needs answers on mulitudes of proposed ideas and cannot get them, but what do they get? Eric Holder? How governmental...sigh.

nameless
06-02-2010, 10:23 AM
Sure, lets just give up on all domestic energy and continue buying oil from the Islamic faci...er Arabs or wait around until some hippy who watched Captain Planet one too many times as a kid comes up with an alternative energy source that runs on sticks and mud or cow farts.



We already have one of those. They take a bunch of cow crap, stick in it an airtight silo, and siphon the methane off the top. In the town where I grew up a good half the busses ran on gas instead of gasoline.

Crispin's Crispian
06-02-2010, 10:36 AM
There's no advantage and there's a ton of disadvantages, as we can see now. It costs a lot more, the rigs have to be bigger, the support is more expensive because of travel distances, the time is greater to drill and to answer an emergency and it's harder to fix if you have a failure. The only advantage that I can see is the one I stated earlier...out of sight, out of mind.
So they don't just put up platforms where there is (relatively) accessible oil? There's oil all over the place, but not that many places where you can easily get it out of the ground. That's why there's so much invested in lateral drilling and remote technology that let's you tap oil sources from miles and miles away.

But you're saying the only reason they are so far out and in such deep water is because of NIMBY?

Crispin's Crispian
06-02-2010, 10:37 AM
Anyone who has a problem with oil companies needs to start by walking to work or ride a bike instead of driving, getting an old fashioned manual reel mower instead of a gas powered one, grow your own food in your backyard so you don't have to support an industry that ships food to you via gas powered trucks and ships and actively avoid spending money with a company that has any vehicles that utilize petroleum products...oh wait, that's unreasonable isn't it?
Yes yes...no one can be upset or angry with BP or the government because we all drive cars. We get it.

Basel Gill
06-02-2010, 11:12 AM
You can be as angry as you want to be, doesn't bother me or anyone else, but the fact is people need to put up or shut up as far as these things go.

Can't tell you how many Hummers and Suburbans I see with Obama stickers and environmentalist stickers. Seriously?

JSUCamel
06-02-2010, 11:22 AM
Can't tell you how many Hummers and Suburbans I see with Obama stickers and environmentalist stickers. Seriously?

Can't tell you how many Hummers and Suburbans I see with Palin 2012 and "I Love my Carbon Footprint" stickers. Seriously?

Sei'taer
06-02-2010, 11:24 AM
So they don't just put up platforms where there is (relatively) accessible oil? There's oil all over the place, but not that many places where you can easily get it out of the ground. That's why there's so much invested in lateral drilling and remote technology that let's you tap oil sources from miles and miles away.


No they don't. Regulations won't allow them to do that. That's the basic reason. Rigs that aer way offshore are harder to operate. You have to have more equipment, more manpower, bigger generators, etc.

Lateral drilling has the potential to be great, but it has the same problem. Look at it this way. When you are a self sustaining, then you have to bring all of the equipment with you and have a place to store it. It doesn't matter if you go straight down one mile or sideways one mile...it's still a mile. Which means you have to have that many *100' sections of drill, 100' sections of piping etc all stored on the rig.


But you're saying the only reason they are so far out and in such deep water is because of NIMBY?

Not NIMBY necessarily, but the gov't version of the same thing. They can push the rigs way offshore and the enviromentalists/regular citizens can't drive down the roads and see them or take a day trip in a ski boat and check them out. The hope is that they will focus on things closer to home. It doesn't work, obviously, because technology has gotten so good that you can look at them on google earth and such, but it makes the gov't all feely goody.


*all drill companies use different types of drills and piping so this is just a guess at what lengths they were using, given the depth they had to go.

Basel Gill
06-02-2010, 11:33 AM
Can't tell you how many Hummers and Suburbans I see with Palin 2012 and "I Love my Carbon Footprint" stickers. Seriously?

I agree. However, while your example illustrates plain stupidity, mine illustrates rampant hypocrisy.

Ivhon
06-02-2010, 11:45 AM
I agree. However, while your example illustrates plain stupidity, mine illustrates rampant hypocrisy.

Remember....stupidity and hypocrisy are rampant on both sides. We are talking about tens of millions of opinions - most of them massively uninformed. So while it is easy to point out the hypocritical bumper stickers, you also have to recognize that there are tons and tons of people driving fuel-efficient or even non-gas cars, using solar power to power their homes, etc. While at the same time recognizing that there is tons of hypocrisy on the right, as well (maybe less on this issue...but by God don't take away my Medicare, you Socialist!).

Generalizing the inevitable hypocritical opinions on any side of a debate to invalidate the other side does nothing to resolve it. Think systemically (I need to make a bumper sticker).

And yes, I am fully cognizant of my own hypocrisy in that I frequently do just what I said not to. We all have it.

Yellowbeard
06-02-2010, 12:28 PM
i used to work for an engineering company that had contracts to provide operational, manpower, and logistical support for oil drilling operations out in the gulf. offshore drilling is really quite an effort.

i've also seen reports that the gear they were using as safety fail safes, etc. was missing parts, or parts weren't totally functional, and were being used anyway. there had to have been an inspector that signed off on it as well. i've always found when an inspector is letting things go that he really shouldn't, it's because there's some sort of deal going on.

my biggest thought about this whole mess is that it was 100% preventable if the people in charge both for BP and all the other private companies involved and also the government inspectors who had to have been present had all made smarter, more responsible decisions.

we can enact tighter regulations, but the cause of this disaster was blatant stupidity by all involved. and you can't fix stupid. everyone involved w/ making the decisions that led to this situation should never work in offshore drilling again.

Sei'taer
06-02-2010, 01:05 PM
YB knows what I'm talking then. He's probably dealt with the company man before.

Here's the scenario that I figure played out. The deck boss (rig boss, hdic, whatever) would see a problem and tell the drill crew to stop. He would then go to the mud engineer, who is basically a geologist/geotech that analyzes samples brought up from the sea floor, and ask what was coming up in the samples. The ME would give him the bad news about rubber seal particles in the mud samples and the deck boss would shut down drilling so they could check the seals and fix the problem. Now, even though the deck boss is in charge, if the company man comes out and tells the drill crew to keep going, they keep going. He overrules everyone on the rig, even though he is technically not in charge. If the deck boss is smart, he goes to the inspector (who he hopes has a sack on him or it's useless to go to him) on the sly and tells him about the problem. The inspector refuses to accept what's going on and without his sign-off, nothinv continues until more engineers and other experts are brought in and the situation is dealt with. Where you run into a problem is when you have an inspector that is chummy with the company man or just flat out doesn't have the balls to say no.

I'm a really nice guy outside of work. At work, I can be a dick of epic proportions if you are doing something that is potentially hazardous or not up to code. I'm not signing anything that doesn't meet. I've been on 4 rigs in my life and I've had one company man that was horrible to work with...I just had to be the bigger asshole of the two of us. I learned very early on that you can't be chummy and make friends in construction. It just doesn't work.

Yellowbeard
06-02-2010, 02:07 PM
i've seen the resident engineer order construction workers out of the trench, with the trench box and bracing in imminent failure (you could see the bracing bending and buckling), and a superintendent come out and give us hell, and while the arguing was going on, the trench collapses. it was 18 feet deep. if men had been down there, they'd have been dead.

and the super still kept arguing even after the collapse, and resulting undermining of an adjacent 10 MG water storage tank that resulted in burst weld seems all over the thing.

things like what happened on the deepwater horizon only happen when there is money involved. either the company man was trying to push his profit margins too high, or an inspector was paid off, or some combination of both. but money is what was behind it.

I'm a really nice guy outside of work. At work, I can be a dick of epic proportions if you are doing something that is potentially hazardous or not up to code. I'm not signing anything that doesn't meet. I've been on 4 rigs in my life and I've had one company man that was horrible to work with...I just had to be the bigger asshole of the two of us. I learned very early on that you can't be chummy and make friends in construction. It just doesn't work.

yeah, it's not worth a man's life to let some things slide on a project site, be it a well, a drill rig, or any other work site. those guys we made get out of the trench were mighty glad we did, despite their bosses' bluster and greed.

Basel Gill
06-02-2010, 02:33 PM
Remember....stupidity and hypocrisy are rampant on both sides. We are talking about tens of millions of opinions - most of them massively uninformed. So while it is easy to point out the hypocritical bumper stickers, you also have to recognize that there are tons and tons of people driving fuel-efficient or even non-gas cars, using solar power to power their homes, etc. While at the same time recognizing that there is tons of hypocrisy on the right, as well (maybe less on this issue...but by God don't take away my Medicare, you Socialist!).

Generalizing the inevitable hypocritical opinions on any side of a debate to invalidate the other side does nothing to resolve it. Think systemically (I need to make a bumper sticker).

And yes, I am fully cognizant of my own hypocrisy in that I frequently do just what I said not to. We all have it.

I agree. It just really drives me nuts for people to go on about evil oil companies. DOn't get me wrong, where there is money to be made, some asshole is going to figure out ways to cut corners and maximize his take, I get that. However we have the choice as consumers to pick efficient cars, choose not to drive everywhere if we don't have to, avoid spending money woth companies who don't try to be efficient, etc. The only real power the little guy has is as a group when we decide where to spend our dollars. That is the only thing that will get attention in the way it needs to be gotten.

And make no mistake, there is plenty of hypocrisy on the right. There are plenty of other sources for alternative fuel that could be exploited that are held up. I'm obvioisly no hippie and I do not feel that it is a panacea, but I would like to see the market for hemp opened up for consumer goods. Sounds perfectly Republican to me to open up a market. Anyway...

Ivhon
06-02-2010, 02:45 PM
I agree. It just really drives me nuts for people to go on about evil oil companies. DOn't get me wrong, where there is money to be made, some asshole is going to figure out ways to cut corners and maximize his take, I get that. However we have the choice as consumers to pick efficient cars, choose not to drive everywhere if we don't have to, avoid spending money woth companies who don't try to be efficient, etc. The only real power the little guy has is as a group when we decide where to spend our dollars. That is the only thing that will get attention in the way it needs to be gotten.

And make no mistake, there is plenty of hypocrisy on the right. There are plenty of other sources for alternative fuel that could be exploited that are held up. I'm obvioisly no hippie and I do not feel that it is a panacea, but I would like to see the market for hemp opened up for consumer goods. Sounds perfectly Republican to me to open up a market. Anyway...

You goldurn hippie pot-head!!! Bet you believe in teachin' kids about sex, too, dontcha, perv...

Davian93
06-02-2010, 02:45 PM
To clarify: I'm not saying don't ever drill...I'm saying dont drill in an area where you cant fix something like this. Its BS to do it and everyone knows it.

Sinistrum
06-02-2010, 02:56 PM
To clarify: I'm not saying don't ever drill...I'm saying dont drill in an area where you cant fix something like this. Its BS to do it and everyone knows it.

As Sei pointed out, thanks to environmental regulations, areas like the one currently leaking oil are the only places companies can drill. So saying "don't drill there" without asking for a change in the law at the same is de facto saying "don't drill at all."

Davian93
06-02-2010, 03:03 PM
As Sei pointed out, thanks to environmental regulations, areas like the one currently leaking oil are the only places companies can drill. So saying "don't drill there" without asking for a change in the law at the same is de facto saying "don't drill at all."

Sini, I agree with 'Taer here. The NIMBY crap goes way too far.

A perfect example of NIMBY run amok is going on here in VT. We have a nuclear plant that supplies 1/3 of all VT's power right now. Their operating license expires in 2012 and it won't be renewed as the anti-nuclear crowd up here is very strong. VT will buy power from Hydro Quebec and coal plants in NY (hey, its messy and bad for the environment but its not in sight) rather than renew the license for VT Yankee Nuclear. Even better, a couple of HUGE windfarms have been proposed in VT as we have a great profile for wind power. The same anti-nuke people are against the windfarms because they are "too loud" and they "might hurt the birds" and of course the real reason is that they are an eyesore to them. So, we cant have cheap nuclear power, we can't have wind power from VT but we can buy expensive hydro power from Canada and power from NY. Its expected that VT's energy costs (already among the highest in the country will increase 200-300% when the nuclear plant goes off line. Its total BS but the damn hippies dont give a sh!t...as long as its not in their backyard.

Ivhon
06-02-2010, 03:07 PM
As Sei pointed out, thanks to environmental regulations, areas like the one currently leaking oil are the only places companies can drill. So saying "don't drill there" without asking for a change in the law at the same is de facto saying "don't drill at all."

How bout we keep drilling there but make sure that the regulatory agency in charge of overseeing safety standards isn't being bought off with drugs sex and alcohol? I mean, the one thing that we all agree on here is that "the man" knowingly pushed for more drilling despite faulty failsafes, rubber in the mud samples, etc.

I know that any and all regulation is a bad thing (TM), but how many times do we have to go through the same cycle in finance/energy/housing/______ before we recognize that left to their own devices companies will always screw over the people in a way that cannot be excused by profit margins.

Basel Gill
06-02-2010, 03:33 PM
How bout we keep drilling there but make sure that the regulatory agency in charge of overseeing safety standards isn't being bought off with drugs sex and alcohol? I mean, the one thing that we all agree on here is that "the man" knowingly pushed for more drilling despite faulty failsafes, rubber in the mud samples, etc.

I know that any and all regulation is a bad thing (TM), but how many times do we have to go through the same cycle in finance/energy/housing/______ before we recognize that left to their own devices companies will always screw over the people in a way that cannot be excused by profit margins.

If I HAVE to give Obama props for one things it would be separating the powers of oversight and granting permits with the Mineral Mgt. Of course its too late now, but that seems to be a good step.

And to the other Ivhon, no I wouldn't teach sex, just let 'em learn from good old American porno like I did. :D

Sei'taer
06-02-2010, 03:36 PM
How bout we keep drilling there but make sure that the regulatory agency in charge of overseeing safety standards isn't being bought off with drugs sex and alcohol?

The thing is, a lot of inspectors don't even have to be bought off. I've seen inspectors let things go because their "buddy" is the one doing the work. AS far as I'm concerned, "buddy" doesn't even come into it. It's the same thing as not hanging out with your management team...it's not because they're too good for you, it's because they can't hang out with you and be your BFF and then turn around and fire you the next day, or they can't be your BFF and give you a promotion without the inevitable character assassination starting up.

There's an easy fix to it, but most people would think I was insane if I proposed it.


I know that any and all regulation is a bad thing (TM), but how many times do we have to go through the same cycle in finance/energy/housing/______ before we recognize that left to their own devices companies will always screw over the people in a way that cannot be excused by profit margins.

Common sense regulation is fine, imo. Stupid, throw something at it because people think it'll help regulation is just that. It causes problems like we had on this rig.

Davian93
06-02-2010, 04:32 PM
Clearly we need new regulators for the regulators themselves. I propose a new Gov't Agency/Cabinet level Dept for this.

Sei'taer
06-02-2010, 05:20 PM
Clearly we need new regulators for the regulators themselves. I propose a new Gov't Agency/Cabinet level Dept for this.

You just passed the test for political office, but failed the test for being a productive member of society.

irerancincpkc
06-02-2010, 09:12 PM
As Sei pointed out, thanks to environmental regulations, areas like the one currently leaking oil are the only places companies can drill. So saying "don't drill there" without asking for a change in the law at the same is de facto saying "don't drill at all."

Sounds like a plan.

Sei'taer
06-02-2010, 10:26 PM
Sounds like a plan.

See, I don't understand that. What do we do if we don't have oil? And I don't mean, "someday we can gobbledy gook..." it's a given that we will find a different fuel source one of these days. I mean later on this afternoon, what do we do?

How do we make plastic for the computer? Cell phone? Asphalt? Tires? Your vast huge tubs of petroleum jelly? How do we transport goods from one place to another?

This isn't about being an environmental guru, this about making it until something better comes along, if it ever does. Even if we turned every single car in the world electric and made all the electricity off of solar power and wind power, we'd still need plastic, and foam rubber and all that kind of stuff. It doesn't matter what we do and what we invent or find or figure out, there will be some percentage of our societal needs that will use oil in some form...always. Poopooing oil is just wrongheaded. For me, at this moment, oil is a means to an end, that end being a good option to get away from the crutch we have. Right now, we have no other viable, cost effective choices. Sometime, we'll have choices, but it's not going to be this afternoon.

Bryan Blaire
06-02-2010, 10:54 PM
'taer, I'm shocked that you don't realize that Al Gore doesn't need the Interwebs!? He'd be happy with being an obscure nobody wearing wool, hand-spun and darned clothing, working a field just large enough to plant crops for his family every day of the year with only one or two holidays, and maybe having enough to have a wooden wheeled cart to ride to town in on a dirt road (since cobbles pull too much stone from the earth) in about thirty years of saving, if he can even save.

Has anyone ever tried giving up exactly what you'd have to to STOP needing oil? I doubt it, but you definitely wouldn't need the health care reform at that point, because you wouldn't be seeing a doctor then...

Sinistrum
06-02-2010, 11:34 PM
Sounds like a plan.

Well Ire, if you hate fossil fuels that much, then you need to stop posting. That computer you are using to do it was manufactured with plastics made from oil using a power source for the machines that made it using fossil fuels and your very use requires electricity that is once again generated by fossil fuels. I'm sure you are enjoying air conditioning right now in the hot summer. Its powered by fossil fuels so you should turn it off. But you and I know you're not going to do that or eliminate any of the other things in your life that oil production provides for you. You'll continue to use them and enjoy their benefits without giving a second thought to it. And you'll do so all while bitching hamfistedly about how we should stop drilling without ever acknowleding that its drilling and activities like it that make your life so comfortable.

Your attitude is doing nothing but taking all of the things you are lucky enough to have due to our species technological advancement for granted. Take what you want and pay for it is the way of the world. Its obvious by your ill informed opinion on the subject that you are unwilling to pay either the price for high technology or the price for eco-extremist attitudes like you just expressed. You want your cake and to eat it too and reality just doesn't work that way.

irerancincpkc
06-03-2010, 07:12 AM
I'm sure you are enjoying air conditioning right now in the hot summer. Its powered by fossil fuels so you should turn it off.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't have AC... can't afford it... ;) And I have never driven, so I suppose that takes out another option...

Look Sini, am I a hypocrite? More than likely. But I do think it's rather silly of you to point out every little thing that oil is involved in. That's like the people that count the miles Al Gore travels, I mean, come on... I just know I try and live my life as best I know how, in the way that's best for this earth. Am I perfect? Hell freaking no, but I don't believe I've ever claimed to be. :D

And just for the record, I do believe that if we stopped all oil drilling, the automobile companies would come up with an alternative fuel source so quick our necks would get whiplash, but that's just me. :D

Sei'taer
06-03-2010, 08:25 AM
And just for the record, I do believe that if we stopped all oil drilling, the automobile companies would come up with an alternative fuel source so quick our necks would get whiplash, but that's just me. :D

You're right, they probably would. How do you figure on getting 30+ million Americans to buy them? Or do you propose passing out new ones to everybody?

That's the thing that drives me crazy. If Ford came out with a new car that ran on hydrogen and it was the greatest thing since sliced bread, where are you going to fill the tank? Where am I going to fill the tank? Does it have moving parts and do any of them use grease, oil, transmission fluid, brake fluid, antifreeze, or tires? How long before we have stations available to everyone in the US to fill a hydrogen car? How long until everyone switches over to a hydrogen car? Can farmers, truckers, construction companies,etc use the hydrogen power to move their equipment? It's sounds all dreamy and sweet until you come out in the real world and think about it.

Ishara
06-03-2010, 08:39 AM
I never thought I'd agree with Taer so much!

The problem isn't that BP doesn't know how to plug it. They know exactly how to do it. An old redneck like me knows how to do it. The problem is that they are regulated by our gov't to areas that make access to the pipe nearly impossible.

BP screwed up. From what I can find talking to people I know who are in the business, the Company Man made an incredibly bad call when they started pulling up samples of mud and soil that had rubber material in it. Everyone knew it was the sealers around the pipe coming apart and they wanted to stop and make the repairs. The Company Man wouldn't let them. He made them keep drilling. This is why responsibility for the spill should and will fall directly on BP's shoulders. That's not to say the the regulations the gov't has in place shouldn't be looked at and the rig inspectors (who are gov't employees) that signed off on the drilling shouldn't be canned or fined or brought up to answer for why they signed off on a platform that was obviously pulling up seal material. Mistakes were made. Punish the people involved, clean the shit up and let's get back to work.
Frankly, I don't care whose fault it is that they drilled so far off-shore. The fact is, if you KNOW that you are regulated to drill far off-shore, where the bottom is too deep for humans to reach, then you'd better come up with better failsafe equipment and back-up plans to address those realities. The fact that BP is relying on methods that they know won't work is ridiculous. The fact that BP never bothered to come up with a solution that was actually deasible at those depths is criminal. It's not as if the off-shore platforms are NEW.

Now we are going to oil up the entire gulf coast and there's not a heck of a lot we can do about it. I could have plugged it under pressure in 4 days max up to 200 feet down. It all boils down to access. Shallower water gives better access....it's just a fact of life.

When people are dreaming up these ideas, they often don't think of what they will do if an accident happens. It's a natural "it'll never happen here" attitude. I've done enough work in these areas and been an inspector long enough to know that you have to plan for the "what if..." scenario. Looks like the inspectors on this rig screwed up just as bad as the BP guys did.

But, that's my point exactly. BP should have had real, operational and functional plans to address these 'what ifs'. They KNEW that the depth would create access problems. It's criminally negligent to not have a method of addressing those access problems before you have a reason to use them.

i've also seen reports that the gear they were using as safety fail safes, etc. was missing parts, or parts weren't totally functional, and were being used anyway. there had to have been an inspector that signed off on it as well. i've always found when an inspector is letting things go that he really shouldn't, it's because there's some sort of deal going on.

My bf is a actuator/ valve tester and has been saying this since the accident first happened. That failsafe valve at the bottom of the ocean could not have been installed properly with the right parts - or this would NOT have happened. Failure of these things is HUMAN error.

Humans suck.

JSUCamel
06-03-2010, 08:40 AM
That's the thing that drives me crazy. If Ford came out with a new car that ran on hydrogen and it was the greatest thing since sliced bread, where are you going to fill the tank? Where am I going to fill the tank?.

I had this discussion two years ago with my brother and his boss. Remember when gas prices hit about 4 bucks a gallon, maybe higher? I suggested that it would be preferable for gas prices to get higher, and they just about blew a gasket.

My reasoning was that if gas prices got higher, to the point where people couldn't afford to buy much gas anymore, then the general public would demand that the car companies build alternate fuel-powered cars, and people would buy it (because gas was so expensive). I reasoned that if gas prices went back down, then people would say "Oh, well, build a hydrogen-powered car, but I don't need it right now, so I'll wait until I do and get it" which doesn't give the car companies any incentive to change the status quo.

My brother said "There are alternatives out there!" to which I replied "No, there isn't." He said he could buy an electric car right now, which is a true statement. But then I asked him how far he could drive with it. He couldn't even drive from his house (Atlanta) to my father's house (Birmingham, AL) on one charge of an electric car. And if he got a hydrogen-powered car, which there are a few out there, where is he going to fill up? A Hydrogen-powered car wouldn't get him from Atlanta to Birmingham either, and even if it did, it certainly wouldn't get him back to Atlanta. And I think there are three hydrogen filling stations in Atlanta, and none in Birmingham. Where are you going to fill up? He could drive a hybrid-electric, yes, but that still depends on oil, and the idea here is to get more alternatives out there that don't depend on oil.

His other argument was "I want a choice, I don't want the government or anyone else telling me what I can buy." And I said "What's your choice now? You can buy gas cars or... gas cars." Which isn't precisely true, but for all practical intents and purposes (see above), it is. You don't have a choice now. You have to buy a gas car if you want to get from point A to point B. For short commutes, an electric car would work, but anything farther than that would be undoable.

If gas prices hit $6/gallon, people would damn straight start demanding other options, and they would get those alternatives which, incidentally, would lower the demand on oil, which would drop gas prices, and THEN we'd have a choice.

The big challenge is the infrastructure. Even if we cut off drilling now and mandated hydrogen and/or electric-powered cars, we'd need places to fill up, to charge up, to allow us to get from point A to point B. That's a massive, massive undertaking.

And you know, if we could prove that one or more of those was truly feasible, then I wouldn't be opposed to the government subsidizing filling stations at regular intervals (not paying for them out right, but subsidizing them to encourage building of infrastructure).

Everyone -- conservatives, liberals, libertarian -- demands choice: they want to CHOOSE what to do. Well, in a car situation, you don't have a choice. Period. You think you do, but you really, truly don't. The best you can do is switch to public transit, and not everyone lives in a Chicago or NYC or DC or Europe with a decent public transit system.

Sei'taer
06-03-2010, 09:08 AM
I had this discussion two years ago with my brother and his boss. Remember when gas prices hit about 4 bucks a gallon, maybe higher? I suggested that it would be preferable for gas prices to get higher, and they just about blew a gasket.

My reasoning was that if gas prices got higher, to the point where people couldn't afford to buy much gas anymore, then the general public would demand that the car companies build alternate fuel-powered cars, and people would buy it (because gas was so expensive). I reasoned that if gas prices went back down, then people would say "Oh, well, build a hydrogen-powered car, but I don't need it right now, so I'll wait until I do and get it" which doesn't give the car companies any incentive to change the status quo.

My brother said "There are alternatives out there!" to which I replied "No, there isn't." He said he could buy an electric car right now, which is a true statement. But then I asked him how far he could drive with it. He couldn't even drive from his house (Atlanta) to my father's house (Birmingham, AL) on one charge of an electric car. And if he got a hydrogen-powered car, which there are a few out there, where is he going to fill up? A Hydrogen-powered car wouldn't get him from Atlanta to Birmingham either, and even if it did, it certainly wouldn't get him back to Atlanta. And I think there are three hydrogen filling stations in Atlanta, and none in Birmingham. Where are you going to fill up? He could drive a hybrid-electric, yes, but that still depends on oil, and the idea here is to get more alternatives out there that don't depend on oil.

His other argument was "I want a choice, I don't want the government or anyone else telling me what I can buy." And I said "What's your choice now? You can buy gas cars or... gas cars." Which isn't precisely true, but for all practical intents and purposes (see above), it is. You don't have a choice now. You have to buy a gas car if you want to get from point A to point B. For short commutes, an electric car would work, but anything farther than that would be undoable.

If gas prices hit $6/gallon, people would damn straight start demanding other options, and they would get those alternatives which, incidentally, would lower the demand on oil, which would drop gas prices, and THEN we'd have a choice.

The big challenge is the infrastructure. Even if we cut off drilling now and mandated hydrogen and/or electric-powered cars, we'd need places to fill up, to charge up, to allow us to get from point A to point B. That's a massive, massive undertaking.

And you know, if we could prove that one or more of those was truly feasible, then I wouldn't be opposed to the government subsidizing filling stations at regular intervals (not paying for them out right, but subsidizing them to encourage building of infrastructure).

Everyone -- conservatives, liberals, libertarian -- demands choice: they want to CHOOSE what to do. Well, in a car situation, you don't have a choice. Period. You think you do, but you really, truly don't. The best you can do is switch to public transit, and not everyone lives in a Chicago or NYC or DC or Europe with a decent public transit system.

Exactly.

Davian93
06-03-2010, 09:47 AM
You're right, they probably would. How do you figure on getting 30+ million Americans to buy them? Or do you propose passing out new ones to everybody?

That's the thing that drives me crazy. If Ford came out with a new car that ran on hydrogen and it was the greatest thing since sliced bread, where are you going to fill the tank? Where am I going to fill the tank? Does it have moving parts and do any of them use grease, oil, transmission fluid, brake fluid, antifreeze, or tires? How long before we have stations available to everyone in the US to fill a hydrogen car? How long until everyone switches over to a hydrogen car? Can farmers, truckers, construction companies,etc use the hydrogen power to move their equipment? It's sounds all dreamy and sweet until you come out in the real world and think about it.


Well, how did we get gas stations to begin with? Industry is quite good at adapting. Look at the internet or cable television or cell phones. No infrastructure existed for those things until they were invented. Now I can get cell coverage in 97% of the U.S. with only minor issues. Its not as hard as people make it out. We might not be able to eliminate our dependence on oil but we could sure as hell cut back on it if we really wanted to.

Yeah, its not there right now but infrastructure can get built very fast if the market and industry wants it.

JSUCamel
06-03-2010, 11:15 AM
Yeah, its not there right now but infrastructure can get built very fast if the market and industry wants it.

But right now, even with the oil spill, there's no incentive for the industry to "want it". They're still making billions off gasoline, and we proved a few years ago that we Americans are perfectly willing to spend twice what current prices are in order to keep driving them. The market won't change until consumers change, and we're not.

Brita
06-03-2010, 11:26 AM
But right now, even with the oil spill, there's no incentive for the industry to "want it". They're still making billions off gasoline, and we proved a few years ago that we Americans are perfectly willing to spend twice what current prices are in order to keep driving them. The market won't change until consumers change, and we're not.

No- you're right. Because it is too easy for us right now to go with the status quo. It would take a great deal of effort and will to demand change at this point; and humans are, by nature, creatures of comfort.

Sei'taer
06-03-2010, 11:33 AM
Yeah, its not there right now but infrastructure can get built very fast if the market and industry wants it.

How fast is fast for you? Are we going to be able to use oil products while we do it?

In my area (if you want me to break it down further I can):

From a blank piece of paper to the first person pulling in to fill up...18 to 24 months.

To do away with gas facilities and put in place new hydrogen...depends on the enviromental studies that are required when you take out old gas/diesel tanks. Could be as long as 3 years if it's bad and has to be cleaned or as short as 18 months.

This all assumes that the people doing the building are going to be able to use regular construction equipment. If they are required to use whatever the new fuel is, then it depends on access to the new fuel and how the equipment works with the new fuel or if they have to have all new equipment.

It also assumes we are able to use oil based products to build the facility. If we don't have a good way to make whatever kind of tank (safety system, hoses, pumps, whatever would be needed...I really have no clue other than it would have to be a pressurized tank) is needed for hydrogen without oil based products, then the no oil scenario is useless. If that's the scenario...it could be years.

The easiest way to do it would be to deregulate the industry and let them go for it...but we all love regulations so that won't happen.

Tree Brother
06-03-2010, 12:10 PM
It is nice to see a list of all the things that take oil to produce. That brings in the fact that human beings do not seem to be able to take a "long view".

If you were to tell someone we will run out of oil in 50 years, they will figure that we should move to electric cars 45 years from now.

But... Where would the electricity come from? What would we resurface roads with?

People are so short sighted.

I saw an editorial over the weekend that said switching to an electric car would only save a percentage of oil equal to 1 drop in a tanker truck. So it was pointless. That is stupid. If a billion people did it...

Another argument was, that switching to wind power would only cover 30% of energy needs, and wind is inconsistant, so you still needed power from oil, so why do it?

My view: Limited drilling on land or near-offshore should be done, and done right, with low evironmental impact. I believe the US has lots of land and offshore oil reserves -- but "not in our backyard" kills getting to it. Same as the nulear plants, wind farms, etc.

Alternitave envergy should be done now, not in 100 years, or whenever someone thinks we will run out of oil.

I don't care how bad a windmill looks. Or how a roof with a solar panel looks. Or whatever. We need nuclear, wind, solar AND oil. Not just one, or another.

Just my opinion.

Davian93
06-03-2010, 12:26 PM
It is nice to see a list of all the things that take oil to produce. That brings in the fact that human beings do not seem to be able to take a "long view".

If you were to tell someone we will run out of oil in 50 years, they will figure that we should move to electric cars 45 years from now.

But... Where would the electricity come from? What would we resurface roads with?

People are so short sighted.

I saw an editorial over the weekend that said switching to an electric car would only save a percentage of oil equal to 1 drop in a tanker truck. So it was pointless. That is stupid. If a billion people did it...

Another argument was, that switching to wind power would only cover 30% of energy needs, and wind is inconsistant, so you still needed power from oil, so why do it?

My view: Limited drilling on land or near-offshore should be done, and done right, with low evironmental impact. I believe the US has lots of land and offshore oil reserves -- but "not in our backyard" kills getting to it. Same as the nulear plants, wind farms, etc.

Alternitave envergy should be done now, not in 100 years, or whenever someone thinks we will run out of oil.

I don't care how bad a windmill looks. Or how a roof with a solar panel looks. Or whatever. We need nuclear, wind, solar AND oil. Not just one, or another.

Just my opinion.

Option B: Canada has tons of oil...and a small military. We need breathing room!

Ivhon
06-03-2010, 12:39 PM
Whats the big deal with wind farms? I drove through a bunch of them last weekend and they're pretty cool. Kindof serene with the blades turning slowly.

I mean, you can pretty them up, if you think they're ugly....put some tassels or streamers at the end of the blades. Paint them in festive colors.

On the other hand, I could have thought that the windfarms were cool because I had just finished driving through hundreds of miles of oil derricks...which are uglier than windmills and STINK to boot.

Ishara
06-03-2010, 01:44 PM
I think windfarms are awesome personally.

Basel Gill
06-03-2010, 01:53 PM
It is nice to see a list of all the things that take oil to produce. That brings in the fact that human beings do not seem to be able to take a "long view".

If you were to tell someone we will run out of oil in 50 years, they will figure that we should move to electric cars 45 years from now.

But... Where would the electricity come from? What would we resurface roads with?

People are so short sighted.

I saw an editorial over the weekend that said switching to an electric car would only save a percentage of oil equal to 1 drop in a tanker truck. So it was pointless. That is stupid. If a billion people did it...

Another argument was, that switching to wind power would only cover 30% of energy needs, and wind is inconsistant, so you still needed power from oil, so why do it?

My view: Limited drilling on land or near-offshore should be done, and done right, with low evironmental impact. I believe the US has lots of land and offshore oil reserves -- but "not in our backyard" kills getting to it. Same as the nulear plants, wind farms, etc.

Alternitave envergy should be done now, not in 100 years, or whenever someone thinks we will run out of oil.

I don't care how bad a windmill looks. Or how a roof with a solar panel looks. Or whatever. We need nuclear, wind, solar AND oil. Not just one, or another.

Just my opinion.

THIS.

It will certainly take a combination of sources and there is NO reason to wait. To echo Sei-taer, deregulation would help...NOT ONLY the oil companies, but to the entrepreneurs who might think of starting wind farms, solar stations, etc. if there wasn't so much red tape and bullshit.

JSUCamel
06-03-2010, 02:01 PM
I think windfarms are awesome personally.

I don't know any windmills personally, though I saw a few as I drove through Kentucky. What's it like to meet a windmill? Are they as nice as they look?

Crispin's Crispian
06-03-2010, 02:02 PM
I don't know any windmills personally, though I saw a few as I drove through Kentucky. What's it like to meet a windmill? Are they as nice as they look?

I met some spanish ones, and I can see why Don Quixote wanted to stab them.

Ishara
06-03-2010, 04:00 PM
I don't know any windmills personally, though I saw a few as I drove through Kentucky. What's it like to meet a windmill? Are they as nice as they look?

Ha ha, you're on Sini's list! :p

Also, they're kind of loud, so I bet SDog wouldn't like them more than Don Quixote. ;)

irerancincpkc
06-04-2010, 06:32 AM
The only windmills I've ever seen were on the Wishbone episode of Don Quixote when I was little, and an episode of Pushing Daisies a few years back, though I'm pretty sure those were fake... :D

Sei'taer
06-04-2010, 08:14 AM
I've been around a few in Kansas. They're loud and obnoxious as hell. They look cool but I couldn't listen to them all the time.

Sei'taer
06-04-2010, 08:19 AM
'taer, I'm shocked that you don't realize that Al Gore doesn't need the Interwebs!? He'd be happy with being an obscure nobody wearing wool, hand-spun and darned clothing, working a field just large enough to plant crops for his family every day of the year with only one or two holidays, and maybe having enough to have a wooden wheeled cart to ride to town in on a dirt road (since cobbles pull too much stone from the earth) in about thirty years of saving, if he can even save.


Al Gore. He used to love the planet...but he doesn't anymore. The guy is going to singlehandedly tear us apart.



Divorce Pains the Planet (http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9828389-54.html)

As if the burden of divorce weren't bad enough, people with failed marriages can be blamed for global warming, according to a study by Michigan State University.

Divorced couples use up more space in their respective homes, which amounts to to 38 million more rooms worldwide to light, heat and cool, noted the report.

And people who divorced used 73 billion kilowatt-hours more of electricity and 627 billion gallons of water than they would otherwise in 2005.

Dissolving a marriage also means doubling possessions, from the lowly can opener to the SUV. The report, however, did not estimate how many more natural resources the children of shared-custody parents consume by getting birthday and holiday gifts twice.

Nor did it count the greenhouse gases spent to shuttle kids between their pair of energy-hogging households. (Tip for carbon offsetting services: the domain name OffsetMyDivorce.com is available.).

The research suggests that singletons who shack up with someone again can undo the ecological damage. Although it might be inferred that "living in sin" is also eco-friendly, the findings did not necessarily endorse the practice of unmarried couples living together.

Rates of divorce are rising around the world, while dropping in North America along with those of marriage, according to the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University.

Divorce ends 46 percent of marriages in the United States, the seventh highest rate in the world, according to Divorce Magazine. The top world record is held by Sweden, where 55 percent of marriages end by divorce. On the other end is Guatemala, with a mere .13 percent divorce rate.

The study was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and funded partly by the National Institutes of Health.

Davian93
06-04-2010, 02:05 PM
I've been around a few in Kansas. They're loud and obnoxious as hell. They look cool but I couldn't listen to them all the time.

Excuses I've heard about windmills...even from VT hippies with too much money on their hands that move here because they think we're all nudists that smoke pot and listen to Phish all day long.

1. Too Loud
2. Kill Birds
3. Destroy beautiful natural vistas...the same vistas they drive their SUVs up to and go hiking on (by hiking I mean taking the access road to the top of the mountain and walking around in $200 North Face boots for 10 minutes)

They dont care where their power comes from...as long as they cant see it.

I hate hippies.

Sinistrum
06-04-2010, 02:10 PM
We've got plenty of them out in West Texas. They're kind of nice to look at but that is just my personal opinion. However, I'm under no illusion that they provide remotely near enough power to run even a town as small as Midland.

Davian93
06-04-2010, 02:16 PM
We've got plenty of them out in West Texas. They're kind of nice to look at but that is just my personal opinion. However, I'm under no illusion that they provide remotely near enough power to run even a town as small as Midland.

They're a supplemental power source at best...same with solar in most areas.

Personally, I like they way they look and I dont mind the noise. We have several in the field outside my office and they aren't very annoying. And the really big ones are supposedly less dangerous to birds than the smaller ones...I'm talking the ones that are 300-400 feet high like the Cape Wind Project proposal.

We can't eliminate fossil fuel use but we should try to at least cut back if we can and branch out.

Ishara
06-04-2010, 02:16 PM
Um, really? The ones up here provide more than enough power to run the areas they're in (granted, not large, but still). In fact, the way I understand it, when they have extra, they can sell their power to other townships.

Davian93
06-04-2010, 02:25 PM
Um, really? The ones up here provide more hanenough power to run the areas they're in (granted, not large, but still). In factm the way I understand it, when they have extra, they can sell their power to other townships.

The problem with them is its inconsistent as the wind isn't always blowing...and the batteries to store such power aren't cost-effective. That's why they are typically supplemental.

Crispin's Crispian
06-04-2010, 03:22 PM
Um, really? The ones up here provide more hanenough power to run the areas they're in (granted, not large, but still). In factm the way I understand it, when they have extra, they can sell their power to other townships.

But really, how much electricity do you need up there? Churning butter and washing your clothes in the creek doesn't take much.

Sei'taer
06-04-2010, 03:28 PM
1. Too Loud
2. Kill Birds
3. Destroy beautiful natural vistas...


I'll have to remember 2 and 3. It'll give me something else to say besides "they look nice, but damn they're loud."

Sei'taer
06-04-2010, 03:30 PM
The only windmills I've ever seen were on the Wishbone episode of Don Quixote when I was little, and an episode of Pushing Daisies a few years back, though I'm pretty sure those were fake... :D

I had to look up Wishbone. I didn't know what it was. I think my daughter used to watch that way back when.

Didn't like Pushing Daisies...

Terez
06-06-2010, 03:45 PM
People like Dutch windmills.

Also, oysters love crude oil (http://www.nbcnewyork.com/feast/Oysters-Love-Crude-Oil.html).

JSUCamel
06-06-2010, 10:44 PM
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/hs552.ash1/32195_402004848758_635018758_4384197_3065505_n.jpg

GonzoTheGreat
06-07-2010, 03:34 AM
What would be spilled if you left pumps (http://www.myshoes.us/images/pumps1.jpg) unattended, I wonder?

irerancincpkc
06-07-2010, 08:50 AM
I had to look up Wishbone. I didn't know what it was. I think my daughter used to watch that way back when.

Didn't like Pushing Daisies...

Wishbone was what all the nerdy little kids watched... :D

You didn't like Pushing Daisies? :eek: I thought it was hilarious... :D

Sei'taer
06-07-2010, 04:08 PM
Wishbone was what all the nerdy little kids watched... :D

You didn't like Pushing Daisies? :eek: I thought it was hilarious... :D

'Nuf said.

Yellowbeard
06-08-2010, 09:09 AM
haven't read the whole thread. but has anyone seen the ideas that are floating around online but not really in the mainstream media to stick a nuke down the well and blow it?

apparently the russians have employed this tactic successfully multiple times. of course, if they've needed to use it on multiple occasions...makes you wonder about them.

but wouldn't it have been overall the least damaging alternative to just blow the well? i mean, the local radiation from the blast, that deep, would be confined to the local seabed. that's a lot less damaging than covering the gulf and the coastal areas w/ crude oil.

i'd think blowing it and drilling a new well (using proper safety techniques and equipment) would be cheaper than the cost of a cleanup of this large a scope, and would also result in much lower lost oil. all that oil being lost, such a waste of a commodity that is becoming more and more precious.

i swear i can't help thinking it doesn't matter whether a democrat or republican is in office...they're all in the same back pockets.

Sarevok
06-08-2010, 09:19 AM
haven't read the whole thread. but has anyone seen the ideas that are floating around online but not really in the mainstream media to stick a nuke down the well and blow it?


I'm guessing the effectiveness would depend on the depth of the well under the seabed. If it's relatively close to the seabed, you'd risk blowing the hole wide open. :eek:

Ivhon
06-08-2010, 09:20 AM
I'm guessing the effectiveness would depend on the depth of the well under the seabed. If it's relatively close to the seabed, you'd risk blowing the hole wide open. :eek:

And considering the comedy of errors this entire fiasco has been, that is likely exactly what would happen

Neilbert
06-08-2010, 09:25 AM
1. Too Loud
2. Kill Birds
3. Destroy beautiful natural vistas...the same vistas they drive their SUVs up to and go hiking on (by hiking I mean taking the access road to the top of the mountain and walking around in $200 North Face boots for 10 minutes)

They dont care where their power comes from...as long as they cant see it.

I hate hippies.

I've never in my life met a hippie who drives an SUV. It's incredibly rare to meet a hippie who even drives.

Davian93
06-08-2010, 09:30 AM
I've never in my life met a hippie who drives an SUV. It's incredibly rare to meet a hippie who even drives.

Well, these aren't real hippies...these are poseur rich kids that come to VT and pretend to be poor while they grow their hair in dredlocks, play terrible guitar music on the street corner and pretend to give a sh!t about the environment, Phish, and other crap while they slum it until Mommy/Daddy force them to get a real job.

Crispin's Crispian
06-08-2010, 10:05 AM
Well, these aren't real hippies...these are poseur rich kids that come to VT and pretend to be poor while they grow their hair in dredlocks, play terrible guitar music on the street corner and pretend to give a sh!t about the environment, Phish, and other crap while they slum it until Mommy/Daddy force them to get a real job.


So you been to school
For a year or two
And you know you've seen it all
In daddy's car
Thinkin' you'll go far
Back east your type don't crawl

Play ethnicky jazz
To parade your snazz
On your five grand stereo
Braggin' that you know
How the n***ers feel cold
And the slums got so much soul

It's time to taste what you most fear
Right Guard will not help you here
Brace yourself, my dear:

It's a holiday in Cambodia
It's tough, kid, but it's life
It's a holiday in Cambodia
Don't forget to pack a wife
Pol Pot!

GonzoTheGreat
06-08-2010, 11:18 AM
apparently the russians have employed this tactic successfully multiple times. of course, if they've needed to use it on multiple occasions...makes you wonder about them.Suppose that BP did that. Who would first manage to come up with a relevant commentary on the sudden nuclear power status of this oil company?

Terez
06-08-2010, 12:20 PM
Would we then invade BP HQ and hang the CEO for crimes against humanity? Will the video be on youtube?

Yellowbeard
06-08-2010, 02:28 PM
Suppose that BP did that. Who would first manage to come up with a relevant commentary on the sudden nuclear power status of this oil company?

even you know better than that. the US military would be the ones to perform the demolition operation. just like the russian military did on their prior incidents.

apparently the technique is to drill down underground a ways, and place the warhead well underground, very close to the drilled well. then boom...it collapses the well and it's deep enough that the pressure in the oil reservoir in the rock can't force oil up thru the collapsed earth/rock above it.

of course, so much damage has been done already that it might not worth it to deploy a nuke at this point.

GonzoTheGreat
06-08-2010, 03:02 PM
Would we then invade BP HQ and hang the CEO for crimes against humanity? Will the video be on youtube?Of course not. That sort of thing only happens if someone is innocent of having nukes.

Ivhon
06-08-2010, 03:13 PM
Hey, cmon. Give BP a break. Oil companies are people too, yannow...

Crispin's Crispian
06-08-2010, 03:20 PM
Hey, cmon. Give BP a break. Oil companies are people too, yannow...

The guys just wants his life back, and who can blame him?

Sei'taer
06-11-2010, 09:38 AM
So, I got a call last night about midnight asking me to come down to LA. Get ready, if they are calling me 15 years after I last worked for them the scapegoating is going to be starting soon. Thank god I wasn't ever associated with that well or that drilling contractor.

Also, another inspector that I used to work with called me and told me to get online and check this out.



Foxnews (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/10/experts-say-obama-misrepresented-views-justify-offshore-drilling-ban/)

If this turns out to be true then there is going to be trouble. None of the other news orgs are reporting it yet, which means it could be wrong, or it could be very bad for the administration. Either way, something is up...for instance, lets say another rig is pulling from the same oil supply and could have potentially increased flow to keep so much oil from spilling. If we make them stop drilling then there is no way to release pressure and slow the flow to the one place that is leaking. Too early to know if that's the situation, but it's entirely possible.

Sei'taer
06-25-2010, 08:30 AM
Sorry, I had to bump this back up. I got into one hell of an argument yesterday with the company I used to work for. I'm refusing to go back to work for them and they won't take no for an answer. I actually had to threaten a harassment lawsuit. I have a feeling they're in deep shit.


Well, Florida got a bunch of oil. (http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=107505310&feedType=VideoRSS&feedName=TopNews&rpc=23&videoChannel=1&sp=true)

I also saw that a robot hit the tophat and they had to take it off and put it back on corectly. The more I see of this and the more I watch what is going on the more pissed off I get. I have a buddy that's a pusher on a rig somewhere around Houston. He says BP is being hamstrung on every level of the work by the gov't. I asked him to send me some evidence, which he refused to do, but I can take him at his word. Something weird is going on with this whole deal. I don't think we are getting anything even close to representing the truth, from the gov't or from BP.

Ivhon
06-25-2010, 08:45 AM
Sorry, I had to bump this back up. I got into one hell of an argument yesterday with the company I used to work for. I'm refusing to go back to work for them and they won't take no for an answer. I actually had to threaten a harassment lawsuit. I have a feeling they're in deep shit.


Well, Florida got a bunch of oil. (http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=107505310&feedType=VideoRSS&feedName=TopNews&rpc=23&videoChannel=1&sp=true)

I also saw that a robot hit the tophat and they had to take it off and put it back on corectly. The more I see of this and the more I watch what is going on the more pissed off I get. I have a buddy that's a pusher on a rig somewhere around Houston. He says BP is being hamstrung on every level of the work by the gov't. I asked him to send me some evidence, which he refused to do, but I can take him at his word. Something weird is going on with this whole deal. I don't think we are getting anything even close to representing the truth, from the gov't or from BP.

Idunno, ST. Sounds to me that this is the same tinfoil hat the "government allowed/participated in 9/11" guys wore turned inside out. I dismiss this for the same reasons.

Sei'taer
06-25-2010, 03:38 PM
Idunno, ST. Sounds to me that this is the same tinfoil hat the "government allowed/participated in 9/11" guys wore turned inside out. I dismiss this for the same reasons.

Normally I would agree with you, but I think BP is hiding it moreso than the gov't. There's just too much stuff that's not making sense. I guess since I'm more on the inside than most, I'm hearing a lot of stuff and the stuff I'm hearing just doesn't add up.

For a Toolie to throw it out there is a big deal too, at least to me. Meh, someday it'll come out.

nameless
06-25-2010, 05:25 PM
Instead of MMS or whoever the hell's coordinating government regulation efforts they should have just hired consultants from BP's biggest rival and given them incentives for every time they could demonstrate BP was distorting the facts or screwing something up. At least that way the regulators would have some familiarity with the equipment and procedures.

Sei'taer
06-25-2010, 06:46 PM
Instead of MMS or whoever the hell's coordinating government regulation efforts they should have just hired consultants from BP's biggest rival and given them incentives for every time they could demonstrate BP was distorting the facts or screwing something up. At least that way the regulators would have some familiarity with the equipment and procedures.

Finding the screwups is the easy part. They've pretty much already done that. Fixing it is a whole 'nother thing. The only thing I haven't heard is why the rig blew and why they were having some many problems with the process in the first place. I have my ideas but can't confirm them.

Also, you have to remember that BP doesn't own the rig. They hire a subcontractor to do the drilling for them and the sub owns the rig. That's another reason everything is so screwed up.