-
There seems to be an up tick in Political commentary in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site we know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religiours commentary out of the fourms.
If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.
Please note any post refering to a politicion will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment amoung members. It is a poison to the community. We apprciate compliance with the rules.
The Staff of SOH
Oil Spill Disasters....
- Thread starter TeaSea
- Start date
Hey All,
As to the flow rate and amount spilled. See this reference:
http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/doc/2931/569235/
The best science we can bring to bear right now...
The numbers are current as of yesterday. Anything before that is completely irrelevant. The numbers based upon 5000 barrels per day were supported by BP as they knew that the amount spilled was a critical factor in determining the liability of Exxon in Alaska. They wanted "lowball" numbers. This company has since the beginning tried to downplay this event and reduce the damage to their Company and it's stockholders. This as well as other self-serving actions constitutes completely unacceptable behaviour.
Leaders absolutely should be thinking beyond local shrimpers but were/are they? Some points to consider.
1) Why is any off-shore drilling going on with virtually no preparation for a worst case scenario and the consequences involved? Where is the knowledge of the impact of oil and dispersants upon both ecology and even human health? As I posted in another thread on this that consequences are what matters not just the small probability of something going wrong. Risk for those who don't know is generally accepted to be the product of consequence and probability of a bad outcome.
2) The ecological recovery or lack thereof is completely dependent upon your frame of reference. That any area "recovers" after a long enough period of time - yes absolutely. But if your frame of reference is the family/business/industry there and dependent upon the resource today will the area recover so that their lifestyle is not impacted later this year or next? Seems alot of people who are not directly impacted are willing to sacrifice other people so that their lifestyle is not impacted. I won't comment on what I think of that.
3) America has now seen what deregulated capitalism/markets and a poorly regulated energy industry look like and know what it is going to cost the American taxpayer for banks too big to fail and we'll see about the cost to the American taxpayer for this energy company without adequate oversight. But getting back to the spill I take it many support the government meaning the taxpayer pay all local economic costs. I don't believe those costs should exist if the oil industry were acting in a responsible manner.
4) If our leaders were thinking ahead why hasn't real action been taken to eliminate dependence on fossil fuels by every administration Conservative and Liberal for the last 30+ years? To put your faith in the basic concept that the market will spur the necessary innovation and mechanisms for solving this situation quickly is foolhardy in the extreme. The market has no long term 20, 30, 40 years + vision - and this is the lead time often needed for difficult problems. I am a strong capitalist but I cannot turn a bind eye to the fundamental weaknesses of the market for no reason other than ideology as so many do. The long term economic and security impact referred to should have been thought of long ago.
I expect to see severe restrictions on off-shore drilling and the heavy hand of regulation like we will with the banks since we have had to relearn (known since the great depression) that we fundamentally cannot trust big (not necessarily small) business to do the right thing but far more importantly than that I hope to see a "Manhattan-like" project with the sole intent of eliminating dependence on fossil fuels. I think people in America had better just get used to the idea of change cause it's coming - how painful it will be is the question.
And then there is the prospect of climate change which will make an oil spill tiny in comparison.
As TeaSea said...
-Ed-
PS I sure hope this topkill works.
As to the flow rate and amount spilled. See this reference:
http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/doc/2931/569235/
The best science we can bring to bear right now...
The numbers are current as of yesterday. Anything before that is completely irrelevant. The numbers based upon 5000 barrels per day were supported by BP as they knew that the amount spilled was a critical factor in determining the liability of Exxon in Alaska. They wanted "lowball" numbers. This company has since the beginning tried to downplay this event and reduce the damage to their Company and it's stockholders. This as well as other self-serving actions constitutes completely unacceptable behaviour.
Now lets get to a few points
Leaders absolutely should be thinking beyond local shrimpers but were/are they? Some points to consider.
1) Why is any off-shore drilling going on with virtually no preparation for a worst case scenario and the consequences involved? Where is the knowledge of the impact of oil and dispersants upon both ecology and even human health? As I posted in another thread on this that consequences are what matters not just the small probability of something going wrong. Risk for those who don't know is generally accepted to be the product of consequence and probability of a bad outcome.
2) The ecological recovery or lack thereof is completely dependent upon your frame of reference. That any area "recovers" after a long enough period of time - yes absolutely. But if your frame of reference is the family/business/industry there and dependent upon the resource today will the area recover so that their lifestyle is not impacted later this year or next? Seems alot of people who are not directly impacted are willing to sacrifice other people so that their lifestyle is not impacted. I won't comment on what I think of that.
3) America has now seen what deregulated capitalism/markets and a poorly regulated energy industry look like and know what it is going to cost the American taxpayer for banks too big to fail and we'll see about the cost to the American taxpayer for this energy company without adequate oversight. But getting back to the spill I take it many support the government meaning the taxpayer pay all local economic costs. I don't believe those costs should exist if the oil industry were acting in a responsible manner.
4) If our leaders were thinking ahead why hasn't real action been taken to eliminate dependence on fossil fuels by every administration Conservative and Liberal for the last 30+ years? To put your faith in the basic concept that the market will spur the necessary innovation and mechanisms for solving this situation quickly is foolhardy in the extreme. The market has no long term 20, 30, 40 years + vision - and this is the lead time often needed for difficult problems. I am a strong capitalist but I cannot turn a bind eye to the fundamental weaknesses of the market for no reason other than ideology as so many do. The long term economic and security impact referred to should have been thought of long ago.
I expect to see severe restrictions on off-shore drilling and the heavy hand of regulation like we will with the banks since we have had to relearn (known since the great depression) that we fundamentally cannot trust big (not necessarily small) business to do the right thing but far more importantly than that I hope to see a "Manhattan-like" project with the sole intent of eliminating dependence on fossil fuels. I think people in America had better just get used to the idea of change cause it's coming - how painful it will be is the question.
And then there is the prospect of climate change which will make an oil spill tiny in comparison.
As TeaSea said...
JMO
-Ed-
PS I sure hope this topkill works.
All well and good,replace fossil fuels with what? I agree and always have that an alternitive source of energy would be great,one that didn't pollute and was safe and affordable.
But what? Solar? Wind? Ethanol? As I have said it's a matter of scale,it is impossible to make enough energy with these sources to make a dent in it.That leaves Nuclear power and Fusion.
I hope someday Fusion will be a reality,but it won't in my lifetime.My bid is for nuclear power plants to replace fossil fuels to generate electricity.So how are you going to get the environmental groups to get behind that? But that leaves a very big question,what are you going to power the millions of cars and trains and big trucks with that move the goods and people.
Oil....whether we like it or not.As a side note I think Global Climate Change is baloney and the government couldn't run a card game let alone energy policy.Let me tell you what the market has done in my job.The truck I was driving is a 05,my boss has an older Mack R model he uses some times.
It takes 80 of the 05 model Volvo's to produce the amount of pollution that that Mack puts out by itself.80 of them.Sure the government said we need to reduce the emissions of these vehicles,but they didn't do jack to make it happen.The market did.
Like I said before,go ahead and stop using fossil fuels,have fun sitting in the dark,hungry and cold (or hot depending on the season) No food,no jobs,little electricity.I remember the late 50's,early 60's and it wasn't that much fun.Lets go chop some wood and hump it home on our backs.Sounds like a good time to me.
But what? Solar? Wind? Ethanol? As I have said it's a matter of scale,it is impossible to make enough energy with these sources to make a dent in it.That leaves Nuclear power and Fusion.
I hope someday Fusion will be a reality,but it won't in my lifetime.My bid is for nuclear power plants to replace fossil fuels to generate electricity.So how are you going to get the environmental groups to get behind that? But that leaves a very big question,what are you going to power the millions of cars and trains and big trucks with that move the goods and people.
Oil....whether we like it or not.As a side note I think Global Climate Change is baloney and the government couldn't run a card game let alone energy policy.Let me tell you what the market has done in my job.The truck I was driving is a 05,my boss has an older Mack R model he uses some times.
It takes 80 of the 05 model Volvo's to produce the amount of pollution that that Mack puts out by itself.80 of them.Sure the government said we need to reduce the emissions of these vehicles,but they didn't do jack to make it happen.The market did.
Like I said before,go ahead and stop using fossil fuels,have fun sitting in the dark,hungry and cold (or hot depending on the season) No food,no jobs,little electricity.I remember the late 50's,early 60's and it wasn't that much fun.Lets go chop some wood and hump it home on our backs.Sounds like a good time to me.
Hey All,
I may as well answer this since it seems to keep coming up.
1) At no point did I say or imply that people on earth today can switch to some other energy source immediately. I think moving away from oil will be at least a 20 to 30 or 40 year process. That said I see no sense in maximizing risk for environmental "wrecks" like that in the gulf through irresponsible drilling.
2) As for emissions from trucks regulation is driving "cleaner" engines not the market. Tier I through Tier IV engines are steadily being phased in as a matter of regulation all over the world including China. EPA in the US has the power to regulate CO2 under the clean air act since the Supreme Court made a sensible decision. Now it is up to government to sensibly act. We'll see. The challenge is developing improved technologies and alternatives - IMO this needs pushed hard - much harder than it is being pushed. As a side note my father was a truck driver for nearly 50 years from dump trucks to over the road long haul trucks so I know where of you speak.
3) There are people who believe that in the future we simply won't be able to sustain global supply chains and world travel because of a lack of energy and will have to live far more locally than globally. Are they right? I don't know - I hope not but I bet they are at some point if all we do is blindly continue to put all our eggs in the fossil fuel basket. Time to start getting very serious about alternatives whatever they are. I think it will be especially tough for America since the whole country has basically for 90 odd years been built on the fundamental premise of the car. Maybe we should have realized that wasn't such a good idea when the first energy crisises hit in the 70s.
4) This thread is not about climate change but anybody who thinks climate is not changing relative to the last several hundred - at least - years well I don't know what world they live in. The point is that massive growth in the numbers of people and the complexity of societies has occurred in this last few 100 years. The fundamental stability of those societies is highly dependent upon relatively stable climate. The consequences of destabilizing global societies is likely severe given the existence of nuclear weapons and so no matter how small the impact of human greenhouse gas emissions on climate change may be it is to me another case of small perceived risk with potentially large consequences for which mankind is not prepared. The risk isn't worth it. Mitigation of the influence of CO2 on climate change is being seen as "cheaper" than adaption although the cash costs to this and the next generation will likely be significant. It is a case of what right do the people on earth today have to download the costs and consequences of actions today onto future generations for no reasons other than self-interest and convenience without doing everything possible to mitigate those impacts? The difference between people today and past generations is that we know about these consequences.
-Ed-
I may as well answer this since it seems to keep coming up.
1) At no point did I say or imply that people on earth today can switch to some other energy source immediately. I think moving away from oil will be at least a 20 to 30 or 40 year process. That said I see no sense in maximizing risk for environmental "wrecks" like that in the gulf through irresponsible drilling.
2) As for emissions from trucks regulation is driving "cleaner" engines not the market. Tier I through Tier IV engines are steadily being phased in as a matter of regulation all over the world including China. EPA in the US has the power to regulate CO2 under the clean air act since the Supreme Court made a sensible decision. Now it is up to government to sensibly act. We'll see. The challenge is developing improved technologies and alternatives - IMO this needs pushed hard - much harder than it is being pushed. As a side note my father was a truck driver for nearly 50 years from dump trucks to over the road long haul trucks so I know where of you speak.
3) There are people who believe that in the future we simply won't be able to sustain global supply chains and world travel because of a lack of energy and will have to live far more locally than globally. Are they right? I don't know - I hope not but I bet they are at some point if all we do is blindly continue to put all our eggs in the fossil fuel basket. Time to start getting very serious about alternatives whatever they are. I think it will be especially tough for America since the whole country has basically for 90 odd years been built on the fundamental premise of the car. Maybe we should have realized that wasn't such a good idea when the first energy crisises hit in the 70s.
4) This thread is not about climate change but anybody who thinks climate is not changing relative to the last several hundred - at least - years well I don't know what world they live in. The point is that massive growth in the numbers of people and the complexity of societies has occurred in this last few 100 years. The fundamental stability of those societies is highly dependent upon relatively stable climate. The consequences of destabilizing global societies is likely severe given the existence of nuclear weapons and so no matter how small the impact of human greenhouse gas emissions on climate change may be it is to me another case of small perceived risk with potentially large consequences for which mankind is not prepared. The risk isn't worth it. Mitigation of the influence of CO2 on climate change is being seen as "cheaper" than adaption although the cash costs to this and the next generation will likely be significant. It is a case of what right do the people on earth today have to download the costs and consequences of actions today onto future generations for no reasons other than self-interest and convenience without doing everything possible to mitigate those impacts? The difference between people today and past generations is that we know about these consequences.
-Ed-
wombat666
Administrator
I have a problem with Wikpedia that stems from their sources, almost anyone and everyone can 'assist' with their data, however, the old 'garbage in, garbage out' caveat applies.
And FWIW, no offence intended TeaSea, I am a genuine cynic and simply have a jaundiced outlook when it come to numbers and statistics.
Back to wikpedia, how can one really believe there information when one discovers two of their own pages contradicting one another, while neither are correct according to an 'Official Source', said source being validated by one's own experience of 'being there'.
I get really grumpy with the generic 'If it's on Wikpedia and/or the Internet it must be true' approach.
I'll see if I can come up with a boxer wearing smiley ...........
jmig
SOH-CM-2025
It isn't as simple as that Ed. Although, it looks more and more like BP advertisements said one thing and their real world attitudes said another, it took an unprecedented and uncommon gas bubble of enormous size to produce the accident. The lack of actions by BP and other just insured the accident would happen.
When you consider there are thousands of production platforms and hundreds of wells being drilled at any one time through out the gulf, their safety record is pretty good. BP and others will learn from this accident and future drilling rigs and operations will be safer.
However, I agree that we need to start moving toward other energy sources. The reality is that many are not transportable. Wind mills will only work in areas of high winds. The electricity they produce is only usable in the local area. The same applies for solar-power.
Currently natural gas is the cleanest product that is easily transportable and which we have an existing infrastructure to do so. Alas, it is a petroleum product.
I agree with you here completely, Ed. As I am in the environmental business with in the Energy Industry, I can assure that nothing would have been done with emissions if it wasn't for regulations. Emission devices are considered an unwanted expense that get in the way of profits.
That being said, there are reasonable limits to everything. I personally believe the EPA is rapidlly reaching a point of very diminishing returns on cleaning up the environment. We, all of us, in the US, are about to be hit once again with lower ozone emissions. This lowering of the ozone standard will hit you and me in the pocket and in inconvenience us in ways you can't even imagine.
State Department of Environmental Quality (DEQs) are scratching their heads at how they will be able to meet the lower standards. Many parts of the country which are currently in compliance with emission will become non-compliant. The low hanging fruit has been picked. Meanwhile, China and India continue to spew tons and tons of pollutants into the same atmosphere.
The problem with CO2 is that its production is a natural process that everyone of us does. With every breath we exhale CO2. It is found everywhere. It is also hard to dispose of.
Ninety-five to ninety-nine percent of emissions from today's engines are water and CO2. We have effectively cleaned up the NOx, CO, and VOCs. Something has to come out of the engine. Just as, we have to exhale to breath.
Current technology to capture and dispose of CO2 is in its infancy and expensive. The problem is how do you capture and dispose of the CO2 with out producing so much back-pressure the engine can't produce its rated HP. The result is a 100 HP engine produces only 80-90HP. so now to get the same job done you need 120 HP engines.
Then you have to dispose of the captured CO2. Where is the CO2 savings?
The new EPA CO2 standard soon to be promulgated later this year will require measurement of CO2 output for every facility with roughly 7500 HP or higher. That my friends is NOT a lot of HP. Once the measuring is done, you can rest assured that regulations to curtails some of these emissions will soon follow.
K
Ken Stallings
Guest
I have a problem with Wikpedia that stems from their sources, almost anyone and everyone can 'assist' with their data, however, the old 'garbage in, garbage out' caveat applies.
And FWIW, no offence intended TeaSea, I am a genuine cynic and simply have a jaundiced outlook when it come to numbers and statistics.
Back to wikpedia, how can one really believe there information when one discovers two of their own pages contradicting one another, while neither are correct according to an 'Official Source', said source being validated by one's own experience of 'being there'.
I get really grumpy with the generic 'If it's on Wikpedia and/or the Internet it must be true' approach.
I'll see if I can come up with a boxer wearing smiley ...........
He never said "if it's on Wikipedia it must be true." He simply offered information. This is the second time you've questioned the accuracy of his information without offering anything of your own. The first time, I was deliberately vague in my point. This time I will not be.
If you wish to question what he wrote and cited, then offer proof of your own. If you choose to criticize without offering any facts to back up said criticism, then you undercut your entire approach.
That has nothing to do with being "grumpy," but rather being fair.
Ken
jmig
SOH-CM-2025
Ken, I think he was criticizing Wikipedia as a source more than Teasea. I agree with him on Wikipedia. My wife is a university professor and Reference Liberian. The Profs, will not allow Wikipedia to be used as a source, because of its unreliability.
I find it good for general information and a broad brush overview. However, specific facts should be checked with an authoritative source before relying on them.
TeaSea
SOH-CM-2014
I was being facetious...I take no offense from Mr. Wombat...indeed, I'm pleased he was paying attention.
Sometimes I go commando too, so that might not apply to a wedgie scenario.....
and JMIG is right...always consider the source. I would not use Wikipedia as a source on a paper either, however I would use it to assist in my research. It will lead me to sources and references whose bona fides are more easily recognized.
Sometimes I go commando too, so that might not apply to a wedgie scenario.....
and JMIG is right...always consider the source. I would not use Wikipedia as a source on a paper either, however I would use it to assist in my research. It will lead me to sources and references whose bona fides are more easily recognized.
K
Ken Stallings
Guest
It is simply a repository of online information. For an academic effort it can be a valuable source of primary source documents. However, in terms of an online discussion, it's value is situationally dependent. It's quality is entirely dependent upon the quality of the volunteer contributer who authored the piece.
The issue comes down to estimates of damage. Those estimates are made by a relatively few official sources. So, it really doesn't matter where the data comes from as it is the same data being reported. And they are educated guesses. Teasea simply went to the easiest source for that data.
I think a far larger and more critical point is to look at BP's actions during this rigs construction and the associated drilling operation. It seems BP ordered the use of sea water vice heavy mud to temporarily plug the well head. This is not consistent with standard industry practice, as heavy mud and concrete is supposed to be used so that in case of a gas pocket reaching the well head, the heavy mud and concrete can provide a sufficient barrier to prevent a blowout.
Ultimately, there were several arguments between BP officials and their vendors at Horizon and Halliburton. Those arguments were overheard by surviving rig workers, some employed by BP, and many are now on the record with the information I just provided.
There is no reason at this time to suspect the accuracy of these reports. The tragic thing is that the men most likely in the know are the ones who were killed in the initial explosion, who might have been able to control the situation had these shortcuts not been ordered.
As Teasea said, there are thousands of these rigs doing their jobs efficiently and safely. This is because the industry practices are well thought out and reflect hard science. BP shorted these procedures to save money they will now pay out by orders of magnitude. And that doesn't even account for the terrible loss of life.
No doubt there are going to be agenda groups that use this isolated experience to advocate the end of offshore drilling. BP has handed these people a golden opportunity I'm sure they will use. But the reality is none of this likely would have happened if proper procedure had been used. If I had my way, those officials at BP responsible for these negligent actions will be criminally prosecuted.
Ken
TeaSea
SOH-CM-2014
I will dare to venture into the potentially political realm......(actually economic)....
No one should think that the U.S. Government is going to "hold BP accountable" for paying for the clean up of this mess. BP will certainly pony up the ready cash and pay out on claims...they've already begun to do so....however, no corporation pays off these things. They simply pass on the cost as a cost of production. If they have the capital to survive, BP will recoup their costs on the backside. The consumer will ultimately pay for the cost since it will become a production cost.
BTW, it's the same with Taxes...when I hear folks cry "increase corporate taxes" I laugh....Corporations don't pay taxes...they just pass off the cost and become the governments tax collector.
No one should think that the U.S. Government is going to "hold BP accountable" for paying for the clean up of this mess. BP will certainly pony up the ready cash and pay out on claims...they've already begun to do so....however, no corporation pays off these things. They simply pass on the cost as a cost of production. If they have the capital to survive, BP will recoup their costs on the backside. The consumer will ultimately pay for the cost since it will become a production cost.
BTW, it's the same with Taxes...when I hear folks cry "increase corporate taxes" I laugh....Corporations don't pay taxes...they just pass off the cost and become the governments tax collector.
That is absolutely correct! The only way to prevent the costs of increased corporate taxes being passed on to consumers is to put absolute price caps on corporate prices...
...which isn't a very good idea at all...
R
redriver6
Guest
maybe there are 'thousands' of offshore drilling rigs in operation but certainly not 'thousands' of the type that exploded and sank in the gulf..the Deepwater Horizon was a semi-submersible deep water drilling platform....that is one of the big problems with this particular disaster...the depth of the water under the rig (5000ft) and inability to conduct adequate emergency procedures at that depth....
K
Ken Stallings
Guest
I'm sorry, but I must disagree with you on your last point. There were emergency procedures that if implemented could have prevented the disaster. What it seems happened is that a few senior leaders lacked confidence in their people to allow them authority to implement those critical safety actions quick enough to ensure they would work.
These few senior leaders wanted total control but did not want to stay on watch long enough to ensure a timely decision. They wrote rules that required them to remain on scene 24/7 which is, of course, unrealistic. Nevertheless, they required strict delay in implementation of critical actions until they could be summoned to review the situation for themselves.
This arrogantly presumed that no situation would be encountered that required prompt actions. I say arrogantly because even a lay person's review of the situation and history dictates that these safety actions be at the immediate ready for immediate implementation.
Ken
R
redriver6
Guest
i don't disagree Ken, what i'm saying is that once the rig sank and the line broke, the efforts to stop the leak have been incredibly complicated by the depth...
K
Ken Stallings
Guest
Yes, I agree with you completely there. No question at all.
This is the precise reason why an action plan had to be in place that guaranteed immediate implementation of the necessary safety protocols. These executives were fully briefed on the known risks of their technologies and understood the vital need for the fail safe actions.
I am willing to say that if the safties had been properly rigged IAW industry standards (not done here it turns out) and had their action plans been realistic for the gravity and necessity (again not done here) and the accident still happened as it did, then I'd be willing to chalk it up to a freak series of outcomes combining. This happens in industries all the time.
However, this is turning out to be mostly rooted in sheer negligence. There is a concept in law called negligent homicide. I would like to see it applied to the decision makers in this case.
Ken
K
Ken Stallings
Guest
Let me provide another example ...
For generations the military has created what are called nuclear protocols. Curtis LeMay instituted a ramrod tough culture within Strategic Air Command. He knew the awesome power of these weapons and he knew that there must be 100% compliance devoid of excuses or compromises.
These are tough requirements in a human enterprise. But LeMay knew anything less would be an abdication of basic duty. So, he created SAC's culture and enforced the standards. A lot of running jokes were created, such as the SAC adages "To err is human and to forgive is simply not SAC policy," or the famous patch many wore that showed the SAC mailed fist squeezing a turnip and a drop of blood dripping down with the caption underneath reading, "The Hell We Can't!"
These iconic messages from my Cold War time in the USAF (not in SAC I must say) are examples where gravely important requirements required and received keen attention to detail and high levels of accountability among leaders. And if you failed, you were sacked without mercy.
As they say, this stuff ain't child's play! It requires the keenest degree of human thought and discipline. If you deviated from nuclear protocols during SAC's watch, you were harshly dealt with. Some of that culture was lost in the McPeak mania to dismantle all things non-fighter in the USAF! Finally, our current Chief of Staff Norty Schwartz is getting things back with a harsh degree of accountability on senior commanders. Schwartz is setting the tone of zero tolerance for poor command performance and he's ordered the sacking of many wing commanders in recent months.
It needs to be the same in these critical industries like offshore oil and gas drilling operations. They are given a unique degree of responsibility. And they must be held to an extraordinary degree of accountability. So, yes, in this case, I'd like to see criminal charges brought forth.
Ken
For generations the military has created what are called nuclear protocols. Curtis LeMay instituted a ramrod tough culture within Strategic Air Command. He knew the awesome power of these weapons and he knew that there must be 100% compliance devoid of excuses or compromises.
These are tough requirements in a human enterprise. But LeMay knew anything less would be an abdication of basic duty. So, he created SAC's culture and enforced the standards. A lot of running jokes were created, such as the SAC adages "To err is human and to forgive is simply not SAC policy," or the famous patch many wore that showed the SAC mailed fist squeezing a turnip and a drop of blood dripping down with the caption underneath reading, "The Hell We Can't!"
These iconic messages from my Cold War time in the USAF (not in SAC I must say) are examples where gravely important requirements required and received keen attention to detail and high levels of accountability among leaders. And if you failed, you were sacked without mercy.
As they say, this stuff ain't child's play! It requires the keenest degree of human thought and discipline. If you deviated from nuclear protocols during SAC's watch, you were harshly dealt with. Some of that culture was lost in the McPeak mania to dismantle all things non-fighter in the USAF! Finally, our current Chief of Staff Norty Schwartz is getting things back with a harsh degree of accountability on senior commanders. Schwartz is setting the tone of zero tolerance for poor command performance and he's ordered the sacking of many wing commanders in recent months.
It needs to be the same in these critical industries like offshore oil and gas drilling operations. They are given a unique degree of responsibility. And they must be held to an extraordinary degree of accountability. So, yes, in this case, I'd like to see criminal charges brought forth.
Ken
Hey All,
Redriver what you said is totally correct. Why is BP or any company drilling in waters so deep when they have no engineered plan for a worst case scenario given the potential consequences? That fact to me says fault lies with both the company and government - the company for doing it the government for allowing it. Ken is right with respect to the negligence on the drilling platform but there is more to the story. I'd like to see a full accounting from today right back through the Bush/Cheney administration and earlier if warranted about the "coziness" of government and oil. Let's see some accountability.
-Ed-
Redriver what you said is totally correct. Why is BP or any company drilling in waters so deep when they have no engineered plan for a worst case scenario given the potential consequences? That fact to me says fault lies with both the company and government - the company for doing it the government for allowing it. Ken is right with respect to the negligence on the drilling platform but there is more to the story. I'd like to see a full accounting from today right back through the Bush/Cheney administration and earlier if warranted about the "coziness" of government and oil. Let's see some accountability.
-Ed-
K
Ken Stallings
Guest
Been a year and a half since the current crew took over. Can we stop automatically going back in time, please!
But yes, there is a government agency responsible for inspection and certification, and it does appear they were too cozy to the companies they inspected. Yes, government inspectors should have reviewed the operating plans for this rig and refused to provide certifications until a more realistic action plan was put in place.
The current head of this agency has already been sacked. It's a good start. I hope all those government officials involved in the certification process are also fired.
Ken
Hey All,
Top Kill and apparently junk shots which I saw mentioned yesterday both are failures. Now they will apparently cut the riser (pipe) which will increase oil flowing into the gulf so they can attempt another capping. Hope no one is planning a vacation on the Gulf of Mexico this summer.
This isn't funny anymore.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gulf_oil_spill
-Ed-
Top Kill and apparently junk shots which I saw mentioned yesterday both are failures. Now they will apparently cut the riser (pipe) which will increase oil flowing into the gulf so they can attempt another capping. Hope no one is planning a vacation on the Gulf of Mexico this summer.
This isn't funny anymore.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gulf_oil_spill
-Ed-