• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    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 politician 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 among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

RE: Oil in Gulf; Oh Man, another Titannic/Challenger scenario.

Snuffy said:
If this proves anything, it proves that the ancient way of building rigs will probably be brought back to the norm. This is speculation with regard to the floating and sinking rig problem.

Had this rig been of the rigid design with a foundation implanted in the sea bed, most likely the rig would not have sunk, and the pipe would not have failed at such a depth as it is now, and virtually impossible for man to withstand the water pressures of the location.

There still would be the geyser effect we're seeing now, but it would be a whole lot closer to depths that a man could survive in. IF it were under water at all.

Yes, I understand the leak is a mile or so below the surface, and yeah its a lot of steel/aluminum or whatever other material they could have chose to build the support structure from, but again, the cost of a mile of steel structure is a hell of a lot less than what its going to cost to clean up, as well as what its cost so far to have to repair this rupture.

Just my humble idle thought on this.
Click to expand...

You may be right. But, I think they will most likely look at improving blowout preventors and the process of cementing and drilling so that it won't happen again.

The equivalent dilemma in aviation is do you make planes so that they can float in the event of a total engine faliure, and equip them with lifeboats; or do you make the engines so reliable that they never have to worry about a water landing. The industry has chose to go with more reliable engines, although the discussion about landing on water and the Hudson River incident shows that under ideal conditions, a water landing is still survivable, and every plane is equipped with life vests. You look at it the situation, and come with the most practical and cost-effective solution.

Ed and jmig have covered why we drill and what the consequences are well. Petroleum is not going away; the question is do we get it from hostile countries overseas, obtain it from far off the continental shelf, or closer to shore. It has been decided that the risk of incidents like this is too great for many locations closer to shore; so we have been banned from drilling there, and we are left with the first two choices.

Ask London of 1952 what life was like before natural gas and oil fired powerplants in more remote locations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog

That wasn't that long ago; so reducing population is not the answer either.

However, as the oil sludge has made landfall in the Mississippi wetlands, part of the Florida Coast, and is heading North, along with the banning of fishing in over 40,000 square miles in the Gulf, the impact (even by Ken's 'Because the best policies are those that cause the least harm to society' standards) will be huge.
Aside from the loss of 35% of America's seafood fisheries, the knock on effect down the line from fishermen all the way to the consumer will be ugly.
Click to expand...

Yes, it has made landfall, but in greatly diluted amounts, and much of it is non-toxic. I know, we are planning a trip to Galveston this weekend.

The effects are ugly, yes, but will probably be short lived. Watch and see. We can already say it is not the economic and environmental apocalypse that the early reporting said it would be.

And to all those that say humans dont effect the enviroment and that mother nature will "clean up" .. well thats utter bollacks and you need to get out away from the towns/citys etc and take a good look around you, now go back to town.
Click to expand...

Sorry; it's a fact. Some tarballs washed up on the Florida Keys just in the past day or so, and guess what? An analysis of the oil determined that it is not from this oil spill. It either came from a ship -- or nature.

And I have spent the vast majority of my life in towns of 100,000 or less. Spindletop itself is on the edge of Beaumont, a town of about 100,000. The site of that original well is grass, trees, mosquitoes, birds, more mosquitoes, yet more mosquitoes, scattered pumpjacks, and even more mosquitoes; with US 287/69/96 passing by with the buinesses along it, and a railroad track; and not an environmental disaster area conveniently paved over with McDonalds and Wal-marts.

-James
 
Oh, and surely you mean riding a steel frame Ordinary with natural rubber tires, and NOT a carbon fiber frame modern bicycle with synthetic rubber tires derived from the products of oil refining. :wiggle:

-James
 
Office of the White House
March 28, 1977

As you all know, a terrible incident involving two bloated 747s occured on the island of Tenerife in the Canary Islands. There were 583 fatalities, lots of burning fuel and smoke to further increase global warming, and the two 747s owned by the greedy airlines were destroyed.

The fact that the airlines would endanger lives by attempting to take off in fog proves that the airline industry has placed profits over safety. Furthermore, the fact that this incident was even allowed to occur proves that the FAA has become too cozy with the airline industry.

In response to this crisis, I have issued an executive order that calls for the following:

1. The grounding of all airline flights worldwide, effective immediately. Those already in the air will be allowed to continue to their destination.

2. I have asked for the immediate resignation of the current head of the FAA.

3. I have formed a blue ribbon panel to investigate this incident.

Signed;
The President of the United States
 
Ken Stallings said:
I think the alarms have been louder from this mishap than the actual problems it has caused. The Valdez mishap was a disaster due to the proximity to the shores. This one happened far enough out that the actual environmental impact is vastly more spread out.

It also seems that BP has finally managed to get a handle of the spill.

Name an industry and you'll find mishaps, many spectacular. I think the media have turned the petroleum industry into a whipping boy and this is done absent of smart economic considerations. Energy is the lifeblood of everyone's job. Reduce the supply and you literally put millions of people out of work very easily.

I think across the board there needs to be a lot less focus on ideals and more focus on sobering reality.

Ken
Click to expand...

Hey Ken, wasn't the Valdez spill also a result of the ship captain's close proximity to alcohol, too? Good points.
 
jhefner said:
Office of the White House
March 28, 1977

As you all know, a terrible incident involving two bloated 747s occured on the island of Tenerife in the Canary Islands. There were 583 fatalities, lots of burning fuel and smoke to further increase global warming, and the two 747s owned by the greedy airlines were destroyed.

The fact that the airlines would endanger lives by attempting to take off in fog proves that the airline industry has placed profits over safety. Furthermore, the fact that this incident was even allowed to occur proves that the FAA has become too cozy with the airline industry.

In response to this crisis, I have issued an executive order that calls for the following:

1. The grounding of all airline flights worldwide, effective immediately. Those already in the air will be allowed to continue to their destination.

2. I have asked for the immediate resignation of the current head of the FAA.

3. I have formed a blue ribbon panel to investigate this incident.

Signed;
The President of the United States
Click to expand...
:icon_lol: Nice.

I'm still waiting for the first photoshopped image of a polar bear, covered in oil, standing on a small piece of ice in the middle of the ocean to appear in a press release. :rolleyes:
 
Snuffy said:
If this proves anything, it proves that the ancient way of building rigs will probably be brought back to the norm. This is speculation with regard to the floating and sinking rig problem.

Had this rig been of the rigid design with a foundation implanted in the sea bed, most likely the rig would not have sunk, and the pipe would not have failed at such a depth as it is now, and virtually impossible for man to withstand the water pressures of the location.

There still would be the geyser effect we're seeing now, but it would be a whole lot closer to depths that a man could survive in. IF it were under water at all.

Yes, I understand the leak is a mile or so below the surface, and yeah its a lot of steel/aluminum or whatever other material they could have chose to build the support structure from, but again, the cost of a mile of steel structure is a hell of a lot less than what its going to cost to clean up, as well as what its cost so far to have to repair this rupture.
Just my humble idle thought on this.
Click to expand...

Won't happen. The amount of steel needed to build a structure a mile high that can withstand the currents would make it economically impossible. That is why these structures float.

Also, these rigs are temporary. Three months to a year then it moves somewhere else.

On average there are about 90 deep water rigs drilling at one time in the Gulf of Mexico. This is the first time one of these type of rigs has had such a significant accident.

How long do we go with out an airliner crashing?

How long do we go without a train derailment?

The O&G Industry will learn from this accident. Better procedures and equipment will come out of it. Drilling will become safer.
 
stiz said:
people have legs/bikes etc oil isnt the only way to move things around. People managed fine before it and people will manage when its gone. And to all those that say humans dont effect the enviroment and that mother nature will "clean up" .. well thats utter bollacks and you need to get out away from the towns/citys etc and take a good look around you, now go back to town. :kilroy:
Click to expand...

I suggest you take a hard look at such things as infant mortality, life expectancy, and many other vital facts prior to the industrial age and then after. I, for one, am not willing to return to those days simply to stop using oil.

You know, if we do bad things, it is entirely possible to return to the days of 30% infant mortality and life expectancy hovering in the late 50's vice the current 70's level.

For me, again, that's not insignificant. And I do hope people can balance such exuberant statements with just a bit more historical awareness.

Cheers,

Ken
 
jmig said:
Won't happen. The amount of steel needed to build a structure a mile high that can withstand the currents would make it economically impossible. That is why these structures float.

Also, these rigs are temporary. Three months to a year then it moves somewhere else.

On average there are about 90 deep water rigs drilling at one time in the Gulf of Mexico. This is the first time one of these type of rigs has had such a significant accident.

How long do we go with out an airliner crashing?

How long do we go without a train derailment?

The O&G Industry will learn from this accident. Better procedures and equipment will come out of it. Drilling will become safer.
Click to expand...
i agreee
H
 
Ken Stallings said:
I suggest you take a hard look at such things as ...
Click to expand...

quite true. another thing people fail to comprehend is that modern farming and distribution of food and goods would also be impossible. the world and in fact, this country, could not feed the population we currently have.
there would be mass starvation. we've gone too far down the rabbit hole to turn around suddenly.

but i believe there are more responsible ways of doing what we do.
 
As the posts here seem to waver between the event at hand and the greater topics of energy sources and employment, there are some hard moral questions being hinted at or posed directly. I just wanted to commend those who are engaged in this discussion for your civility in what could have easily been a brief flurry of emotional outpouring before a shut down.:salute:
 
Hey All,

Steadily the truth comes out.

But first a comment about Ken's comment on giving up standard of living driving a car and all that. No I and most people in North America do not want to nor do we need to (yet) go back to the horse and buggy and bicycle. That said we need alternatives to oil and gas and likely sooner than we think. The problem with the situation in the gulf is as I indicated wrong headed thinking in not understanding the potentially huge consequences of something going seriously wrong and making intelligent choices in a situation where risk is small but consequence huge.

Fundamentally I believe the government of the USA does not have the right to make the policy decision that the energy supply to the USA outweighs all other economic values that the Gulf of Mexico supplies - without full disclosure and discussion of that decision with the people of the USA and those potentially affected including Cuba and Mexico. John says we don't want to put the energy supply of the USA in the hands of countries that don't like us much. My answer to that is tough - they mostly don't like us for (a) reason(s) (some unquestionably valid) so get over it and deal with them but if you don't want to do that then disclose the alternatives for public scrutiny. Have the debate and the discussion - maybe if the energy situation is perceived severe enough start a "Manhattan Project" focused on energy - In my opinion as a believer in the capitalist system - whatever you do DO NOT depend on the market to solve the problem. The market is an effective way of distributing the goods of the world but it has virtually NO ability to "think" forward 20, 30 even 50+ years into the future about what is needed. What if we had taken the idea of running out of oil truly seriously 30 years ago? Where would we be today? The market relies on price causing a switch to alternatives generally in a relatively short time frame but if the development time for the alternatives is long (like decades or longer) your skrood. In my opinion this is basically where we are at. Capitalism and the market mechanism has serious deficiencies that western economies need to start taking seriously (anybody notice the effects of deregulation on Wall Street lately?) - but that is a different discussion. Getting back to the Gulf...

1) Today BP indicated they are recovering about 5000 barrels a day and burning off as much as 14 million feet of natural gas a day. Uh what was the estimate of what the leak was putting out? Right now estimates are running as high as up to 14 times the original estimate leaking daily.

2) The dispersant BP is/was using is highly toxic and they have been ordered to suspend use of that and go to something else. Even though approved for use which is an EPA/Coast Guard Skroo-up BP should be following best management practices and using something less toxic right from the start. The chemicals they are/were using are not legal in other parts of the world. I'll ignore the apparent "connection" between BP and the company that produces the chemical.

3) BP is going to look at Kevin Costner's company's (with his brother) product whatever it is to help with the Gulf oil mess - BP and Hollywood - guess BP isn't as in control as oilfield "experts" would have us believe. Maybe it'll help. I kinda like the hay idea though. :jump:

4) BP has failed to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth - now they are being told to be transparent - about time.

5) If BP's "hole shot" this weekend doesn't work this situation IMO is no longer a minor inconvience - ignoring for now the fact that it's turning into not being an inconvience now - but a serious event with long lasting repercussions.

I am really hoping - probably against hope - that BP stops this oil leak this weekend and that this does turn out to be a true "wake up" call to people that risk and consequence are not to be trifled with. As a forest fire specialist I may have more sensitivity to that than many but irrespective I think people need to be far more clued into risk versus consequence. The climate change issue is looming and once again - a case of risk versus consequence. In my opinion the consequences of climate change are possibly so severe that the chance (whatever size you believe it is) of human caused climate change is worth taking very seriously.

-Ed-

As an aside just for those who do not know the USA imports more oil from Canada than any other country on earth - not the middle east.
 
EasyEd said:
As an aside just for those who do not know the USA imports more oil from Canada than any other country on earth - not the middle east.
Click to expand...

Why would the middle east import oil from Canada? :icon_lol: I couldn't resist. :ernae:
 
In my opinion the consequences of climate change are possibly so severe that the chance (whatever size you believe it is) of human caused climate change is worth taking very seriously.
Click to expand...
Well, I don't believe the science is "settled" on human caused climate change, not by a long shot. But if you are serious about consequences being severe no matter how small the risk is, we should be putting all our money in to asteroid/comet defense. That's no theory, it's fact. It's happened before and it is going to happen again.

I'm all for developing alternative energy, but for the RIGHT reasons. I know some say that reducing carbon emissions and energy independence are the same thing, and in a way... they are! HOWEVER, it's the way some people want to go about doing this that I have problems with. Taxing carbon or otherwise artificially making carbon energy sources difficult to exploit while crippling the economy is NOT the way to do it.
 
Ok,I am also for looking at alternative sources because I don't believe in keeping all your eggs in one basket,but other than oil,coal and nuclear energy what else will supply the vast amounts of energy needed to run a modern society? Nothing,not wind or ethanol or hyroelectric.

It's a matter of scale,you simply can't grow enough corn or put up enough windmills or dam enough rivers.It is simply impossible.The same with solar.Now having said that I feel that solar and wind have a limited place in our energy policy,ethanol is a loser.It take more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol then it makes,in other words if a gallon of ethanol produces 1000 btus of energy(just an example figure),it took 1500 btu's to make that gallon.

And here in the US the subsidy is $1 per gallon to make it.

I don't pretend to have the answer,but take a hard look at the world around you and take the emotion out of it.See how goods are produced and distributed and ask yourself what would really happen to me,personally if that chain were broken.And that chain,right now,runs on oil and other carbon based fuels and will for the rest of my life.

Can you say cold,dark and hungry? We may not like it but there it is,are you willing to give up your lifestyle and I don't mean just your car.Your food and clothing and electricity.All of these things will be in short supply.
 
I'm certainly not against alternative energy research and development, far from it!

However, I also believe that since in this country no one is being prevented from applying free enterprise in those efforts that just as soon as it becomes economically viable, it will happen -- sort of along the adage of the old saw about building a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door!

But, for the foreseeable future, the most efficient means of energy is fossile fuels (coal, oil, gas) and nuclear are the most economical methods. I would immediately support vastly increased use of nuclear power in America. But, that has gotten politicized, mostly by the same folks who condemn our dependency on oil, sadly enough!

Ken
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top