Is Offshore Oil Drilling Truly Safe?

[mgb_phys]

Just sayin'... if the oceans were private property instead of common property, then there would be injured parties that would have to be compensated.

There are a few problems with owning international waters - such as who, how, where.

There are rules for spills and dumping at sea even in international waters, generally the response is for anyone effected to sue the owners of the vessel. Which for rigs and oil leaks is usually pretty easy to determine.

The worst offenders in the gulf of Mexico are cruise ships. A 1000bbl/day light crude leak is nothing compared to the amount of waste water/sewage/chemicals that 100 cruise ships a day - each with 5000 people on board generate.

 

[mheslep]

Just sayin'... if the oceans were private property instead of common property, then there would be injured parties that would have to be compensated. There is no incentive to take good care of common property, which is why they become potential dumping grounds. We have agriculture, why not aquaculture?

Though it is problematic, the potential benefits some privatization of the ocean are too large to ignore. I believe Iceland did something very innovative along those lines with their fisheries resulting in dramatic economic and ecological improvements.

 

[mgb_phys]

I believe Iceland did something very innovative along those lines with their fisheries resulting in dramatic economic and ecological improvements.

Iceland proposed a 200mile economic exclusion zone, rather than the usual 12mi nautical limit.
This was good for Iceland's fisheries, but it was only able to enforce it because of other political means - it was in a vital position in the cold war for anti-submarine bases.

There are a few problems with 200mi limits, especially where they benefit countries with former empires. So Britain gets a big junk of the south Atlantic because of the Falklands, and a lot of Spanish and Mediterranean water because of Gibraltar. France would have access to the fisheries of the Grand Banks and Nova Scotia oilfields because of the tiny territory of St-Pierre&Michelon. And much of the deep water oilfields in the gulf Mexico would be Cuban!

Russia is trying something similar by claiming the arctic ocean is it's territory while the US is claiming that the North West passage, even the parts that are inshore Canadian waters, are international.

Ultimately it comes down to do you have enough a political clout to make it stick and a large enough to enforce it.

 

[mheslep]

Iceland proposed a 200mile economic exclusion zone, rather than the usual 12mi nautical limit.
...

I meant something else. Iceland has done something fairly recently that, as I recall, allowed the buying and selling of fishery rights among the fishermen, a big step from a simple fishing license/allocation from the state. The result was that the best, most efficient fishermen ended up on the water, the poor performers sold out. The top fishermen then had something of great value to them, and thus had large incentives to husband the fishing grounds for future production. I wonder if these Iceland fishermen would react any differently than Gulf fishermen to a similar oil spill.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

For some perspective on the magnitude of this disaster, USA Today's article says it is spilling about 42,000 gallons a day.

It's now grown to 210,000 gallons of oil a day.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/04/29/louisiana.oil.rig/index.html?hpt=T1

 

[mheslep]

It's now grown to 210,000 gallons of oil a day.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/04/29/louisiana.oil.rig/index.html?hpt=T1

Well 'officials said' per that source. I heard BP disputing that characterization today. They still believe it is lower, but now concede the estimate error may range up to the higher 5000 bbl/day number. Yes:

I do not disagree with the admiral's estimate that it could be 5,000 barrels a day -- it's clearly within the range of uncertainty," said Doug Suttles, chief operating officer for BP, who joined Landry at Wednesday's news conference.

Edit: I'm being highly sceptical of these claims, pending better information, in light of what just happened with the Icelandic volcano and the EU airspace closure fraud/overreaction. The PF volcano thread posted again and again representative graphics of the ash dispersion cloud supplied by the press and (surprisingly) no PFers posted due diligence on checking primary source material - satellite or air sample data. After the fact we find out the graphics were crap.

 

[Borg]

Does anyone know of a link to track the slick other than the static image in Greg's post?

 

[mgb_phys]

Iceland has done something fairly recently that, as I recall, allowed the buying and selling of fishery rights among the fishermen.

Iceland did a lot of things right and ended up with a system that protected the fisheries,

An Icelandic boat trawling for cod that catches some herring can buy/trade herring quota with other boats - a Scottish boat has to just throw the dead by-catch overboard. They also have systems for banking unused quota so you can have a busy season and then mothball a boat for a season.

The problem with the Eu is most decisions are really about politics. So one branch was removing quota from Scottish boats to save fish stocks while another was paying under-developed countries to modernize their industry.
A boat would be laid up in Scotland on friday, the owner being compensated by the eu, and then sail on monday with a Spanish owner who was subsidised by the Eu to buy this new efficient boat - to the same fishing grounds.

 

[Borg]

Does anyone know of a link to track the slick other than the static image in Greg's post?

I found a link on the Coast Guard's website for anyone that's interested.

"www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com"[/URL]

 

[turbo]

You don't think BP is going to take care of the families involved? Come on now.

BP is not going to compensate all the fishermen who lose their livelihoods when their shrimping, oystering, crabbing grounds are contaminated and unfishable. Fishing is a hard way to make a living, and most of the fishermen that I know are making payments on their boats, paying off loans for engine rebuilds, replacing damaged gear, etc. They are self-employed, and cannot collect unemployment benefits to support their families.

The federal government can do their best to force a settlement, but by the time BP's lawyers get done delaying and denying payments, fishermen will already have lost boats, homes, etc.

 

[MotoH]

BP is not going to compensate all the fishermen who lose their livelihoods when their shrimping, oystering, crabbing grounds are contaminated and unfishable. Fishing is a hard way to make a living, and most of the fishermen that I know are making payments on their boats, paying off loans for engine rebuilds, replacing damaged gear, etc. They are self-employed, and cannot collect unemployment benefits to support their families.

The federal government can do their best to force a settlement, but by the time BP's lawyers get done delaying and denying payments, fishermen will already have lost boats, homes, etc.

That's the life of a fisherman. Comes with the territory. All BP can do is try and contain the leak, which they are doing, and keep the collateral to a minimum.

 

[mheslep]

That's the life of a fisherman. Comes with the territory. All BP can do is try and contain the leak, which they are doing, and keep the collateral to a minimum.

That doesn't accurately portray the issues at hand, and even if it did, who's to say that's a fair application of property and other economic rights? See the Icelandic posts above for suggestions of alternatives.

 

[MotoH]

That doesn't accurately portray the issues at hand, and even if it did, who's to say that's a fair application of property and other economic rights? See the Icelandic posts above for suggestions of alternatives.

Quite trying to push this Iceland plan. You've used it in every thread where water has been mentioned. It may work for a small island, but not any large nation.

 

[mheslep]

Quite trying to push this Iceland plan. [...] It may work for a small island, but not any large nation.

Engage the larger idea of ocean property and rights as started by others in #34 as a solution to ocean spills, or not, as you like. And I wasn't talking about a small island, but rather 200 miles worth of surrounding North Atlantic fishing area.

You've used it in every thread where water has been mentioned.

Fabrication. I never mentioned outside of this thread.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

It seems to me that fisherman being able to sue BP for loss of fishing grounds is akin to me suing the fisherman for not being able to work because I couldn't get a delicious fish sandwich. BP can't be held responsible for a fisherman's poor financial choices where a month of poor fishing will make or break him...

 

[pallidin]

Hmmm... just read a current CNN news release. http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/04/29/louisiana.oil.rig/index.html?hpt=T1

Sounds like it could be really bad.

Louisiana declared a state of emergency with respect to this spill.
The Fed's are now stepping in. Why does it take so long!

Anyone with half a brain cell could tell from the beginning that this is a serious ecological situation. PFer's noticed it. The government, well, apparently not, again.

 

[mheslep]

It seems to me that fisherman being able to sue BP for loss of fishing grounds is akin to me suing the fisherman for not being able to work because I couldn't get a delicious fish sandwich. BP can't be held responsible for a fisherman's poor financial choices where a month of poor fishing will make or break him...

The issue is property rights. You don't own that sandwich before the fact. A better analogy would be me operating a 10 ton truck and clipping the car you own and use to commute to work and putting it out of action. By law, you can suit me to be made whole again. My theoretical responses to your suit that 1) you made 'poor financial choices' if your temporary loss of transport caused you to lose a job is irrelevant and no defense, or that 2) hey its a big road and shi*t happens out there is also irrelevant and no defense.

Of course Gulf fisherman don't own the marine life out there now - but maybe ala Iceland they should to some degree.

 

[mheslep]

Hmmm... just read a current CNN news release. http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/04/29/louisiana.oil.rig/index.html?hpt=T1

Can anyone parse that satellite image shown here? Run off from land is apparent, but I can't make out anything in the supposed spill area as 'oil slick'. I trust the 1st tab - graphical map about as much as spaghetti thrown on the wall.

 

[MotoH]

Hmmm... just read a current CNN news release. http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/04/29/louisiana.oil.rig/index.html?hpt=T1

Sounds like it could be really bad.

Louisiana declared a state of emergency with respect to this spill.
The Fed's are now stepping in. Why does it take so long!

Anyone with half a brain cell could tell from the beginning that this is a serious ecological situation. PFer's noticed it. The government, well, apparently not, again.

Bush obviously hates black people, and that is why it took so long.

With the extra inch or two of water I wonder if the levees are going to break again and the underwater section will finally be washed away from NO.

 

[turbo]

It seems to me that fisherman being able to sue BP for loss of fishing grounds is akin to me suing the fisherman for not being able to work because I couldn't get a delicious fish sandwich. BP can't be held responsible for a fisherman's poor financial choices where a month of poor fishing will make or break him...

Apparently, you have no understanding of the fishing industry. Fishermen have to abide by catch rules, landing limits, and limited seasons that vary by species. Close fishing grounds for a month or two, and some fishermen may lose an entire season's income.

The idea that a massive foreign-controlled corporation can destroy or badly damage a public resource and ask for US taxpayers to send clean-up crews and ships to clean up their mess (when they obviously hadn't staged sufficient clean-up recourses of their own) is repellent at the least. Blaming fishermen for being in the fishing industry instead of requiring BP to make them whole is beyond disgusting. There are parts of this country whose economies are heavily depended on fishing (my state is one). Commercial fishermen are hard-working people and they deserve compensation if they are thrown out of work.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Of course Gulf fisherman don't own the marine life out there now - but maybe ala Iceland they should to some degree.

That's basically my point, it seems like a real grey area to me. Of course they will probably sue and probably get billions; but at what point is it decided who accepts the risk of fishing in waters close to oil rigs? Who accepts the risk of building an oil rig in waters close to fished areas?

Just trying to play a little devil's advocate is all...

 

[MotoH]

They apparently opened up the shrimp season. The fisherman problem is solved!

 

[turbo]

They apparently opened up the shrimp season. The fisherman problem is solved!

No, it is not solved. Not in the least. I have a friend/former client who is one of the largest suppliers of flash-frozen shrimp in the US, and his business will go under if the oil reaches the shrimping grounds. "Open season" does not equate to catchable shrimp. Open season probably means that the season, which traditionally starts around the end of April has hit the set calendar date, not that shrimpers will have clean water to net shrimp in.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/29/massive-oil-slick-devastating-impact-economy-gulf-states/

 

[Shalashaska]

Oh man, this is turning out to be a ridiculous disaster. I can't believe that they'll manage to cap three leaks before this kills MASSIVE numbers of everything from krill on up. This is going to make the Exxon-Valdez look tame.

I'm struck by comments earlier which were filled with surety about plugging it with concrete, drilling more holes to release pressure, and the idea that such a spill can be handled. Officially we do not have enough sieves or booms or "nets" for this slick. I read a lot of posts about failsafes, which clearly were not workable in practice.

When will people get the damned hint that nuclear energy is infinitely preferable to THIS?! This is absolutely absurd, and no MotoH, they're shrimping early but that means the numbers and size won't be up to par. As much as I don't want to see anyone lose their livelihood, this disaster is eclipsing anything to do with fishing. This is just heartbreaking on every level.

 

[MotoH]

words.

I am going to guess you watched the ABC news broadcast about this.

 

[Shalashaska]

I am going to guess you watched the ABC news broadcast about this.

I don't watch network news, so no. I also don't watch fox news, cnn, or msnbc. Is there a reason that you chose to reduce my post to a single insult? If you can't or won't respond to substance, please don't resort to this kind of behavior. I have lived in regions which depend on brief seasonal fishing, and I'm familiar with shrimping. Turbo-1 is giving you some very good facts.

 

[turbo]

I am going to guess you watched the ABC news broadcast about this.

Did you read the "Fair and Balanced" link I gave you MotoH? If you think that a corporate-shill, right-wing "news" outlet such as FOX would not put out such a fatalistic story on Gulf fisheries if it is evidently true, what will you believe? Louisiana's shrimp fishery is the largest in the Gulf, and if the fishermen lose the next couple of months to contamination, the whole industry might collapse. My friend's flash-freezing/packing company will certainly collapse with hundreds of jobs lost - perhaps thousands of jobs with the ripple-effects that accompany catastrophe.

And that's just the processing side. Countless thousands of shrimpers will be put out of work, perhaps permanently for many.

Shrimpers could lose a whole season's income to this, and lose their boats, gear, homes...everything. All this to protect BP's profits? We need new rules.

 

[WhoWee]

Did you read the "Fair and Balanced" link I gave you MotoH? If you think that a corporate-shill, right-wing "news" outlet such as FOX would not put out such a fatalistic story on Gulf fisheries if it is evidently true, what will you believe? Louisiana's shrimp fishery is the largest in the Gulf, and if the fishermen lose the next couple of months to contamination, the whole industry might collapse. My friend's flash-freezing/packing company will certainly collapse with hundreds of jobs lost - perhaps thousands of jobs with the ripple-effects that accompany catastrophe.

And that's just the processing side. Countless thousands of shrimpers will be put out of work, perhaps permanently for many.

Shrimpers could lose a whole season's income to this, and lose their boats, gear, homes...everything. All this to protect BP's profits? We need new rules.

WHO is trying to protect BP's profits?

 

[MotoH]

I dun eat shrimp.

 

[turbo]

WHO is trying to protect BP's profits?

Let's see... The US has to mobilize military and civil resources to prevent further damage to our fisheries, and may still fail at that since the rate of discharge is apparently 5x that which was "estimated" by BP. BP will vigorously fight any attempt to charge them for the damage that they have done, and in the years before any settlement is reached, many thousands of fishermen will have lost their livelihoods, boats, and homes. It would take many years for oysters, shrimp, and crabs to recover from this disaster. The collusion of our government, media, and industry "experts" have combined to shelter BP from immediate responsibility, and push real effective response years away. By that time, BP will have recovered from its minor losses, and small businesses and countless fishermen will have lost their livelihoods.

What part of this do you not understand? Our government is designed to protect the powerful and wealthy, and screw the small businesses and self-employed.

 

[WhoWee]

Let's see... The US has to mobilize military and civil resources to prevent further damage to our fisheries, and may still fail at that since the rate of discharge is apparently 5x that which was "estimated" by BP. BP will vigorously fight any attempt to charge them for the damage that they have done, and in the years before any settlement is reached, many thousands of fishermen will have lost their livelihoods, boats, and homes. It would take many years for oysters, shrimp, and crabs to recover from this disaster. The collusion of our government, media, and industry "experts" have combined to shelter BP from immediate responsibility, and push real effective response years away. By that time, BP will have recovered from its minor losses, and small businesses and countless fishermen will have lost their livelihoods.

What part of this do you not understand? Our government is designed to protect the powerful and wealthy, and screw the small businesses and self-employed.

Didn't BP request help from Washington? Aren't the Federal teams moving to contain damage and facilitate clean-up? I haven't heard anyone say that BP shouldn't be held responsible for damages.

 

[turbo]

Didn't BP request help from Washington? Aren't the Federal teams moving to contain damage and facilitate clean-up? I haven't heard anyone say that BP shouldn't be held responsible for damages.

Has anybody said that BP would pay thousands of fishing-captains for their lost seasons, and the possible years of lost seasons? How about the folks that supply Gulf oysters and crabs? I'm just skimming the surface here, since the Gulf is such a rich fishery. The media can't contemplate the depth of the possible damage, due to the complexity of the situation, PLUS they don't earn money from advertisers by delving into details after they have stated the obvious.

 

[WhoWee]

Has anybody said that BP would pay thousands of fishing-captains for their lost seasons, and the possible years of lost seasons? How about the folks that supply Gulf oysters and crabs? I'm just skimming the surface here, since the Gulf is such a rich fishery. The media can't contemplate the depth of the possible damage, due to the complexity of the situation, PLUS they don't earn money from advertisers by delving into details after they have stated the obvious.

What was Rahm Emanuels' line...something like never let a good crisis go to waste? I think it's more likely the Government will try to increase taxes on the industry until gasoline prices hit about $8 to $10 per gallon.

 

[Shalashaska]

I dun eat shrimp.

Your patriotism seems to be highly selective MotoH. You don't eat shrimp, so who cares. I assume the fate of the wildlife is similarly meaningless to you? One flag, one language, one loyalty, but to hell with anything that doesn't fit in that view, including the gulf-coast of these United States! Our military is having to cope with this disaster, but I assume you care about THAT right? Damn MotoH, a foreign interest has caused a local disaster, and your commentary is that you "dun eat shrimp". Why bother to comment?

Turbo-1 The Coast Guard has already confirmed that they DO NOT have enough equipment to contain this slick, or manage it. We're going to spend a lot of money up-front, and really who knows what this is going to do to the ecology of the region? You're right about the complexity, which is vast, and it's going to hurt us all, whether or not some choose to accept that.

 

[Shalashaska]

What was Rahm Emanuels' line...something like never let a good crisis go to waste? I think it's more likely the Government will try to increase taxes on the industry until gasoline prices hit about $8 to $10 per gallon.

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