Is Offshore Oil Drilling Truly Safe?

[Shalashaska]

Let's see... enforcement protects people and our environment, but it attacks industry?

Too bad. I favor life and ecology over industry, and industry should pay for that protection. And Federal regulations should make certain that that protection is adequate.
Bottom line.

It may be naivete on my part, but I agree with Pallidin. Each administration has too much power to change existing bureaucracies to fit their whim (such as the EPA). A strong regulatory agency could at least act as a buffer with sheer force of bureaucracy.

If not regulation, then what? This simply cannot be allowed to continue...

 

[mgb_phys]

Let's see... enforcement protects people and our environment, but it attacks industry?

Of course, you make drilling more expensive / less profitable then you increase reliance on foreign oil and so put God fearing American drivers in the hands of Ay-Rabs - what are you some sort of terrorist? (please ignore the fact that the majority of imported oil comes from Canada and Venezuela - I'm on a roll here ;-)

That's the problem with an Oil Regulatory Commission - it would be responsible for promoting oil and for enforcing safety. It's the reason that the NTSB was set up in the 70s, the FAA had been resposible for both promoting air travel (and US carriers/aircraft makers) and enforcing safety standards - the result was that every accident was the fault of someone other than the carrier/maker.
I would much rather have OSHA/MSHA have more teeth than another layer of FEMA type government agency.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Does anyone want a plot for a disaster movie?

Hurricane season in the Gulf begins in less than thirty days - June 1st.

 

[mgb_phys]

Does anyone want a plot for a disaster movie?
Hurricane season in the Gulf begins in less than thirty days - June 1st.

You're OK unless Bruce Willis arrives in a white t-shirt

 

[turbo]

Does anyone want a plot for a disaster movie?

Hurricane season in the Gulf begins in less than thirty days - June 1st.

Shrimp season has been cancelled. All the shrimpers who have been waiting for months to hit the Gulf, nursing their savings, mending their gear, and pre-buying diesel fuel are out of luck. I feel sorry for them. Fishing is such hard work and the profits are not guaranteed - you have to deal with what nature gives you and what the harvest/landing limits allow you to get.

Edit: The shrimp season has not been officially cancelled, but fishing anywhere near the slick is now off-limits, and this is the unofficial beginning of the season. With several months at a minimum projected to slow and potentially stop the blow-out, shrimpers are out of luck. My friend who runs the largest flash-freezing shrimp-processing operation in that region will probably have to shut down - for who knows how long. He supplies private-branded frozen shrimp to markets all over the country. Got two or three private-brand frozen shrimp in your local supermarket? His plant might have processed and packed them all.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If a hurricane comes along in the middle of this - before they get the situation under contrlol, which could take many months - the potential for disaster is hard to imagine. Of course, that's already the case! Okay, now we're beyond even Bruce Willis grade movies. This is more akin to TV classics, such as Atomic Twister.

The last that I heard, they are going to attempt to put a dome over the well and capture the oil from there.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Perspective

Southern Louisiana contains 40-45% of the wetlands found in the lower 48 states. This is because Louisiana is the drainage gateway to the Gulf of Mexico for the Lower Mississippi Regional Watershed. The Lower Mississippi Regional Watershed drains more than 24 million acres (97,000 km²) in seven states from southern Illinois to the Gulf of Mexico...

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

The Gulf of Mexico is a magnificent resource: a kind of natural engine for the production of wild, highly nutritious foodstuff. Here's how the EPA describes it:

Gulf fisheries are some of the most productive in the world. In 2008 according to the National Marine Fisheries Service, the commercial fish and shellfish harvest from the five U.S. Gulf states was estimated to be 1.3 billion pounds valued at $661 million. The Gulf also contains four of the top seven fishing ports in the nation by weight. The Gulf of Mexico has eight of the top twenty fishing ports in the nation by dollar value.

According to the EPA, the Gulf is the home of 59 percent of U.S. oyster production. Nearly three-quarters of wild shrimp harvested in the United States call it home. It is a major breeding ground for some of the globe's most prized and endangered fish, including bluefin tuna, snapper, and grouper...

http://www.grist.org/article/2010-0...l-spill-fishery-to-industrial-sacrifice-zone/

 

[mgb_phys]

the commercial fish and shellfish harvest from the five U.S. Gulf states was estimated to be 1.3 billion pounds valued at $661 million.

Oil production in the Gulf of Mexico is around 1.7M bbl/day at $80/bbl about $130M/day

With a bit of luck the spill will kill the algae blooms (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090618124956.htm)

 

[Shalashaska]

Oil production in the Gulf of Mexico is around 1.7M bbl/day at $80/bbl about $130M/day

Yet, we cannot eat crude, and we can't cause fishing beds and grasses that will be slowly overwhelmed over the next few months to magically re-appear. Which is more challenging, maintaining a complex and absolutely NECESSARY biological system, or getting more $$$ from oil out of that same region?

Of course, now that same harvest is going to be savaged by this, which means that what shrimp we get will come from other regions, be imported, and more. So too with oysters and many other fish. As for the protected wildlife, I realize it doesn't represent a daily income, but some people have this crazy notion that if we destroy our ecosystem we're not going to have a chance to enjoy this lovely oil.

 

[Cyrus]

Long-lived fish, which are going to eat contaminated smaller fish... which will then become contaminated themselves if they don't die outright. Mercury step aside, there's a new "crude" kid in town.

This really is just upsetting as hell. We are absolutely ****ed.

Ok, you're upset. We get it.

 

[Cyrus]

Yet, we cannot eat crude, and we can't cause fishing beds and grasses that will be slowly overwhelmed over the next few months to magically re-appear. Which is more challenging, maintaining a complex and absolutely NECESSARY biological system, or getting more $$$ from oil out of that same region?

This is an absurd simplification of the situation.

 

[Cyrus]

You have a point to make, beyond baiting me?

The point is that saying, repeatedly "We are absolutely ****ed." doesn't solve anything and its rather annoying. We don't even know the extent of the damages yet. Calm down.

 

[Cyrus]

I'm prepared to hear your thoughtful analysis of the situation, sans the patronizing tone.

I'm not sure what was not clear about my analysis in previous posts, but if you have a question I will be sure to answer it to the best of my abilities.

 

[Cyrus]

By all means, please describe the complexities which you are aware of, that lead you to this conclusion? Clearly I wasn't attempting to encapsulate the whole of the matter in that statement, but clearly you have a great deal of knowledge about the complexities here. I'd be interested to have you spell that out in detail.

As was alluded to earlier by https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2700125&postcount=185" the oil revenue in the Gulf is a large contributor to the economy. Just as recently as the last presidential election, reducing foreign oil dependence was a major talking point of both parties. When you make such statements as quoted below:

Yet, we cannot eat crude, and we can't cause fishing beds and grasses that will be slowly overwhelmed over the next few months to magically re-appear. Which is more challenging, maintaining a complex and absolutely NECESSARY biological system, or getting more $$$ from oil out of that same region?

It is about as deep as the layer of oil floating over the water of the Gulf. I'm not sure what purpose the above statements are supposed to make. They certainly don't give any insights, and ignore the complexity of the issue. You've repeatedly tried to pass off this type of argument, particularly with your "and this is why Nuclear is a better option" statements. This is nothing but Greenpeace like talking points.

For the risk-assessment: You mentioned subjective elements earlier. I'd like to understand how you believe that people who are ignorant of the possible fallout of their actions can accurately assess risk? They can engage in an exercise they call risk assessment, but they're still bound by GIGO.

Again, a loaded question. Who and what are "ignorant" of the possible fallout of their actions.
You are still missing the point of what I mean by risk-assessment. Maybe I need to explain it to you, because you're using it out of context repeatedly.

Beyond that, I've asked quite a few questions of you earlier, which thus far you have dismissed or declined to answer. I'd still enjoy your response to them, if you're feeling a bit chatty.

I answered them.

 

[Cyrus]

Since you asked, I will give you an explanation about risk analysis. When you have an engineering system (this could be any system), it is not uncommon to use what is known as Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA). Basically, it is a subjective weighting on the relative risk index of a component or subsystem failing. As one can imagine, this can quickly lead to a huge array of all possible failures and combinations of failures. Consequently, one needs a set of metrics to determine the 'most likely' failure mode, because simply upgrading every possible failure mode is unattainably expensive.

One such metric is the risk priority number (RPN) defined as:

RPN = (severity of failure) X (Occurrence of failure) x (detecting rating)

The 'subjectivity' comes in the fact that the severity of failure is a ranking system determined by experienced and licensed engineers. Performing FMEA is extremely difficult, can be very complex, and requires experienced people to perform accurately.

So, these "oh just fix one valve" statements, completely miss the issue. I hope my explanation has been sufficiently clear. Designing and maintaining big expensive oil rigs isn't easy mickey mouse work. Hindsight of what did fail, after the fact is a nice luxury. The engineers doing the work before hand don't get that foresight. Again, for the last time, this is why an independent investigation needs to be done to make sure BP has followed up on a good FMEA analysis.

 

[Shalashaska]

As was alluded to earlier by https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2700125&postcount=185" the oil revenue in the Gulf is a large contributor to the economy. Just as recently as the last presidential election, reducing foreign oil dependence was a major talking point of both parties. When you make such statements as quoted below:



It is about as deep as the layer of oil floating over the water of the Gulf. I'm not sure what purpose the above statements are supposed to make. They certainly don't give any insights, and ignore the complexity of the issue. You've repeatedly tried to pass off this type of argument, particularly with your "and this is why Nuclear is a better option" statements. This is nothing but Greenpeace like talking points.



Again, a loaded question. Who and what are "ignorant" of the possible fallout of their actions.
You are still missing the point of what I mean by risk-assessment. Maybe I need to explain it to you, because you're using it out of context repeatedly.



I answered them.

Ok, let me lay this out for you in purely financial terms:

1: BP will likely prolong the process of paying fines, and recompense for the cleanup effort as long as possible. This is standard practice. While the US government is forced to place resources, both human and material in place, which represents and immediate expenditure, BP is essentially borrowing from us, without interest.

2: See Ivan Seeking's posts, regarding the importance of the Gulf of Mexico in terms of fishing, and its place in the ecosystem.

3: Unless Greenpeace has radically changed, nuclear energy on a massive scale is not a talking point of theirs, nor is acknowledging the need for oil. I am not a crystal-gripping freak, but I'm not heartless either. Please do not lump me in with those poor fools.

4: This thread contains references to the failure in question, being roughly 50 times in a year, while also presenting evidence that BP "dismissed" that risk. Other countries such as Brazil, European nations, and others require safety equipment we do not. This is clearly affordable, as they are currently profiting from oil as well.

5: Let's take EPA, NOAA, and USCG, and Fish & Game officers at their word for the moment, and this has the potential to be a protracted catastrophe which threatens the integrity of the regions in which shrimp, oysters, krill and more breed.

6: Thus far, we as a society have been unable to create a viable artificial biosphere, and while we need oil for our society to function, we need a stable ecosystem to survive. This is effecting the bottom of the food chain in the gulf, profoundly, which in turn should effect the various species of fish mentioned in Ivan's reference. In addition, the slick has already begun to contaminate protected lands established decades and decades ago for excellent reasons. If all of this can be recovered, the cost is currently unknown, but it will be an up-front investment by the American taxpayer, not BP.

7: A departure from the financial: How do you reconcile the suffering of people who's livelihoods are in the process of being destroyed, and the animals which (if history serves as an indicator) are already suffering, and will likely die en masse, with your conscience? Is it really worth doing this amount of damage for the contribution to our economy?

Those, are questions I would like you to answer, and statements to evaluate, which I believe are reasonable. In addition, I'd like to hear an explanation of your "risk assessment", as I clearly misunderstand you, and it is a specialty of yours. You've made the offer, and I accept. If you simply mean that this is a cost-benefit analysis for BP, and you limit that view to their finances, you MIGHT be right, depending on how this plays out. In terms of their statements and track-record vs. reality, it seems they do not have a good concept of their exposure in this matter, or the impact both personal and environmental. That, or they simply do not care, which seems a bit mad.

 

[Shalashaska]

Since you asked, I will give you an explanation about risk analysis. When you have an engineering system (this could be any system), it is not uncommon to use what is known as Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA). Basically, it is a subjective weighting on the relative risk index of a component or subsystem failing. As one can imagine, this can quickly lead to a huge array of all possible failures and combinations of failures. Consequently, one needs a set of metrics to determine the 'most likely' failure mode, because simply upgrading every possible failure mode is unattainably expensive.

One such metric is the risk priority number (RPN) defined as:

RPN = (severity of failure) X (Occurrence of failure) x (detecting rating)

The 'subjectivity' comes in the fact that the severity of failure is a ranking system determined by experienced and licensed engineers. Performing FMEA is extremely difficult, can be very complex, and requires experienced people to perform accurately.

So, these "oh just fix one valve" statements, completely miss the issue. I hope my explanation has been sufficiently clear. Designing and maintaining big expensive oil rigs isn't easy mickey mouse work. Hindsight of what did fail, after the fact is a nice luxury. The engineers doing the work before hand don't get that foresight. Again, for the last time, this is why an independent investigation needs to be done to make sure BP has followed up on a good FMEA analysis.

There is no hindsight here, see Astronuc's post about BP's position vs. the actual failure statistics. Additionally (via edit), putting a slippery slope argument aside, you have yet to apply this reasoning to oil exploration in the gulf. There is every indication that a blowout-prevention valve, if in place, would have at least mitigated this disaster. As we are discussing unfolding events, that is uncertain, but if this is the cost of "doing business", I conclude that the cost is too high. What do you believe?

P.S. How many of those components can fail in such a way that lead to a completely uncontained well-head, as opposed to safety or a myriad of other issues?

 

[Cyrus]

1: BP will likely prolong the process of paying fines, and recompense for the cleanup effort as long as possible. This is standard practice. While the US government is forced to place resources, both human and material in place, which represents and immediate expenditure, BP is essentially borrowing from us, without interest.

If they decide they want to pursue that route as a company, that's up to their management. But that does not mean the government can't later come back and slap BP with major fines. Again, this analysis is far too simple.

2: See Ivan Seeking's posts, regarding the importance of the Gulf of Mexico in terms of fishing, and its place in the ecosystem.

This is two fold. First, in terms of fishing, according to mgb_phys's post, the oil revenues far outweigh it economically - so your fighting a loosing battle. Second, I'm not sure what 'its place in the ecosystem' means. If that's the case, then keep the fisherman out of the water.

3: Unless Greenpeace has radically changed, nuclear energy on a massive scale is not a talking point of theirs, nor is acknowledging the need for oil. I am not a crystal-gripping freak, but I'm not heartless either. Please do not lump me in with those poor fools.

Fair enough.

4: This thread contains references to the failure in question, being roughly 50 times in a year, while also presenting evidence that BP "dismissed" that risk. Other countries such as Brazil, European nations, and others require safety equipment we do not. This is clearly affordable, as they are currently profiting from oil as well.

Again, this mickey mouse analysis doesn't cut it. 50 times a year, over the span of how many years? Dismissed it based on what kind of analysis? Ok, so other countries have different standards - that's true in any industry. Do we have standards for certain things that they do not?

5: Let's take EPA, NOAA, and USCG, and Fish & Game officers at their word for the moment, and this has the potential to be a protracted catastrophe which threatens the integrity of the regions in which shrimp, oysters, krill and more breed.

Ok, and again. We'll just have to wait and see how it plays out.

6: Thus far, we as a society have been unable to create a viable artificial biosphere, and while we need oil for our society to function, we need a stable ecosystem to survive. This is effecting the bottom of the food chain in the gulf, profoundly, which in turn should effect the various species of fish mentioned in Ivan's reference. In addition, the slick has already begun to contaminate protected lands established decades and decades ago for excellent reasons. If all of this can be recovered, the cost is currently unknown, but it will be an up-front investment by the American taxpayer, not BP.

This is not going to shut down the global ecosystem. Again, you are projecting things before they play out.

7: A departure from the financial: How do you reconcile the suffering of people who's livelihoods are in the process of being destroyed, and the animals which (if history serves as an indicator) are already suffering, and will likely die en masse, with your conscience? Is it really worth doing this amount of damage for the contribution to our economy?

For the fisherman, I hope they are properly compensated by BP in a timely manner. As for the animals 'suffering and dying en masse', its unfortunate, but me typing about it on an internet forum won't change the situation. Making sure the government conducts a proper investigation and enacts changes/fines so this does not happen again is something I can do by writing to my congressperson.

In terms of their statements and track-record vs. reality, it seems they do not have a good concept of their exposure in this matter, or the impact both personal and environmental. That, or they simply do not care, which seems a bit mad.

That's a bold statement, with nothing to back it.

 

[zomgwtf]

Guys chill out. Your opinions aren't even very different from what I can tell sooo there's no need to continue the endless comments nit picking over what each other states.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It looks like it will be a minimum of six more days [~ another 1.2 million gallons, based on the accepted number] before there is any hope of dropping the dome over the well head.

Apparently it is very difficult to estimate the flow. One expert is claiming that more like 1 million gallons are leaking out every day - five times the accepted number right now. If that is true and it takes 90 days to stop the leak, that would make this over four time bigger than the Exxon Valdez disaster.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703871904575216382160623498.html

This whole business just makes me sick. This has the potential to be at the top of the list of the greatest manmade disasters of all time.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Wow! I was sitting here earlier wondering if this may be big enough to take BP out of business. Not an hour later, just a few moments ago, a clip of Senator Jeff Sessions came on in which he warns that BP is not too big to fail. By law they have to pay for all of this, even if it kills them. I believe this was a law passed in response to the Valdez disaster.

I didn't see it online yet, but it surely will be shortly.

I wonder if BP is insured, and if so, who carries the liability; AIG?

 

[sylas]

This whole business just makes me sick. This has the potential to be at the top of the list of the greatest manmade disasters of all time.

I agree that this is dreadful; it brings a lump to my throat to see it all playing out, and my heart goes out to those who will be impacted directly in coming months.

However, bear in mind that there's a lot of competition for impressive man-made disasters. A particularly relevant and similar spill occurred in the Gulf of Mexico in 1979, when the Ixtoc I exploratory oil rig had a blowout and fire, and sank. It was drilling at a depth of about 3600 meters, in water depth of about 50 meters, and the resulting oil spill was the second largest in history (beaten only by the Gulf War spill). (See http://www.incidentnews.gov/incident/6250 at NOAA.) In total, over 450 thousand tonnes of oil was spilled. Much of it reached Texas, although there was time to prepare booms and other protective measures.

By comparison, the Exxon Valdez released about 37 thousand tonnes.

sylas, who can't say cheers in this thread.

 

[pallidin]

Mentors...

In my opinion only, please do not lock this thread.
This event is showing signs of an unprecedented environmental disaster of this type.

Through responsible discourse we may be able to actually contribute toward a lasting solution.
I realize the key word is "responsible", but, please, do not ignore the humanistic tendency(and sometimes even value) to express emotion regarding a disaster event, of which this is clearly a situation.

Just my thoughts...

Thank you.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I agree that this is dreadful; it brings a lump to my throat to see it all playing out, and my heart goes out to those who will be impacted directly in coming months.

However, bear in mind that there's a lot of competition for impressive man-made disasters. A particularly relevant and similar spill occurred in the Gulf of Mexico in 1979, when the Ixtoc I exploratory oil rig had a blowout and fire, and sank. It was drilling at a depth of about 3600 meters, and the resulting oil spill was the second largest in history (beaten only by the Gulf War spill). (See http://www.incidentnews.gov/incident/6250 at NOAA.) In total, over 450 thousand tonnes of oil was spilled. Much of it reached Texas, although there was time to prepare booms and other protective measures.

By comparison, the Exxon Valdez released about 37 thousand tonnes.

sylas, who can't say cheers in this thread.

Check my math here, but at 450,000 tons, and 7 lbs per gallon, I get 128 million gallons. The reasonable upper limit on this spill suggested so far is that this could release 90 million gallons. The Valdez released about 18 million gallons of heavy crude.

Edit: You were using tonnes, not tons, so that spill would have been more like 142 million gallons.

 

[Evo]

Check my math here, but at 450,000 tons, and 7 lbs per gallon, I get 128 million gallons. The reasonable upper limit on this spill suggested so far is that this could release 90 million gallons. The Valdez released about 18 million gallons of heavy crude.

Edit: You were using tonnes, not tons, so that spill would have been more like 142 million gallons.

The Exxon valdez spilled 10.8 million gallons.

http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/facts/details.cfm

Ixtoc was roughly 140 million gallons.

 

[sylas]

Check my math here, but at 450,000 tons, and 7 lbs per gallon, I get 128 million gallons. The reasonable upper limit on this spill suggested so far is that this could release 90 million gallons. The Valdez released about 18 million gallons of heavy crude.

Edit: You were using tonnes, not tons, so that spill would have been more like 142 million gallons.

The total size of the Ixtoc I spill is an estimate: it flowed for about 9 months before being capped. The NOAA incident report I cited did not give a value.

Wikipedia Largest oil spills suggests 454–480 thousand tonnes (the table heading says tons, and I think it may be incorrect) and cites a reference saying "An estimated 140 million gallons of oil", which is about what you estimated. So yes, the maths is fine. The magnitude of the disaster is not only the total volume of oil, but also where it goes and how it all plays out. I'm a bit surprised there haven't been more comparisons between Deepwater and Ixtoc I in the reporting of this disaster. I certainly hope they can keep this one below the 90 million upper bound you mention.

sylas

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The total size of the Ixtoc I spill is an estimate: it flowed for about 9 months before being capped. The NOAA incident report I cited did not give a value.

Wikipedia Largest oil spills suggests 454–480 thousand tonnes (the table heading says tons, and I think it may be incorrect) and cites a reference saying "An estimated 140 million gallons of oil", which is about what you estimated. So yes, the maths is fine. The magnitude of the disaster is not only the total volume of oil, but also where it goes and how it all plays out. I'm a bit surprised there haven't been more comparisons between Deepwater and Ixtoc I in the reporting of this disaster. I certainly hope they can keep this one below the 90 million upper bound you mention.

Cheers -- sylas

Indeed. I gulped hard when I heard the million gallons per day estimate. I pray they are wrong... and I don't pray too often any more!

No doubt this will act as a real wakeup call for those to young to appreciate the significance of events like this, not to mention the "drill baby drill" crowd, much of which, ironically, is found in the South. Right now we are in limbo, but when the oil hits the beaches and wetlands, it will be very ugly. As one journalist commented, it is a disaster in slow motion. Maybe we'll get lucky and the wind will change direction, allowing more time for the volatiles to evaporate. Maybe we'll get lucky and the leak won't be as bad as thought. But no matter how you slice it, it looks like it's going to be very bad. Some projections of hundreds of billions of dollars in losses, are already being tossed around. That would put it in the same league as the Iraq war and the bailouts.

 

[WhoWee]

Indeed. I gulped hard when I heard the million gallons per day estimate. I pray they are wrong... and I don't pray too often any more!

No doubt this will act as a real wakeup call for those to young to appreciate the significance of events like this, not to mention the "drill baby drill" crowd, much of which, ironically, is found in the South. Right now we are in limbo, but when the oil hits the beaches and wetlands, it will be very ugly. As one journalist commented, it is a disaster in slow motion. Maybe we'll get lucky and the wind will change direction, allowing more time for the volatiles to evaporate. Maybe we'll get lucky and the leak won't be as bad as thought. But no matter how you slice it, it looks like it's going to be very bad. Some projections of hundreds of billions of dollars in losses, are already being tossed around. That would put it in the same league as the Iraq war and the bailouts.

Ivan, given the subject matter of this post (and your obvious position) perhaps you should consider disclosing your personal vested interest in the abolishment of drilling for oil. Please also allow me to remind you that when the thread subject was health care reform, I periodically declared my personal interests. Fair is fair.

 

[rootX]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8658825.stm

"Why would we want to take that kind of risk?"

 

[mgb_phys]

Or you could just have the same safety standards as the rest of the world - we manage to drill in the much worse conditions in the North Sea and off Nova Scotia without the Gulf's accident record.

- Not just spills, the accident rate in the Gulf is pretty bad.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Californian Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has withdrawn his support for a plan to expand oil exploration off his state's coast...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8660029.stm

edit: Whoops, rootx had already posted a link.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ivan, given the subject matter of this post (and your obvious position) perhaps you should consider disclosing your personal vested interest in the abolishment of drilling for oil. Please also allow me to remind you that when the thread subject was health care reform, I periodically declared my personal interests. Fair is fair.

I have no vested interest beyond my concern for humanity.

Until now, I was softening on offshore drilling and nuclear power. But once again we see that industry is incompetent and untrustworthy. Stupid me for thinking that anything ever really changes!

Note also that I did attempt to get into the algae-for-fuel game, but the scope of any such project is beyond the means of a small company. I have, however, posted a summary of two years of work, and everything learned, in the algae thread [linked in the first post of this thread], in Earth Sciences, for anyone interested.

 

[billiards]

Or you could just have the same safety standards as the rest of the world - we manage to drill in the much worse conditions in the North Sea and off Nova Scotia without the Gulf's accident record.

- Not just spills, the accident rate in the Gulf is pretty bad.

Different conditions though. The water is a lot deeper in the Gulf than in the North Sea, and even when you hit the sea bed, the oil is a lot further below the ground in the Gulf. That makes drilling in the Gulf by far the more technically demanding. I'm not trying to make excuses for this though, I think it's apalling.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8660029.stm

edit: Whoops, rootx had already posted a link.

It seems like a real logical fallacy to me. The overall safety of drilling hasn't changed since this accident occurred, he's just afraid of political whiplash from the accident.

 

[mgb_phys]

That makes drilling in the Gulf by far the more technically demanding. I'm not trying to make excuses for this though, I think it's apalling.

That makes the drilling more complex, in some ways - in others it's easier (you don't need to drill as many directional holes as you do in smaller reservoirs).
The main difficulty is you can't send divers down - but ROVs have largely taken over now anyway.

There are lots of reasons for the bad accident rate:
The weather is generally better so it doesn't seem as dangerous. You can fly to a gulf rig in jeans and T-shirt, a North Sea visit involves a survival suit and training before you get aboard. Because of this the helicopters flying to North Sea and North Atlantic rigs are more safety conscious, the impression in the Gulf is that it's the same charter operators who do tourist flights the rest of the time. The gulf is about 60% of all rig flights but in spite of the better weather has by far the highest accident rate, and a lot of those are rig-debris/collision type avoidable accidents.

There have been rigs in the Gulf and oil in Texas for a lot longer - so there is a certain attitude of 'my grandpappy never needed no hardhat'. Whereas especially in the Norwegian sector where Statoil is state owned, any worker accident is a political big deal.
US workers have a great pride in hard work and the 'get-er-done' frontiersman philosophy, but especially in mining and oil there isn't the Volvo-like safety paranoia you get in Scandanavia and the industrial accident rate shows this.

The US regulatory framework often doesn't work - the emphasis is on technical violations. So in an inspection you are likely to be fined for having an unapproved size of no smoking sign, yet this rig wasn't required to have the well closing valves it would need in the north sea.
Similar things happen with the FAA - it's biggest ever fine was imposed for having seatpocket instructions that showed one overwing exit when there were two! But it missed a bunch of airlines not doing maintenance inspections.