Gulf of Mexico, Deja Vu.

Ken G.
Bronze Member
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Gulf of Mexico, Deja Vu.

This is really crazy.Tell me,Why is it that countries like Brazil,Norway,and the U.K. require safe equipment &the U.S. doesn't ?  http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/867.html


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Because it might reduce the

Because it might reduce the corporations' profits by a buck or two.  Poor babies.


Ken G.
Bronze Member
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:a buck or two

   Yes,but it makes one wonder,you can't eat money. 

Signature ? How ?


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Ken G. wrote:   Yes,but it

Ken G. wrote:

   Yes,but it makes one wonder,you can't eat money. 

You don't understand --- nothing like this had ever happened before.  Therefore, it could never happen.  Therefore, the corp could cut all the corners it wanted.  What was important was saving a dime.  What was not important was drilling responsibly and safely.  And after all, regulators are not going to dive down and double check all is as it should be when it is obviously not leaking any more than any other well and the disaster plans on paper for one corp look like all the other disaster plans for all the other corps.

Having worked for corporate USA, my experience is that most upper management wants the corp to earn more money - at least on paper if not in actual fact.  Each CEO wants to put their stamp on the corp so as to earn bigger bonuses.  They are not interested in a corp that is healthy 10 years or even 5 years down the road because they intend to be long gone.

And not a single one believes that their actions will have any impact on the environment that could possibly affect them personally.  No more gulf shrimp?  Who cares?  We'll just buy it from elsewhere.  We can afford it.  All those shrimpers out of work?  Man that is real sad. 

And that is the extent of their concern.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Adventfred
atheist
Adventfred's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2009-09-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Ken G. wrote: 

cj wrote:

Ken G. wrote:

   Yes,but it makes one wonder,you can't eat money. 

You don't understand --- nothing like this had ever happened before.  Therefore, it could never happen.  Therefore, the corp could cut all the corners it wanted.  What was important was saving a dime.  What was not important was drilling responsibly and safely.  And after all, regulators are not going to dive down and double check all is as it should be when it is obviously not leaking any more than any other well and the disaster plans on paper for one corp look like all the other disaster plans for all the other corps.

Having worked for corporate USA, my experience is that most upper management wants the corp to earn more money - at least on paper if not in actual fact.  Each CEO wants to put their stamp on the corp so as to earn bigger bonuses.  They are not interested in a corp that is healthy 10 years or even 5 years down the road because they intend to be long gone.

And not a single one believes that their actions will have any impact on the environment that could possibly affect them personally.  No more gulf shrimp?  Who cares?  We'll just buy it from elsewhere.  We can afford it.  All those shrimpers out of work?  Man that is real sad. 

And that is the extent of their concern.

 

haha sounds true also you forgot anyone who opposes them they just buy them 


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Today I was in a train on my

Today I was in a train on my way home and some guy there had read newspaper.
He said, that Americans invented special a car that runs on water.
The only problem is, that the water must be from Mexico gulf.
Smiling

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Today my 7-year-old looked

Today my 7-year-old looked at the pictures of the oil spill in Times magazine and said:

"Bad guys made the spill, they want good guys to clean up ... so while the good guys are busy cleaning up the spill, the bad guys can steal money and things."

I don't really have comments to this.

 

 

 


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Well, I already knew about

Well, I already knew about the Ixtoc spill. It is after all on the list of largest spills on wikipedia.

 

The first thing that comes to mind is that the parallels are quite striking. So if it has happened before, then why did the government not pass regulations on blowout preventers already? Come on, it was huge. Probably the current spill will be closed down before it breaks the record that Ixtoc represents.

 

Strictly speaking, there have been two even larger ones but they were so different as to really be in other categories. Number two on the list was Kuwait after the first Gulf war. That hardly counts as preventable. Number one was called the Lake View gusher, which was on dry land in 1911. Again, too different to qualify.

 

But back to the blowout preventer. We know that they can fail. Ixtoc showed that and made what will possibly be a bigger mess than the Deep Water Horizon. I say that because I have been looking at what is going on and it looks like the relief wells are already about two thirds of the way down. It took the drillers in Ixtoc half a year to do that. That and the fact that lessons were learned in Ixtoc. More should have been learned but oh well.

 

In any case, given what we did learn, how damned hard would it be to make a rule that BOPs need to be tested in situ? Really, make a duplicate of what you intend to use, drop that on the ocean floor and let it work. You can fish it out later on for study but you will know for a fact that it is going to do the job. Depending on the details of how they work, I would imagine that they can be rebuilt so the same one could be used for testing and actual deployment.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
That much being said, once

That much being said, once again, Madcow is engaged in dispensing her special sauce of facts that have been selected and arranged to provide a distorted reality which differs from neutral journalism.

 

The two most obvious ones being that both the junk shot and the top kill made a huge difference in reducing the flow of oil. Not to zero but to much less than what was going on before. That is why BP thought that they might be worth trying. Of course, since such events are quite rare, this is not exactly front line engineering but both were worth attempting. Madcow did not say that part. Such would not be in keeping with declaring BP to be the devil incarnate. Hence, she stated falsely that they did not work. They did work, they just did work 100%.

 

Another thing that she is failing to mention is that BP is going to pay for this and they will pay mighty cash. Now that would not be worth much of a mention if not for the fact that Ixtoc only paid for the actual work to stop the spill but never paid a thin dime on the cleanup.

 

The fact is that Ixtoc is the nationalized petroleum industry of the nation of Mexico. When it happened, they asserted a legal doctrine that is left over from the reign of King Charles the first of England. Basically, it is not possible to sue the King. By extension to the modern world, nations cannot be sued and because Ixtoc is the nation of Mexico for this purpose, nobody can be held responsible.

 

Of course, Madcow can't say that. The Mexicans are good and nice people and only the evil republicans don't much care for the ten million or so illegals in the US.

 

I also love how she states that “thousands of gallons” of oil spilled in Alaska at the time. The actual reports says that less than two thousand gallons spilled and less than a thousand gallons were not recovered. Clearly, she is living in the parallel universe where <1=many.

 

I am also bowled over by her naked assertion that the only thing we are doing differently today is drilling deeper. Well, we are drilling in deeper water (Ixtoc was in 200 feet of water and 11,800 feet down when it blew out). Compare that to the current spill that is in 5,000 feet of water and 18,300 feet below sea level (if we subtract the water depth, that is 13,300 feet of rock, not really a huge difference in actual depth of rock). It also bears noting that even 200 feet of water is well in the range of technical diving and requires special training and non-standard breathing gasses.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

That much being said, once again, Madcow is engaged in dispensing her special sauce of facts that have been selected and arranged to provide a distorted reality which differs from neutral journalism.

 

The two most obvious ones being that both the junk shot and the top kill made a huge difference in reducing the flow of oil. Not to zero but to much less than what was going on before. That is why BP thought that they might be worth trying. Of course, since such events are quite rare, this is not exactly front line engineering but both were worth attempting. Madcow did not say that part. Such would not be in keeping with declaring BP to be the devil incarnate. Hence, she stated falsely that they did not work. They did work, they just did work 100%.

 

Another thing that she is failing to mention is that BP is going to pay for this and they will pay mighty cash. Now that would not be worth much of a mention if not for the fact that Ixtoc only paid for the actual work to stop the spill but never paid a thin dime on the cleanup.

 

The fact is that Ixtoc is the nationalized petroleum industry of the nation of Mexico. When it happened, they asserted a legal doctrine that is left over from the reign of King Charles the first of England. Basically, it is not possible to sue the King. By extension to the modern world, nations cannot be sued and because Ixtoc is the nation of Mexico for this purpose, nobody can be held responsible.

 

Of course, Madcow can't say that. The Mexicans are good and nice people and only the evil republicans don't much care for the ten million or so illegals in the US.

 

I also love how she states that “thousands of gallons” of oil spilled in Alaska at the time. The actual reports says that less than two thousand gallons spilled and less than a thousand gallons were not recovered. Clearly, she is living in the parallel universe where <1=many.

 

I am also bowled over by her naked assertion that the only thing we are doing differently today is drilling deeper. Well, we are drilling in deeper water (Ixtoc was in 200 feet of water and 11,800 feet down when it blew out). Compare that to the current spill that is in 5,000 feet of water and 18,300 feet below sea level (if we subtract the water depth, that is 13,300 feet of rock, not really a huge difference in actual depth of rock). It also bears noting that even 200 feet of water is well in the range of technical diving and requires special training and non-standard breathing gasses.

 

 

These are the only references I can find with something vaguely resembling real numbers.

 

http://stocksthatpay.com/?p=8521 wrote:

The technician working on the effort said that despite the injections at various pressure levels, engineers had been able to keep less than 10 percent of the injection fluids inside the stack of pipes above the well. He said that was barely an improvement on Wednesday’s results when the operation began….

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=bp-relief-well-drilling wrote:

BP's 1,600-kilogram LMRP "top hat" cap—four meters long and 1.2 meters in diameter—has enabled workers to collect more than 57,000 barrels of oil total through June 8, according to Reuters. This is, of course, a drop in the bucket—the wellhead has been spewing as much as 19,000 barrels per day since the Deepwater Horizon rig sunk on April 22.

 

Let's see.....

19,000 barrels per day * 48 days ( Apr 22 to June 8 ) = 912,000 barrels

57,000 / 912,000 = 6.25% captured

If you prefer, we can go from when top cap was deployed, about May 28, 29?

19,000 * 10 days =  190,000

57,000 / 190,000 = 30%

Okay, 30% is not nothing, but I personally would say it was less than half-assed when desired would be closer to 0% leakage.  Ask the shrimpers and oyster men for their preferences. And, of course, the estimate for barrels of oil per day have increased by at least 2.  http://scienceblips.dailyradar.com/story/experts-double-estimated-rate-of-spill-in-gulf/

Do you have some better numbers?  I am not meaning to argue about whether or not the news report was accurate, as I think everyone has been exaggerating, from whichever view point.  But I am curious about what is at least an approximate rate of capture vs rate of loss.  Thanks.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Ken G.
Bronze Member
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Answer in Gene wrote: Ixtoc was in 200 feet ......

   What do you think of this ? I hope this works,a you tube video.

Signature ? How ?


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Ken G. wrote:What do you

Ken G. wrote:

What do you think of this ? I hope this works,a you tube video.

 

 

It worked fine, Ken.  You get a gold star.  I don't know how likely this is - I'm not a geologist, and I wouldn't even pretend to be a 4+ miles under the surface of the ocean-petroleum-geologist.

But one of the scenarios I found the most terrifying about global climate change is the possibility of release of the methane gases already trapped under the oceans due to changing salinity from increasing temperature.  There is a theory that one of the ancient global extinctions was due to just the gases under the North Sea being released in a huge explosion.  I'm going to have nightmares now. 

I'm sure we will get a number of people posting how this is impossible now.  I sure hope they are right.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Ken G.
Bronze Member
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote: I sure hope they are right.

   Well it makes you wonder.This guy is a investigating journalist,he exposed NASA's fraud and a few other cases that I forgot,and what is really crazy,you get these right-wing nut ,yelling drill ,baby,drill and they say that we need to drill for our own oil,so we don't have to buy oil from the middle east,but the truth is,it's all a myth,oil is a fungible commodity that is sold by international oil companies to the World Oil Market,no matter where it's drilled it goes to the World Market. Some how I screwed up I was trying to post a Rachel Maddow video "Oil Independence is a Myth" but this Charlie Chaplin video appered,that was my last post,if it's not on you tube,I don't know how to embed a video from any other site  ?

Signature ? How ?


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Ken G. wrote:    Well it

Ken G. wrote:

   Well it makes you wonder.This guy is a investigating journalist,he exposed NASA's fraud and a few other cases that I forgot,and what is really crazy,you get these right-wing nut ,yelling drill ,baby,drill and they say that we need to drill for our own oil,so we don't have to buy oil from the middle east,but the truth is,it's all a myth,oil is a fungible commodity that is sold by international oil companies to the World Oil Market,no matter where it's drilled it goes to the World Market. Some how I screwed up I was trying to post a Rachel Maddow video "Oil Independence is a Myth" but this Charlie Chaplin video appered,that was my last post,if it's not on you tube,I don't know how to embed a video from any other site  ?

 

Depends on the video player.  Just post the link to the website instead.

People who go on about "if you drill it in the US, it should stay in the US" don't know about fungible commodities sold by international oil companies on the World Oil Market.  Many people don't understand about international companies, period.

This is not easy to change.  As long as congressmen are bought out by corporations, no laws will be enacted to change what is a very profitable system.  In the US, as long as corporations are considered legal individuals, they will have the right to freedom of speech.  As long as they have freedom of speech, we can not limit their campaign/PAC/lobbying contributions.  This was a Supreme Court decision.  Which means the congressmen in the US will stay bought.   Moveon.org ( yeah, I know it is left of Karl Marx <roll eyes> ) is getting up a campaign to do exactly this.  Take away the legal fiction that a corporation is a person.  It is no such thing, never was a person, is impossible to be a person.  Maybe then, we can get some decent limitations on corporate buy out of our representatives.  Do we really need endless hours of political advertisements funded by corporations?

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.