How Bad Is the Gulf Coast Oil Spill? 913
Dasher42 writes "Claims are circulating on the Internet that the Coast Guard fears the Deepwater Horizon well has sprung two extra leaks, raising fears that all control over the release of oil at the site will be lost. The oil field, one of the largest ever discovered, could release 50,000 barrels a day into the ocean, with implications for marine life around the globe that are difficult to comprehend. So, considering that losing our oceanic life, with subsequent unraveling of our land-based ecosystems, is a far more possible apocalyptic scenario than a killer asteroid — what do we do about it?" Other readers have sent some interesting pictures of the spill. One set shows the Deepwater Horizon rig as it collapsed into the ocean. Others, from NASA, indicate that the spill's surface area now rivals that of Florida. The US government has indicated that it intends to require BP to foot the bill for the cleanup. And the Governator has just withdrawn support for drilling off the California coast.
Don't worry BP ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's not really that bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Don't worry BP ... (Score:2, Insightful)
We will be footing the bill, not you. With higher gas prices that is.
Your response to this is in regards to pricing? What on earth is wrong with you?
Oil Gusher (Score:5, Insightful)
It really seems like an understatement to call this a 'spill', as though it were a limited quantity from an oil freighter or something. It's an underwater gusher. I knew it was a huge disaster when it was reported as such with the addendum of at least 30 days to fix. At least. How would they even fix something like that? Has anything like this been attempted before?
Re:Worse than nuclear fallout? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Don't worry BP ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Better that the consumers of a product causing environmental destruction pay for it than everyone.
It also makes the cost proportional to use.
Long term data from WW2 tanker sinkings? (Score:1, Insightful)
--
Perpenso Calc [perpenso.com] for iPhone and iPod touch, scientific and bill/tip calculator, fractions, complex numbers, RPN
Re:Oil Gusher (Score:5, Insightful)
Not on the seafloor I don't think. In Kuwait they used explosives, as I recall. That had its own special challenges as the Iraqis had lit the wells on fire, and the temperatures were tremendous. But it was still above water at normal atmospheric pressure for sea level. Doing any kind of complex operation 5,000 feet below the surface is damned tricky, and pretty much every plan has the disclaimer "We've never tried this before", which sort of translates into each plan being a trial balloon with no guarantee of any degree of success.
It's pretty much a worst case scenario, but BP, and I suspect a whole lot of politicians, went out of their way to minimize the potential. But even if it is unlikely, the law of averages pretty much guarantees that the longer you do something, even if it has a relatively low risk, will eventually lead to a major disaster.
I don't think anyone is quite sure why the explosion happened, but what's very clear is the fail safes failed. It may be a while before we know why, of course, but it does signal at least the possibility that insufficient precautions were put into play. It seems elementary to me that when you're designing such a drilling system, and realizing the vast pressure these oil deposits are under, that when operating in conditions that make fixing a gusher or blow out of some kind extremely difficult, you make damned good and sure your capping system is going to bloody well work.
Alexander Higgins? (Score:5, Insightful)
What to do about it? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are two ways of looking at what to do -- proximate and ultimate.
In the proximate sense, one thing to do is volunteer time or supplies if you're in an affected area. I'm in Florida -- in my area, I know right now of Suncoast Seabird Sanctuary ( http://www.seabirdsanctuary.com/uploads/oil.pdf [seabirdsanctuary.com] ) and Audubon Florida ( http://audubonoffloridanews.org/ [audubonoffloridanews.org] ), which are each asking for volunteers, money, and/or supplies. Other organizations may be looking for help -- help if you can, spread the word even if you can't.
In the ultimate sense, it's hard not to become reactionary to things like this. Clearly there's a need for some serious prevention, and however that comes about, it must. There are boycotts, letter writing campaigns, and the like, and while they may seem awfully pedestrian, the first step in each is something that's been needed for an exquisitely long time -- awareness. People don't tend to realize that the oceans are just downstream from everyone -- for example, just how many people do you think recognize the oil spill that dribbles into the Gulf every year from runoff into the Mississippi watershed? It's once people start to realize what's happening, what's important, and where changes need to happen that movement toward change occurs. Oil being the trigger word that it is these days, it's hard to say whether or not ocean health is foremost in people's minds. Building awareness -- even inland! -- is about getting it there.
I don't know what the key is. Maybe it's kids asking whether the animals they love seeing at the aquarium are going to be lost because of the oil spill. Maybe it's fishermen who lose their livelihoods because their fisheries are either contaminated or outright destroyed. Maybe it's people who worked in tourism and sports industries that previously thrived on healthy beaches and coastal waters. Whatever that key is, some catalysis needs to happen soon, and it needs to start with people simply caring enough to understand and do something, wherever they are, however they can. Too much is at stake.
Re:Bad, but please don't overreact (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not really over-reacting, things ARE pretty bad. I'm no marine biologist, but the last time I checked, most creatures have some variable level of tolerance when it comes to acidification and warming. That being said, we've still managed to kill a lot of creatures by affecting those changes. Ecosystems still have trouble recovering after a regular oil tanker spill.
And I am not aware of any creature that was able to survive an oil spill without human aid. Now, normally aiding creatures is in the process of cleaning it up, but we haven't even hit that part yet, its still uncontained.
How many creatures would normally migrate through the gulf but won't be able to this year? This is going to unbalance a lot more than just the gulf.
This doesn't mean we should stop drilling. (Score:3, Insightful)
Do people really think offshore drilling should be stopped because of this?
Transitions should be made to other forms of power, but my Lord, what else is there to substitute for oil for transportation in the short-mid term? Nothing. We need to get more oil. The WSJ reported that the Department of the Interior knew about failings of shear rams in deepwater conditions (the mechanism that should have shut this well down) since 2004 but didn't do anything about it.
Thanks, Uncle Sam. BP holds blame, the US government holds blame, and Transocean holds blame. But we should increase safety mechanism reliability and oversight without going Greenpeace on this.
Note of credibility: I love LA and am from the Gulf Coast. I grasp what this can do to the local economy and my oyster appetite. I can see rigs from 1/4 mile from my old back yard. Without proper safeguards, this shit happens. But it's unavoidable that we drill. Let's manage risk better.
Corporate Weaselspeak (Score:5, Insightful)
An NPR interview this morning with a BP executive asked two simple questions:
1. Are you responsible for the leak?
2. Will you pay for the results of the leak?
The response was along the lines of "We will cooperate with cleanup and containment efforts, and will pay any legitimate claims."
I think this will be a long (decades?), dirty fight to hold BP accountable.
Re:Don't worry BP ... (Score:2, Insightful)
For the GP: Here's a thought. Drive a car? Heat your house with Oil? Ride a Train? Use Plastics?
Guess what, your hands are just as dirty as BP.
I know this is INCONVENIENT to the Anti-corporate, anti-petroleum, liberal crowd. But unless you live a life apart from petroleum based products, you're complicit in the oil spill, because without your demands for their product, BP would not be in the ocean drilling.
It is easy to drill in a barren desert in a far away land, which is run by religious nuts, where if there is an oil spill, you just don't care. And it is easy to decry the failure of this on oil rig, while driving (or being driven) down the road (or track) in your internal combustion engine vehicle of choice.
So until you're completely removed from the benefits of petroleum based products (including many plastics), you're at least partially responsible for the problem.
Of course, we can stop all off shore drilling completely and all drilling anywhere where we "care" about the "environment" but I think you'd be whining then about $100/gal gas prices and more of our money going to wacko religious nutjobs in the Middle East.
Re:Alexander Higgins? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do we have to go through the slashdotted blog.alexanderhiggins.com to see images hosted at NASA? This is the dumbest thing so far this month.
Just wait and see what slashdot has in store for you during the rest of the month! Today is only the third day of the month - by the time the month is over that link won't look even remotely stupid.
Commodities... (Score:5, Insightful)
If BP raises their prices, it opens the door for their competitors to under cut them.
The price of oil will be set by the supply and demand of the other producers if BP raises it's price. The the other producers can't meet demand, the price will rise to BP's costs. If the can, then BP will be losing sales and income to them.
-Rick
Re:It's not really that bad (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the supporters of offshore drilling, at least the intelligent ones, and I am not saying the "Drill Baby Drill" crowd was knew there would be serious accident eventually. Its just a common sense no matter what precautions you take if you engage in a fundamentally dangerous activity often enough eventually the odds will catch up with. Skiers break bones, drivers have accidents, nuclear reactors melt down or leak, coal mines collapse, drillers have spills, these things happen.
We should do our best to learn what went wrong and our best to avoid it in the future but we must accept that this is a consequence of the life style we enjoy the rest of the time. Experience with other major spills shows us the environment will recover eventually. This is a tragedy and its going to impact some of us more than others. I bet though for every Gulf Coast fisherman or tour operator that gets put out of business there was AT LEAST one who was/is making a comfortable living in oil and gas. I think you also have to consider all the good in terms of quality of life cheap petroleum and energy in general has done our nation as whole and will no doubt continue to do. When you look at this in broad objective terms its hard for me to conclude it was not worth it. Maybe when all the consequences are known I will change my mind but for now lets be sensible and keep in mind the old saying "no pain no gain."
Re:Worse than nuclear fallout? (Score:5, Insightful)
Chernobyl could have been built much more safely than Chernobyl (was built). But it cost less to build it as they did.
This particular oil rig could very likely have been built/operated more safely than it was. But who'll make BP do that?
Similarly, oil pipelines can be very safe, but they have been operated very unsafely, with maintenance neglected until accidents happen. It turns out that it's cheaper that way, lawsuits and all.
It's not a matter of what "we" can do. It's a matter of what government will actively regulate business to do. Business doesn't like regulation, and they often have more influence on lawmaking than "we" do. As long as no one pays much attention, they get their way.
Maybe it's just what we need... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Don't worry BP ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Except they can't pass that cost on to the consumer, because they're still competing in a highly fungible market. Exxon isn't having this problem, Shell isn't having this problem - it's just BP. Which means that if BP raises its prices, people will buy gas from companies that don't have to deal with a multi-billion dollar clean-up.
And if past Oil disasters are any indication, there are probably fines coming along as well. Along with bills related to government operations that had to deal with the spill.
BP won't get off free here.
Re:It's not really that bad (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you overestimate the size of ships (Score:5, Insightful)
An individual tanker isn't all that large, at least in WW2. There is a reason we call modern tankers: super-tankers.
It is like people who think CO2 emissions don't matter because volcanoes do it as well. Indeed they do, but have these people never heard of adding up. This spil comes on top of all the others. On top of the coral reefs already dying, on top of fish stocks already being over fished, on top of the plastic we have been dumping whole sale in to the ocean.
Will this be the straw that killed the camels back? Hard to say, but if fishing is hurt then that means some areas need to pay more for their food then they do now and not everyone can afford that. Plus the replacement food will have to be grown somewhere else.
And down the line, some fish migrate and others are dependent on long food chains. I don't know what grows in place X that is eaten in place Y that has an effect on populations in Z.
This isn't about one tanker sinking with the oil inside. It is about tanker after tanker being emptied in one single spot with no way to end it so far except waiting for one of the biggest oil fields to run out. And that could be REALLY bad because according to the people who want to drill everywhere, oil doesn't run out.
The apocalypse won't come in a flash of thunder, it will the eco-system slowly dying from being over-stressed. Less 2012, more YKK or Testament.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
From what i understand it does happen. All the time.
But theres a huge diffrence between a natural crack or fault covered with sediment and mud, often a pretty thick layer. And a nice large bore hole drilled right down to the oil.
The 'natural' oil leaks take some time to filter up to the surface and many of the 'heavy' parts of the oil are trapped in the seabed and very little makes it to the ocean surface.
And also in a natural leak you don't have an oil company pumping water or other waste down the hole to boost the pressure and bring the oil up.
Re:...what do we do about it? (Score:5, Insightful)
So no it's not the end of the world. But on our time scale, it could still be a disaster of unprecedented proportions that we will have to deal with through our lifetimes.
Re:Don't worry BP ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oil Gusher (Score:2, Insightful)
Good news, the US is home to the best oil well capping and oil fire companies in the world and many of them are based in Texas and Louisiana.
No, torpedos won't work, they have small warheads and won't go that deep. It might take hundreds of them to do what you are talking about. Research submarines can go that deep, but almost all that work is done by ROVs, at least six ROVs are on station there now.
Here is information on a similar leak last year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montara_oil_spill [wikipedia.org]
Re:Why are we responding so damned slow? (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh come on. Wind has been driving the slick over the booms. It isn't just where it appears on the surface that counts, it's the actual effectiveness of the booms, and that's pretty much determined by weather conditions.
The harsh reality is that there probably was no way to mitigate an event like this. You have at least 5,000 barrels a day barfing out of an uncontrolled well 5000 feet under the water, with intervening currents carrying it all over the place even before it reaches the surface, and then bad weather pushing it even further. The reality is that technologies like booms and dispersant chemicals may be reasonably effective for relatively small spills, but an ongoing high pressure river of oil puking out from the Gulf seafloor is not an event you can control.
The only real solution is going to be to find a way to divert or cap the well itself. Everything else, including washing the seabirds off, is just 6 o'clock news fodder. The fact is that once that platform exploded and burned uncontrolled, any hope of mitigating this disaster in the short term went out the window. I know you want to imagine some set of circumstances after the explosion that wouldn't have lead to a vast slick growing bigger and bigger, but this is simply too big for any containment measures invented thus far. Ultimately the well will have to be capped, as much shoreline as possible will be cleaned off, and the oil will ultimately end up in the sediments like the most of the Exxon Valdez oil did. We're basically going to have to let nature do its thing, and eat the damage to certain industries that is going to incur over the next few years.
What job? What calculations (Score:5, Insightful)
You seem to be thinking that the ocean needs to be saturated with oil for it to have an effect. Most of the ocean is already dead, always has been. The whole eco-system depends on a few rich spots to feed it. Why do you think so many sea live hold such epic migrations? Because they like it?
How can a tiny bit of metal possibly kill a human being? Fine, let me stick a needle in your brain, see how long you last. Maybe a long time, maybe not long at all.
Killing the eco-system doesn't have to be whole-sale slaughter. All you have to do is knock over one part of the food-chain. It doens't even have to mean the end of life in the ocean. The wrong algea start to grow out of control, and you have plenty of life, and also death at the same time.
Will this be it? Well we better just bloody hope it isn't because else we are screwed. But the right wingers seem determined to keep trying to screw up until they finally really manage to screw us all.
Gosh, off-shore drilling isn't safe. Irak doesn't have weapons of mass destruction. Banks do need goverment control. Are republicans even capable of saying "we were wrong"?
Re:Don't worry BP ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh please, you act like we have a choice in whether or not plastic is in our lives. There is simply no choice with the way our economy is set up. Frankly, I do not demand petroleum products, but companies choose to wrap wrap their food or other products in it. I would be perfectly happy if it were covered in something else.
Besides, plastic and polymers does NOT imply petroleum like you insinuate. It is perhaps easier to produce plastics by breaking down long hydrocarbon chains, but it is also possible to build them (or equivalent plastics) up from monomers not derived from petroleum.
And how is calling and pushing for a shift to alternative fuels (algae, solar, wind) being complicit in petroleum use? Unfortunately this has been against a headwind of conservatives yelling "Drill, Baby Drill." Hopefully now everyone can see the huge environmental and economic problems that this drilling actually produces. There will always be people decrying any fuel source for some reason, but I think it should be obvious now that any disaster from a wind farm or solar power plant pales in comparison to an offshore oil disaster.
Re:Don't worry BP ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think anyone can say they don't depend on oil for something in their life. Sure, there might be someone living in the mountains of Utah or something, but be realistic, we all need oil for something. I'll put my dependencies up against most anyone and bet I win. To say that our hands are just as dirty as BP though is a bit retarded.
I'll take my share of the blame for demand, but as far as taking blame for the means, that's another story. It's not my fault if they opted to use the lowest bidder to increase profit margins. It's not my fault they decided to go way off-shore, into an unsafe location, rather than somewhere in the sand. It's not my fault that they had inefficient safety controls and it's not my fault that there are inadequate response measures in place.
By your logic, we're also at fault for every vehicle recall that happens because the robot used by some manufacturer didn't tighten a bolt properly, all because we want a car. Just because I want something, doesn't mean I'm the cause for a breakdown in the process.
BP messed up, and they need to own up to it, plain and simple.
Re:It's not really that bad (Score:3, Insightful)
Obama is no where near the left. The American political spectrum is shifted so far right that our "left" candidates are too far on the right for most first world nations' center-right parties.
Re:Don't worry BP ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing a little collusion and price-fixing can't fix.
Re:Don't worry BP ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Good to see a Tu quoque [wikipedia.org] fallacy still warrants a +5 Insightful here on the ol' Slashdots, though maybe it only works if you put a few random words in ALL CAPS.
Of course your closing slippery slope [nizkor.org] fallacy just helps things along.
Re:Worse than nuclear fallout? (Score:3, Insightful)
BP was one of the oil companies that lobbied against legislation to make this sort of operation safer. To save millions then, they are going to pay billions now. And people on the Gulf Coast of course will be paying with polluted coast lines.
Re:Don't worry BP ... (Score:3, Insightful)
If they do not have to deliver the bags does that not solve the issue?
Re:Don't worry BP ... (Score:1, Insightful)
Funny. I feel the same way about a public health-care option.
Re:This doesn't mean we should stop drilling. (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you really think more regulation of the oil industry was going to pass in 2004-2008?
Re:It's not really that bad (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems that, if anything, it's swung away from statism. In the post-WW2 but pre-Reagan era, both parties were in favor of a whole range of statist approaches that now often struggle to get support among even the nominally "left" party. For example, Nixon imposed price controls, created the EPA, and was in favor of a national healthcare program, and was seen as right-wing at the time.
Valdez leaked 11 million gallons... (Score:2, Insightful)
...this one will do that in three days if that crimped riser pipe gives way. And how long are they saying it'll take to fix it? Months?
Re:Very Bad but not Cataclysmic (Score:4, Insightful)
That said, of course we still won't see all the oceans get destroyed, but worst-case the ecosystem of the gulf may be decimated for the rest of our lives and then some.
Re:Obama is LEFT wing?! (Score:5, Insightful)
He's a corporatist. If you think he is left wing, you really have guzzled the Flavor-Aid.
Both Left and Right are corporatist. They are merely two different brands of corporatism that use different approaches to achieve the same goal of statism. Pick the most "conservative" political candidate and pick the most "liberal" political candidate. Then do some research and look at their list of sponsors. See all the names they have in common? Why, it's almost as though the people who bankroll campaigns don't care who wins...
The bickering about Left vs. Right is designed to distract attention away from what is actually happening. I wish I could recall and attribute the eloquent quote about our politics becoming more polar as our political parties become more homogeneous, for it's an accurate one. The distraction is all about divide and conquer. Like "bread and circus" or "thesis, antithesis, synthesis" it's an age-old tactic used by rulers and governments throughout history for the simple reason that it's effective. Here's why it works: the more time we waste blaming "the other party" for society's ills the less time we spend demanding more freedom in the form of minimal government.
Re:Don't worry BP ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I know this is INCONVENIENT to the Anti-corporate, anti-petroleum, liberal crowd. But unless you live a life apart from petroleum based products, you're complicit in the oil spill, because without your demands for their product, BP would not be in the ocean drilling.
It is inconvenient that modern society, including of course myself, requires so much assistance from petroleum products. But I deal with that fact, rather than take your implicit stance of "therefore being anti-corporate and anti-petroleum is stupid and wrong". I try to use less petroleum products. I drive a fuel-efficient car, I recycle plastic, and try to simply not use plastic where not necessary (e.g. bottled water).
Yet because I live in modern society, and because I really, really like modern society and the things it brings -- for example, the ability for us to have this discussion -- I recognize that I am contributing to the problem. Being intelligent and responsible, this means I try to mitigate the problem as much as possible. Not wave my hands and say "well since I'm part of the problem, I can't legitimately claim to be part of the solution and ergo should not try". That's nonsense.
So until you're completely removed from the benefits of petroleum based products (including many plastics), you're at least partially responsible for the problem.
Indeed I am. And one of the ways I try to take responsibility for this fact is by voting for representatives who will regulate the oil companies to try to prevent this kind of ecological disaster, while pushing alternatives to oil for certain uses. The EPA et. al. are the mechanisms by which I try to have some agency in this situation. But many people, especially those financially invested, oppose these regulations vehemently. Some even argue that my stance is hypocritical because I argue against using massive amounts of oil yet use it myself, and therefore my position should be ignored and the status quo maintained.
Are you really arguing that we're equally culpable?
Of course, we can stop all off shore drilling completely and all drilling anywhere where we "care" about the "environment" but I think you'd be whining then about $100/gal gas prices and more of our money going to wacko religious nutjobs in the Middle East.
Actually, you won't find me whining. Prices won't reach that high overnight, and as they rise people, even those who don't give a rats ass about the environment and will use any argument to justify not caring, will suddenly find themselves with the same motivation to reduce their oil usage. Just like what happened when gas hit $5/gal and SUV sales plummeted.
We are switching off of oil eventually. The question is simply when, at what cost, under what terms (our own terms or fate's), and how many ecological disasters will occur as we try to delay the inevitable.
In the meantime, you're right -- I'm responsible, you're responsible. So let's join forces and actually take the reigns of responsibility and work to prevent this from happening again!
Oh but that wasn't your point now was it?
Re:It's not really that bad (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems that, if anything, it's swung away from statism. In the post-WW2 but pre-Reagan era, both parties were in favor of a whole range of statist approaches that now often struggle to get support among even the nominally "left" party. For example, Nixon imposed price controls, created the EPA, and was in favor of a national healthcare program, and was seen as right-wing at the time.
I define "statist" in terms of the size and power of the federal government. Currently its size as measured by dollars is around 35% of GDP. Compare that to just ten years ago and you'll quickly see my point. Note that the relative size of government measured as a percentage of GDP should be inherently self-adjusting for inflation.
Re:Why are we responding so damned slow? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why we thought that the oil companies could honestly handle this on their own is beyond me.
Didn't you get the memo? Government is the problem, not the solution. The free market will handle everything!
Re:Don't worry BP ... (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't matter who pays for it. We all will. If BP pays for it, they will raise gas prices. If the rest of the oil companies don't do the same, BP will shut down a refinery for "maintenance" in order to cut supply and boost prices.
If the government pays for the cleanup, then our taxes will pay for it. Possibly the gas tax will increase to pay for it.
Who's getting pushed over a barrel now?
Re:This doesn't mean we should stop drilling. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah we can liquify coal, we have a 250 year supply at current consumption rates, even so, we should making fossil fuels more expensive and get in on the alternative fuel industry because China is blowing us by. Hell companies are now buying Chinese windmills because our government wont help out American companies produce this stuff.
Lead or get out of the way that's how it works.
Re:Obama is LEFT wing?! (Score:2, Insightful)
Minimal government is what got us this disaster. The valves to close this leaks as soon as it started exist, the USA just does not require the companies to use them, so they don't.
Re:It's not really that bad (Score:4, Insightful)
We should do our best to learn what went wrong and our best to avoid it in the future but we must accept that this is a consequence of the life style we enjoy the rest of the time.
We could also take it as a sign that our way of living needs to change. We need to use less energy and switch to less damaging, more sustainable energy sources. People hate to acknowledge it, but it's the simple truth.
Just writing this sort of accident off as "the cost of doing business" only works in the short term. Eventually, the cheap, accessible oil will be gone, the ecological damage will be irreversible, and then we'll still have to switch over to other energy sources. It's clear that we're heading down a blind alley, so why not turn around ASAP, rather than waiting until all possible damage has been done?
Re:Corporate Weaselspeak (Score:3, Insightful)
We should look into whether there's any additional penalty for negligence in installing safety devices that clearly weren't tested.
We should also look into raising taxes on drillers, and rescinding the cap on liability.
Because why the fuck would they deserve a break after this?
Re:It's not really that bad (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, this oughta be good. Please. Name some "centrists" who have shows on Fox.
Re:Don't worry BP ... (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't accept your argument that the better alternative to doing little good is doing nothing at all.
Re:It's minor (Score:3, Insightful)
There were 6 safety systems that all had to fail for this to happen
Which is a pretty good indication that there was only one that had to fail to happen: we had to let Conservatives talk us into trusting an oil company to install 6 layers of safety.
Re:Don't worry BP ... (Score:3, Insightful)
BP is in no danger of going broke any time soon. None whatsoever.
They could throw $20 billion at this cleanup and probably have a profitable year anyway.
Re:Don't worry BP ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh please, you act like we have a choice in whether or not plastic is in our lives. There is simply no choice with the way our economy is set up. Frankly, I do not demand petroleum products, but companies choose to wrap wrap their food or other products in it. I would be perfectly happy if it were covered in something else. ...
Unfortunately this has been against a headwind of conservatives yelling "Drill, Baby Drill."
So let me get this straight. First you bitch because you can't live without petroleum products, and then you bitch about people who want to bring them to you?
I got news for you bub, conservatives can't live without them either. The difference we know that unicorn farts make for a crappy petroleum substitute. We know that it's stupid to artificially produce scarcity and increase the price on a product that you just admitted you can't live without.
Here, let me explain something to you from a conservative standpoint:
1) We know that America runs on energy. Energy comes from many sources, including oil
2) We know that America has a lot of energy reserves that we are not tapping including, but not limited to: oil, natural gas, nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, tidal, and geo.
3) We don't care where the energy comes from. Unfortunately, we simply use more energy than all the "green" energy that we can possibly produce (wind) or that we are allowed to produce (nuclear).
4) Since we are not tapping the resources listed in #2, we have to buy them from bad people who want to kill us.
So, the solution is simple:
1) Drill baby drill.
2) Use the resources (money) we gain from domestic energy production and invest that money into renewables (ethanol from a variety of sources) and alternatives (electric cars)
3) By the time we run out of domestic energy, we should have a viable replacement installed. If not, we're all F@%KED anyway because the whole world will be out of easy to access energy.
Still, we can't drill our way out of the this crisis. We can't conserve our way out of this crisis. We can't utilize unicorn farts to get us out of this crisis. It will take a mix of all three. So that means:
1) Liberals, STFU and let us get at the energy we have.
2) Conservatives, STFU and accept the fact that some energy profits will be taxed to pave the way for renewables.
3) ???
4) Profit!!!
Re:Seriously... (Score:3, Insightful)
That might just make things worse. Whether its melting the top of the drill string shut with a nuke, or some other method of slamming a valve shut, you've got to think about what 10,000 feet of flowing crude represents in terms of inertia. It'll probably just squirt the drill pipe right out of the borehole. Many well control systems include a 'down-hole' shutoff valve in addition to the surface blowout preventer. Its the only way to stop such a flow once it gets going.
Re:It's not really that bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, it's gone up, but most of that has been due to autopilots put in place decades ago (mostly social security and medicare expanding faster than inflation). I don't see much actual support for new policies among politicians.
What do you call the government-sponsored bailouts of various financial companies, or government expanding into the health-care insurance market? Or a few years prior to that, the federalization of airport security into the TSA, or the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, or the Patriot Act? If these are not (relatively) new policies I don't know what would qualify.
Re:It's not really that bad (Score:2, Insightful)
How are are the results "the same"? The US government already spends some 41.5% [wikipedia.org] of the world's military expenditures, and probably has the best traditional (meaning, for nation-versus-nation wars) forces. It also spends a lot of money on social security, medicare [wikipedia.org], and soon health care, and the results of those programs are people who might survive job loss, illness, or old age. Now, which one you care about more depends on your political views, but it does matter where the government is big.
They're the same because the federal government is looking for growth areas and will exploit them wherever they are found. Any benefit to me as a taxpayer is indicental.
You mention Social Security and health care. If I could, I would opt out of Social Security entirely. I'm in my mid-20s. If I cannot figure out on my own, without assistance, that I will one day grow old and wish to retire, and that the time to start saving up and preparing for that is right now, why should somebody else be forced to pay for my lack of foresight? Morally speaking, I don't know how to justify that one. That is, I cannot tell you why my failure to plan ahead should become someone else's emergency. I certainly cannot tell you a good reason why the Baby Boomers could not have felt the same way as I do, why they prefer to burden their children and grandchildren instead of working to make sure they have a better life then they had. As far as I am concerned, they are the most selfish group to ever exercise suffrage.
It's likewise with health insurance. I pay a monthly premium for my health insurance. I see it this way: I pay an insurance premium so that I am prepared in the event of a medical disaster, or I risk bankruptcy. I chose to pay the insurance premium. Other people will have to weigh the cost-benefit analysis as they see fit. So long as they don't dip into my wallet to make up for their shortcomings, I have no problem with this.
Where the government is so big is precisely where people don't want to use some foresight and plan ahead and take personal responsibility for their situation. There's nothing politicians love more than a crisis to solve. The problem is, a "crisis" that involves adults who could not properly plan for inevitabiltiies is not actually a crisis at all. Those adults deserve to be left to their own devices. If they succeed, uphold them as examples of good planning. If they fail, use them as examples of why one should think of these things ahead of time. Yet that's not good enough for big government, and it's apparently big business to protect people from their own poor decision-making.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
The article asks, "Who's to blame?" (Score:3, Insightful)
We are. Shame on us.
Drill, baby drill (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This doesn't mean we should stop drilling. (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope, but it hasn't done so well in 2008-2010 either.
Re:Worse than nuclear fallout? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's not really that bad (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect you're the kind of personality that thrives on feeling like you're in control and have the moral high ground. And that's all very well and good up to a point, but:
"The best laid schemes o' mice an' men
Gang aft agley,
An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain,
For promis'd joy!"
(Robert Burns)
No matter how carefully you plan, it can all go to shit in an instant. And there's nothing you can do about it. EVER.
So if your worldview depends on cognitive errors like the just-world fallacy [wikipedia.org], or blaming the victim [wikipedia.org]...well, then you're almost guaranteed to spend your last days in a state of abject terror and despair. Good luck with that.
Re:Well the governator is capable of learning (Score:4, Insightful)
I just keep thinking... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Don't worry BP ... (Score:1, Insightful)
Of course your closing slippery slope [nizkor.org] fallacy just helps things along.
Can we stop with the "slippery slope is a fallacy" nonsense? Slippery slope isn't a logical argument, it's a psychological/behavioral argument. The claim is not that anyone who screens for a genetic disease will by logical inference subsequently be obliged to embark on a campaign to exterminate the Jews. The claim is that human psychology will countenance a succession of small steps that amount to an outrageous offense, because none of the individual steps is so much more outrageous than the previous that it can rationalize great opposition, until you realize that no individual step is more worthy of opposition than any other and rationally commit to opposing them all.
Re:What job? What calculations (Score:1, Insightful)
500,000 barrels a year is good number. ...but at the rate in TFS, we're looking at 50,000 a day (18,250,000 barrels/yr) That's 36.5x the entire natural leakage of all of the Gulf of Mexico from one area only, what, 50-100 miles from land?
Environments can handle anything short of the Moon crashing into the Earth. Even if we detonated all our nukes, there'd still be bacteria somewhere eeking out a living. But that sort of situation isn't very peachy for humanity just as this isn't great for anyone living in the affected areas especially if their livelihood relies on seafood.
Re:Don't worry BP ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Whether you class is as logical or psychological/behavioural, it's still fallacious. The slippery slope argument is that we shouldn't take one step in a certain direction, not because the step itself is wrong, but because the perceived extreme at the end of that direction is wrong. Yet, in virtually all cases, policies don't end up moving to an extreme, just because they take one step in a particular direction. They tend to rest at some compromise position.
Ban BP (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Don't worry BP ... (Score:3, Insightful)
simply let the cost of oil rise. then all of us that are "complicit" will finally get to see some alternatives brought to market,
Like what, exactly? I keep hearing that we should all be using green energy, but after looking for it, I have yet to find any. You know why? BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST! Sure, you can get ethanol powered cars, but it takes more than a gallon of gas worth of energy to produce a gallon of ethanol. Sure, we have wind and solar power, but my my car doesn't have anywhere to plug it in. And even if it did, it still would not get me to work and back with the AC on, much less to day care. You ever try to drive with a two year old in Texas without the AC on? It gets beyond uncomfortable. It is actually dangerous.
Fact is, there is simply no way to get enough energy from solar and wind to power our cars, homes and businesses, and there won't be for many decades to come. So when you say, "simply let the cost of oil rise", all you are doing is making people pay more money to people who want to kill us. This not only wrecks our economy, but finances those who do things like stone rape victims and hang homosexuals. I don't care how much you WANT greener energy or how many people you force to need it, it doesn't exist and my car doesn't run on want.
read this again: there aren't other choices not because we don't know of any other choices to make, but simply because no one will finance them as long as they will be crushed by cheap oil.
Then tax imported oil to set a minimum price per barrel. This will spur domestic energy production and give us the money to finance research in different, forms of energy so that some day, they might exist. The problem is that liberals don't want any energy production at all. Since they don't have any control of foreign countries and can only stop us from drilling here, we end up having to import it. Conservatives don't like taxes. But if you only taxed imported oil AND allowed for domestic energy production, they might be able to accept the idea. If you invest that money into "better" energy research, you might be able to get liberals to budge. You have to do both. One side will NOT EVER EVER EVER solve our energy problems. Both sides must give in.
Re:Don't worry BP ... (Score:2, Insightful)
"Flamebait"??
Bullshit!
ceeam has it right on the nail. BP is out there drilling for YOU, AvitarX, and you and you and you reading this. They satisfy a demand, a vastly disproportionate bulk of which goes to the Western and most especially 'merican lifestyle, and it ain't just NASCAR. Beyond the transportation, and the US is specifically designed to waste petroleum for that, every fuckin' thing you eat was fertilized by oil, if it is meat it was fed medications based on oil, most of your clothes wouldn't exist without oil either as feedstock or to grow the monoculture fibers on industrial plantations. . . the list is immense and it goes on and on, but basically it touches everything from the building you live in to the military you pay for to defend the overseas sources. Those rigs aren't out there because of Palin, she exists because of them, and they are your masters as well. Most of the world already subsidizes your use, your whole dollar based financial system exists primarily to ensure the orderly flow of oil from wherever to the West, and if you don't acknowledge it you will not do well in the coming transition.
Re:It's not really that bad (Score:3, Insightful)
On a slightly more practical level, the planet is mortal and we really can't afford to kill it off.
It is very, very sensible to fear every little thing that is capable of wiping out an entire species or ecosystem, or that is capable of making irreversible changes to our habitat. A single individual can risk a threat to themselves, but we cannot risk existential threats to our species. This oil spill might raise to that level if it kills too much of the gulf.