if they don't know how to fix a leak 5000 ft down, they shouldn't be allowed to drill 5000 ft down.

[spanone]

it's too fucking deep.

nbc nightly news reporting that this kind of repair hasn't been done before.

then i call it negligence. they should have anticipated ALL contingencies. there's the W O R L D at stake.

:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

[Rex]

1. Word.

[happygoluckytoyou]

60. sarah palin to first dudes business partner "drill oh baby drill"

[librechik]

2. your anger is justified and I share it.

The world is run by incompetents who don't care about people. Then they make it impossible for ordinary folks to do anything about their horrible mistakes, many of which are killing us.

[PassingFair]

13. Seething here, also.

Feel it in the one drop
Well, I still find time to rap
We`re making the one stop
The generation gap
So feel this drumbeat
As it beats within playing a rhythm
Resisting against the system

Ooh-we I know Jah would never let us down
Pull your rights from wrong
I know Jah would never let us down
Oh no! Oh no!

They made their world so hard
Every day we got to keep on fighting
They made their world so hard
Every day the people are dying
It dread, dread for hunger and
starvation dread dread, dread on dread
Lamentation dread dread

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. 5000? That's a big number and junk! Like over 9000!

[greyshade]

4. A Remote Shut-Off Switch might have helped...

http://www.fairwarning.org/2010/04/oil-spill-safeguard-used-in-other-nations-not-required-in-u-s/

"Regulators in the United States considered requiring acoustic switches several years ago, but drilling companies were concerned about the cost, and the Minerals Management Service decided they were not necessary. A switch costs about $500,000, and BP estimates that the daily cost of dealing with the Gulf of Mexico spill is $6 million."

When will we learn the value of competent regulatory oversight? Spill baby spill.

[BeFree]

7. 500,000 for a switch?

And it was too much $$$? Ridiculous.

You can bet the law is gonna change now and of course it will make the price of a gallon rise a 1/2 cent. Can we afford it?

Technology could save us, but can we afford to be saved?

[RC]

8. Not so much the switch... It's what the switch controls - 5000 feet down.

[BeFree]

11. No

It's about what is happening since they cheaped out on doing all they could to prevent this spill. "We can't afford it.".... is crazy.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[localroger]

27. Huh, message deleted

Really didn't see that coming. I guess this isn't quite the place I thought it was.

[BeFree]

29. well

Personal attacks are not looked upon nicely.

If you can't debate without personal attacks, then, yes, this is not the place you thought it was.

[localroger]

35. It wasn't a personal attack.

It was a statement that the person in question didn't have a effing clue what they were talking about, which in this case was actually the truth.

[Kablooie]

36. That's the price of one fancy sports car.

Or on average sized house in Los Angeles.

[sasquuatch55]

52. Another disaster Cheney has his hoofprints all over.

nt

[Beartracks]

5. I read somewhere there's a shutoff...

... which they tried to activate using unmanned submersibles. The attempt failed, however, which is when BP went to Plan B: the surface burn test.

---------------

[icee]

57. I find that shutoof switch failing suspicious. Something is wrong

here.

[icee]

58. Dupe.

[MindandSoul]

6. Makes sense! I agree.

[sasquuatch55]

53. Acoustic switch $500,000 dollars that is required world wide except here thanks to Cheneys' policies

nt

[Lone_Star_Dem]

9. I can agree with that.

All the safety measures in the world won't assure they won't have to actually cap a leak at the deepest area. If they don't know how to do such a thing at the depth they're drilling at, then they shouldn't be allowed to drill that deep.

It only seems logical.

[mike_c]

10. as usual, the situation is not as simple as that makes it sound....

First, how do you determine whether or not you can turn off the well head in the event of an accident? Acquiring those data is not easy, especially not at 5000 ft. This accident is, in fact, one of the few data points anyone has ever acquired about it.

So how is one to "know" that they can or cannot fix it? In fact, there was a wellhead shutoff that should have done the job, and for which the data from other drilling accidents is generally favorable, although again, there just isn't much real data because this isn't the sort of thing you can experiment with easily. This accident is also a data point in THAT data set, this time in the minus column.

The larger problem is whether we want that oil or not, frankly. If there is an economic or social incentive to pump it, someone will, sooner or later, unless we enact laws to prevent them. One of the best approaches, IMO, is to make the owners of the drill rig 100 percent liable for any environmental damage they do. Don't prevent them from drilling. Just put their grandmothers out onto the street after taking all of their other assets unless they fully mitigate any damage voluntarily. Put real teeth in environmental damages laws that leave no doubt about who will be responsible for accidents-- who will pay, and who will go to jail. Destroy a few companies the size of BP or Exxon and the problem will magically solve itself.

[BeFree]

12. how do you determine whether or not you can turn off the well head

Well, you don't fucking drill before you can determine that the spill will not occur.

""Oh, but wait, that would be too expensive""... oh, ok, we need the oil, go ahead, fuck up the Gulf. Nevermind, eh?

[mike_c]

15. look, I understand your anger-- I'm pissed too...

...but there WAS a shutoff system in place that has worked before in other drilling accidents. That is consistent with being able to shut off the flow.

All engineering is a matter of best estimates and reliance upon past successes. The BEST way to know that something will work is to test it exhaustively in an aggressive failure campaign. That is simply NOT something I'd want oil companies or anyone else doing with crude petroleum wellheads at 5000 ft beneath the ocean. Most of the available evidence suggests that Deepwater Horizon's blowout protection SHOULD have shut off the wellhead-- but there simply isn't much of that evidence, for which I'm VERY glad. This accident provided some, unfortunately. But how else would you suggest that knowledge be obtained? It's not like we have many planets to experiment upon.

I'll tell you something I've been saying for decades now. People will destroy the last pristine coastlines for oil. They will murder innocents for oil. They will commit genocide for oil. It is coming, unless someone finds economically more attractive alternatives instead. People will sell their children into slavery for oil. Count on it. We cannot stop it. Arguably, it is already happening, um, coughIraqAfghanistanCOUGH!

Unless we can harness the greed that will drive all the drilling and pumping in the first place-- unless we harness self-interest to do more good than bad. That's why I don't think it will ever be realistic to expect people to do the right thing-- leave the damned stuff in the ground where it is safely sequestered from functioning ecosystems-- for altruistic reasons. But they will do the right thing to protect themselves from liability if the risks are great enough. Make the bastards pay through the ass for every dead mangrove, shrimp, and sea bird. Suck the economic life out of BP and we won't see as many new drilling rigs next year, guaranteed.

[spanone]

16. then they need a backup and a backup for the backup. this is ALWAYS the possibility.

i think we agree on all this....the world should be pissed.

[BeFree]

18. Heh

This bs that they did all they could do is just that...bs.

You know they could have prevented it. They just didn't want to have to spend the money.

While we agree on making them pay out the ass, that is closing the barn door after the horse has run.

And how's that Exxon Valdez thing working out?.... They hardly even paid.

You may be pissed, but it sure doesn't show.

[freebrew]

50. Are you an engineer?

"All engineering is a matter of best estimates and reliance upon past successes"

Not the engineering I was taught, and definately not good engineering practice.

I will give you that the shutoff system was at depth. But as said before, if it can't be proven to work they shouldn't drill.

Make the fines higher than they can afford. Nationalize the petro industry.(boy that would really piss off the R's, eh?

[localroger]

17. It's not that it's too expensive

It's that it's not possible. Really, there is no such thing as 100% certainty. I'm sure the people who designed this rig were very sure such an accident could never happen. I'm sure that if they could go back in time and write a check for a billion dollars to prevent it they would happily do so. Because they would be certain that the money would be well-spent.

Instead, they had to decide whether X measure was worth the Y dollars it cost. There were actually safety features in place, which have been generally successful in the past. As for the acoustic switch everyone is harping about it's not just that it was an extra expense, it's that it was very unsure it would work either in most situations where the other measures wouldn't, and it was KNOWN to operate by accident on occasion. (In fact, it's quite doubtful even that switch would have worked; ultimately it would still have to close a fairly large, heavy mechanical valve, and when THE WHOLE DRILLING RIG BLOWS UP AND SINKS mechanisms like that often get too damaged to work. The mechanism they did have, a dead man's switch, should have closed its valve in the absence of a direct electrical signal from the surface; given that it failed, there isn't much reason to think the acoustic valve would have fared much better.) Given what was known the decisions made were sensible and defensible. In the future with knowledge of this incident I'm sure the window will slide more toward the side of prudence and new, possibly even more expensive mechanisms will be invented to head off the risk, just as the Apollo fire gave NASA a badly needed wake-up call in its day. Sometimes the price of learning is high.

Similarly, while we have IDEAS about how to cap a well 5,000 feet down, nobody has ever had to do it so we don't know how well those ideas work. The only way to test those ideas is to try capping a well 5,000 feet down. Well, we're going to learn how to do it, the sooner the better obviously. We might learn that the risk was too great and we really need to back off on deep-water drilling. Sometimes that's the lesson you learn.

I can't believe I'm defending an oil company here but this kind of criticism is really stupid. People complaining about them cheaping out and being incompetent have no fucking idea whatsoever what it takes to run an oil rig. I hate what is about to happen to the coastline of my state and yes, the company that screwed it up needs to pay, but it does not mean that they are all Simpsons rejects. They were risking billions of dollars of investment and in many cases their lives to bring what they saw as an essential resource to a world in need of it. Yes they also hoped to make a bunch of money in the deal but that's how we choose to reward people who do those things for us. If we knew a better way to reward the people who build our world they probably still would have tried it and made the same mistake.

[BeFree]

19. Screw that

They knew what they were doing was a huge gamble hoping - just like you said - it would pay off.

And now the Gulf may be ruined. And you can get on your high horse and claim
""this kind of criticism is really stupid"".

Anyone here could have told you this was gonna happen. This ain't rocket science, but there ya go comparing the two as if that makes the Gulf being ruined something we should just say, oh well?

Screw that shit.

[localroger]

22. You're welcome

I'm one of the people responsible for the fact that you can tell me to screw that on a box that could have talked every ca. 1980 supercomputer in the world into betting into an inside straight while voting Republican. Unlike you I happen to know where technology comes from and it ain't the Technology Fairy. When you demand as the price of progress knowledge of things that can't be known, you are essentially saying not "screw that" but "screw progress." That you choose to do so on a computer that is the end result of an even more byzantine and often toxic and dangerous journey of discovery scores a significant fraction of a Palin on the hypocrisy meter.

[BeFree]

25. Screw that... twice

You are really saying that it's ok to fuck up the planet?
That it can't be avoided? That my computer is like the Gulf spill?

And now you relate me to Palin?
How low will you go?

[localroger]

26. To put it simply -- yes.

If you want high technology, we will make mistakes. It will take time to learn how to avoid them and clean them up. You probably don't have any idea how toxic the process of making integrated circuits is. It kills people and creates mountains of toxic waste. Discarded electronics are a major source of pollution, overall on a global scale probably a lot more damaging than this oil spill. But you're not complaining about that, no way. You're too busy siting here on your computer and dissing the people who are trying to bring you the electricity to keep it running because you don't have an idea in hell what it takes to make that happen.

I never said it was OK to fuck up the planet. I said risking that is a thing people will do to create certain outcomes, which is an entirely different thing, and if you don't understand that you need to educate yourself. If we adopted your standard of never risking anything we don't totally understand we would all be shuffling around in loincloths looking for nuts and berries.

Hopefully this comment won't run afoul of the moderator who deleted the other, which said more plainly something you badly need to hear.

[BeFree]

28. heh

You are right... were it up to me, we would would be living in grass huts.

And plucking free fish from the Gulf, forever. And breathing, except for the volcanic times fresh air. Life would be good, just as it was in the days before tech-no-logic took over. Go ahead be proud that you are contributing to the utter demise of the planet. I am not proud of my participation and therefore am not blinded by the next shiny tech gadget that comes along.

In fact, the best thing I like about this computer is that I get the chance to tell people like you that yall have fucking screwed the pooch by ruining this little blue ball spinning in the deep dark nothing of space.

Looks like you win.

[localroger]

34. Oh no

What you don't understand -- and I guess the moderator didn't understand -- is that I'm really with you on the long term outlook.

You want to say we shouldn't be drilling deep because of the risk? That's a valid point.

You want to call the people who built the rig idiots and suggest that safety measures you don't have half a clue about weren't implemented because of cheapness? You need to be called out because you're spewing carp.

The standards you're insisting on are not possible. Period. You are applying black and white standards to a whole area of life that is far grayer than any of us would like. I don't have a problem with you calling out the idea of deep-water drilling at all. But calling the engineers who, in many cases, risked their lives so you could have the electricity to call them incompetent...

Well I'll just leave it there. Wouldn't want to PO a moderator.

[BeFree]

37. You have a serious problem

The working men are not being accused of anything.

The penny counters who decided not to use the best available technology are being accused.

Other countries require the use of a special emergency valve.
So, you saying: "The standards you're insisting on are not possible." Is plain bs.
Along with most of the rest of your post.

[druidity33]

38. i understand

where you are coming from and appreciate the extent to which you've elaborated your position. I've been enjoying the exchange between you and BeFree... fitting that your avatars are "biohazard" and "anarchy". Any particular reason you chose the avatar you have?

I agree with you to the extent that individual workers and engineers are likely not at fault and put their lives on the line. It's the profit imperative inherent in Corporations that makes me suspicious the Company "did everything in its power" to keep the platform and rig safe. Regulations in this country SUCK. Enforcement is non-existent. And Companies will try and make as much money as possible as long as it's legally feasible (or too hard to prosecute). A really shitty system.


The big question is going to be, will this prompt us (the US) into any kind of action?

:shrug:

[spanone]

30. when a huge part of our ecological system is at stake we need redundancy upon redundancy..imho

[G_j]

32. seems to me, they could have done dry runs for this exact situation,

if not, then the rig should never have been built. It is utterly irresponsible.

[sasquuatch55]

54. localroger-It's that it's not possible. THAT IS JUST BS!

Look in the mirror as you call someone stupid!

[malaise]

14. It's that simple

That's what happens when Dicks meet with big oil and let them run the show.

[Igel]

20. The same can be said about a heck of a lot of things.

But the generalization that you'd get out of it is that when things you don't like are involved, no measure of safety is too expensive or trivial, no amount of preliminary testing is too much. But if it's something you like, then, well, it's better to try even if it crashes and burns.

I'd like to run the equipment used in this drilling op through several thousand iterations under extreme conditions to make sure it won't produce a disaster. Of course, we'd have millions of barrels of oil floating around on the seas and be hideously expensive. In other words, not going to happen.

I'd also like to run the HCR bill through a few hundred 20-year long trials on a population of 300 million to make sure it won't produce a disaster. Also not going to happen.

Neither has anticipated all contingencies. Neither has pre-prepared plans for exactly how to fix the problems that occur.

But in both cases, there are heuristics, models, and some background knowledge to help navigate problems and try to fix them. So in some sense we "know" how to fix them, even if it'll take a while to specify the solution--and then the solution may not work. Of course, in both cases by the time we know there's a problem there'll be a problem, and one thing we know is that there must never be a problem. Intolerable. Unless, of course, it's a risk we're willing to take. Then it's intolerable not to run the risk.

Just sayin'.

[TheOther95Percent]

21. Where's John Wayne When We Need Him?

:sarcasm:

[theophilus]

24. DAMN SKIPPY n/t

[G_j]

31. exactly!

I'd call it criminal negligence.

[BlooInBloo]

33. Makes perfect sense to me.

[newtothegame]

39. Do you drive a car? nt

[ecstatic]

40. I think Rachel stole your idea last night

But you're both right.

[MadMaddie]

41. Make no mistake this is exactly what "Self Regulating Industries"

look like, just like how they function in 3rd world countries.

How's that "Free Market and Self Regulating" working for ya Republicans?

[jfkraus]

42. But no-one could have anticipated...

Despite being told over and over and over, still they cannot anticipate disaster.

[Myrina]

44. ... their project manager(s) should be fired for NOT anticipating this.

:mad: It's all a part of the planning, or should be anyway ....

[joeybee12]

43. How dare you post something that makes sense! KNR! n/t

[greencharlie]

45. yeah, I'll buy that. nt

[rambler_american]

46. Murphy's Law

is still in effect and rigidly enforced. The cost of ignoring that grows exponentially every day.
And in response to the post above inquiring if the diarist drives a car: Yeah. We all do. That does not excuse BP or Massey from taking precautions to prevent the death of their workers and the devastation of our shores. I'm not sure what your point was.

[icee]

47. You are assuming this was a negligent act and not a purposeful

act. I am not.

[rambler_american]

48. Go on.

You've piqued my curiosity.

[icee]

56. Can't go into detail right now. In the middle of painting. But look at the players

involved and the fuckups. Haliburton screws up the cementing of the well head and it leaked, causing the explosion. Then the shear ram fails to cut the pipe about the well head which cause pressure not to be released. Then another device that is suppose to automatically close the well failed.And then one more device failed, I think I read. I can't remember the name of the company that made the last two devices. British Petroleum leases the well. All these screw-ups happening simultaneously? I don't think so. Hegelian Dialectic again. Big oil needs a reason to raise prices. They can't do it now without people bitching. So they blow a well, which causes a leak and now will shut down further offshore oil drilling, reducing supply, automatically raising prices to about 125-135 a barrel relatively soon. Course the offenders will have fines to pay, but it will be a drop in the bucket compared to what they will earn in increased revenues. That's my take.

[rambler_american]

61. WOW!

And I thought I was cynical.
Then again, the idea that BigOil would destroy the Gulf environment to increase profits is no more (or less) plausible than the belief that our own government would bring down the WTC for the sake of greed. As Lily Tomlin said, No matter how cynical I get I can never keep up.

[icee]

62. The WTC went down for many reasons, greed being one of

them. Money and power drives America, and nothing will get in the way of men, and women (Oprah) too who seek it. These folks better hope there is no God.

[KansDem]

49. Where's the "invisible hand?"

Term used by Adam Smith to describe the natural force that guides free market capitalism through competition for scarce resources. According to Adam Smith, in a free market each participant will try to maximize self-interest, and the interaction of market participants, leading to exchange of goods and services, enables each participant to be better of than when simply producing for himself/herself. He further said that in a free market, no regulation of any type would be needed to ensure that the mutually beneficial exchange of goods and services took place, since this "invisible hand" would guide market participants to trade in the most mutually beneficial manner.

We must have different opinions of what "mutually beneficial manner" means...

[Triana]

51. Exactly. Duh.

Dumbshits. Greedy stupid dumbshits.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

55. WELL SAID MY FRIEND

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[malaise]

59. BP downplayed the possibility of a catastrophic accident

a blow out. Not a word is on their 50 page plan for this rig that was approved by Bushco.
http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=1243232&lang=eng_news

British Petroleum downplayed the possibility of a catastrophic accident at an offshore oil rig that exploded and caused the worst U.S. spill in decades along the Gulf Coast.

In its 52-page exploration plan and environmental impact analysis for the well, BP repeatedly suggested it was unlikely, or virtually impossible, for an accident to occur that would lead to a giant crude oil spill and serious damage to beaches, fish, mammals and fisheries.

The U.S. Coast Guard estimates the one-mile (1.6-kilometer) deep well is spewing 200,000 gallons per day.

The company conceded a spill would impact beaches and wildlife, but argued the rig's distance from shore and the company's ability to respond would prevent serious coastal damage.