Gulf Coast Oil Spill

[_Remko_]

What did you not understand about this "to gain public and political support for their agenda"

What you consider to be the content of "their agenda"?

Everybody in politics is working for "their agenda", thats a simple fact and on its own it doesn't say much, the contents and goals of that agenda is what interests me.

"Increased profit against any risk" would be an example, "saving the planet" (however naive it is) would be another. Both are someones "agenda" but they are two completely different things.

 

[covediver]

For many years, the environmental community appeared perfectly willing to ignore the offshore activity in Gulf of Mexico region, just so long as restrictions on drilling reamined in place on the east and west coasts. A couple of examples. In an article in 2002, Richard Charter of the Defenders of Wildlife referred to the Gulf as the "national sacrifice area", that is, the area America could tolerate offshore development as a foregone conclusion just so long as it stayed out of California, the East Coast, Alaska, Florida, ANWR...well you get the picture. Early last year, the environmental community could have suspended all offshore leasing in the Gulf and Alaska when the U.S. circuit court ruled that the environmental sensitivity analysis that had to be done prerequisite to the nationwide leasing program was flawed and had to be redone. However, no one seemed to object when the order was modified to apply only to Alaska.

I do not think this is hypocritical. Rather it is a strategic decision on where to apply scarce organization resources in order to achieve a realistic outcome. I just find it kind of ironic that their reaction is now that there is gambling at Rick's (think Casablanca). The groups will instrumentally use the Gulf spill to achieve nationwide objectives (as do all interest groups across the ideological spectrum). They will fight offshore development elsewhere to the last drop of Gulf offshore crude.

I pray that the pipe will soon be sealed and the oil stop. I spent a number of years on Alabama and panhandle beaches doing some diving, playing volleyball, and working.

 

[captain]

What you consider to be the content of "their agenda"?

Everybody in politics is working for "their agenda", thats a simple fact and on its own it doesn't say much, the contents and goals of that agenda is what interests me.

"Increased profit against any risk" would be an example, "saving the planet" (however naive it is) would be another. Both are someones "agenda" but they are two completely different things.

Read covedivers post above. I thought it was obvious but I guess not in the Netherlands

 

[sschlesi]

So after watching yet another news report on how yet another attempt to gain control over the flow of oil has failed, it occurred to me there have been a LOT of failures. Apparently government regulators require a containment plan be prepared prior to drilling a well. Considering some of the containment devices needed to be fabricated after the accident and there have been repeated failures to control the leak, it seems unlikely to me that anyone has practiced what is in the containment plan under similar conditions.

Could it really be that a containment plan can be approved when no one has actually attempted to use the techniques in conditions similar to which they are expected to be deployed?

And aside, I doubt this is making news in the US right now. BP among others continue to lobby the Canadian government to remove the requirement to drill a relief well for all planned oil wells in the Canadian Arctic Ocean. If a similar event were to occur at the beginning of freeze up, it could be 6+ months before a new platform could be moved into place due to ice, never mind the months required to drill a relief well.

 

[irishsquid]

...Apparently government regulators require a containment plan be prepared prior to drilling a well. ... Could it really be that a containment plan can be approved when no one has actually attempted to use the techniques in conditions similar to which they are expected to be deployed?
...

IMO, our gov't would regulate the way we breathe if given a chance. You make some good points which in a nutshell shows how gov't trying to control things can really screw the pooch, as most of the idiots in there have never really held jobs other than in the academic sense.

 

[captain]

The problem with pre made plans and devices is no one knows how the spill will occur and what will be needed.
In the case of the equipment being built after the fact in this case, the remains of the equipment on the sea floor dictated what and how something might need to be built and even in this case what was thought to work didn't so how can all possible scenarios be preplanned for when they is unknown.
One size doesn't fit all.

 

[sschlesi]

The problem with premade plans and devices is no one knows how the spill will occure and what will be needed. In the case of the equipment being built after the fact in this case. the remains of the equipment on the sea floor dictated what and how something might need to be built. One size doesn't fit all.

I believe they have already attempted to utilize 2 different sizes of "inverted funnel" device, and still have some plans for a third. It is a pretty simple idea, simply build something big enough to cover the leak and heavy enough to stay in place, then drop it over the leak. From the pictures I've seen the top of the funnel device with it's various ports and valves could be pretty generic, with only the lower portion needing to be customized with cut-outs/ports to fit the site. As this approach was presumably planned as the first line of defense in a crisis, I don't think it is unreasonable to have a few of these sitting around just in case.

I recall an awful lot of noise being made about the fact that NO ONE had ever tried the funnel devices at such depth. It turns out they don't work very well when under great pressure. Had someone looked at the containment plan and said, "Gee, no one has ever actually tried to do this, the plan can't be approved without a successful test run.", I don't think anyone would have been surprised (I'm sure some people involved were not surprised) by the problems caused by methane hydrates, and a better option would have been necessary to get the containment plan approved.

Captain, you are correct that in an emergency you never know exactly what you will need to deal with. However that is no excuse for failing to prepare. From what I can tell, some CRITICAL elements of the containment plan are nothing more than a plausible work of fiction. That being allowed to happen is a huge failure on the part of the oil industry and the regulating agencies. I doubt it will be successful, but I think those impacted by the spill should also sue the government regulators for their failures in this situation.

 

[captain]

I believe they have already attempted to utilize 2 different sizes of "inverted funnel" device, and still have some plans for a third. It is a pretty simple idea, simply build something big enough to cover the leak and heavy enough to stay in place, then drop it over the leak. From the pictures I've seen the top of the funnel device with it's various ports and valves could be pretty generic, with only the lower portion needing to be customized with cut-outs/ports to fit the site. As this approach was presumably planned as the first line of defense in a crisis, I don't think it is unreasonable to have a few of these sitting around just in case.

I recall an awful lot of noise being made about the fact that NO ONE had ever tried the funnel devices at such depth. It turns out they don't work very well when under great pressure. Had someone looked at the containment plan and said, "Gee, no one has ever actually tried to do this, the plan can't be approved without a successful test run.", I don't think anyone would have been surprised (I'm sure some people involved were not surprised) by the problems caused by methane hydrates, and a better option would have been necessary to get the containment plan approved.

Captain, you are correct that in an emergency you never know exactly what you will need to deal with. However that is no excuse for failing to prepare. From what I can tell, some CRITICAL elements of the containment plan are nothing more than a plausible work of fiction. That being allowed to happen is a huge failure on the part of the oil industry and the regulating agencies. I doubt it will be successful, but I think those impacted by the spill should also sue the government regulators for their failures in this situation.

Never said not to pre plan just that there is no way to pre plan for every possible thing that can go wrong.

 

[covediver]

So after watching yet another news report on how yet another attempt to gain control over the flow of oil has failed, it occurred to me there have been a LOT of failures. Apparently government regulators require a containment plan be prepared prior to drilling a well. Considering some of the containment devices needed to be fabricated after the accident and there have been repeated failures to control the leak, it seems unlikely to me that anyone has practiced what is in the containment plan under similar conditions.

Could it really be that a containment plan can be approved when no one has actually attempted to use the techniques in conditions similar to which they are expected to be deployed?

And aside, I doubt this is making news in the US right now. BP among others continue to lobby the Canadian government to remove the requirement to drill a relief well for all planned oil wells in the Canadian Arctic Ocean. If a similar event were to occur at the beginning of freeze up, it could be 6+ months before a new platform could be moved into place due to ice, never mind the months required to drill a relief well.

Not to switch the subject to oil in the Arctic, but in your response to practicing clean up techniques in the environment in which they occur, you may find research being conducted in Norway to be of interest as it does relate to your concern

Oil Spills - SINTEF

 

[discnjh]

So after watching yet another news report on how yet another attempt to gain control over the flow of oil has failed, it occurred to me there have been a LOT of failures. Apparently government regulators require a containment plan be prepared prior to drilling a well. Considering some of the containment devices needed to be fabricated after the accident and there have been repeated failures to control the leak, it seems unlikely to me that anyone has practiced what is in the containment plan under similar conditions.

Could it really be that a containment plan can be approved when no one has actually attempted to use the techniques in conditions similar to which they are expected to be deployed?

I could be wrong, because I never know how the government is going to define words in any given legislation.... but i believe that what they have been doing for the past month would not fall under containment, it has been recovery. Containment would be keeping the oil from making it into the water in the first place, i.e. no breach of primary containment. After that, any efforts to slow the oil flow, capture some of the oil flow, etc, are not part of containment. I'm guessing the containment plan relates to things like the blowout preventers, inspection and testing of said blowout preventers, inspection of piping, etc.