The BP Gulf Disaster

Remove all ads!

Regulations are not the point. My point was that the blow-out preventer was not the government's fault, but BP and its partners. You can have enforcement and government oversite, but crafty and clever companies will always find ways around them. This debate about the "government" rather than BP is a part of the problem. BP screwed it up and somehow it's the "government's fault," or that the government is "not doing enough." Well, sorry, but I'm not big on passing the buck.

 

Chandos' example is quite excellent -- there is no way a governemtn inspector can determine if a blow-out preventer is in place. In this case (as some leaked emails suggest) the only way anyone would know about the lack of this essential piece of equipment is an actual blow out. The odds were in favor of BP on this, but they (and all the gulf region) lost anyway. Now they'll be paying billions of dollars because they wanted to save a few million.

As far as OSHA, EPA and government regulation goes; there are a huge number of infractions that are found through whistle-blowers. There's simply not enough people to watch every single aspect of OSHA and the EPA, so they rely quite extensively on both the integrity of companies and whistle blowers.

 

I read an account from an oil man, saying that in the 1970s federal and state inspectors were everywhere out in the oil fields. He concluded with saying they are a rarity now.

It's a logical consequence of two or so decades of simple interest politics: Don't like inspections that impose safety measures and/or fines, slow down the production and cost money? Lobby, donate and have politicians slash their budget (less money, less inspectors, less inspections). Among free marketeers and hard core Republicans they found enough politicos willing to do their bidding who even actually believed that gutting oversight was a splendid idea - since inspections and regulations only come in the way of entrepreneurial spirit.

I am reminded of Tom DeLay who, as an exterminator, came to resent environmental regulations because the EPA banned his favourite pesticide against fire ants, Mirex. Point is, Mirex is probably carcinogenic, was prevalent in mother's milk in the US south, and iirc constituted a danger to marine life. That's no problem for DeLay, because he doesn't believe it, or doesn't want to, or doesn't care. You couldn't make that up.

There are politicians around so insane they openly say that lack of enforcement is a 'local competitive advantage'. As far as that concerns oil, they ought to be sent on a mandatory beach holiday to Louisiana to explain that to the fishermen, people in the tourist business and the folks who just happen to live there.

 

She did not apologize for the country as you clamied. But instead, she apologized for the actions of a particular state, which the country (US) is challenging and wanting to have overturned. Some of us may agree, or disagree with the law, but that has nothing to do with the issue at hand (regarding BP). Would Barton like to give the 20 billion back to BP? Is that his complaint if he really thinks it was a "shakedown?" See how well that would go over, especially in the Gulf.

If you agree that he should apologize, fine. As T2 pointed out, everyone is entitled to an opinion and you and Barton are no different and you should be entitled to yours. If you disagree with him, fine also. But Hillary and China have nothing to do with the issue, since it only clouds the waters with irrelevant events.

BTW, I don't agree with the US challenging the law in Arizona. After careful consideration, I believe this is a state matter, and that the federal government is being heavy-handed. I still don't agree with the law, but I think this is a matter best decided by the state and its citizens. However, if there are instances of civil rights violations actually coming out of the law, then I think the federal government has a better case, much like the civil rights violations in the South during the '50s and '60s. If the violations are there then the proof will be in the pudding, otherwise the citizens of the state should work this out between themselves with their local government (including local courts).

 

Which is part of my point. And it goes beyond just the people in charge, too. I was shocked to hear of people being hired straight out of the industry being regulated. At NASA, they aren't even a regulatory body, and an employee must transfer to a non-related field for two years to legally switch sides (private to public or vice versa).

I see now. We're having two completely different arguements here, and busily agreeing with each other. Yes, BP screwed the pooch on this one. The government get's no more blame than a lazy cop that let's a mugger get off scot clean. At the same time, though, the cop's lazyness doesn't justify new laws against the gun the mugger used.

Actually, I didn't claim that, and I don't know where you thought I did. I claimed she apologized to China for an Arizona law.

It has everything to do with Barton's apology, as the two are direct analogs. You could equally ask if Clinton want's the US to adopt China's policies on immigration, or human rights. My point was that you shouldn't be shocked by politicians apologizing for things other people did that they disagreed with. You seemed shocked by Barton's apology, with the 'Can you believe it?' comment. My response was intended to be akin to "... *looks at Clinton* Not any more, no."

I actually hadn't meant to draw that debate into this one. I really did just mean it as an example. Sorry.

 

Here's your comment, NOG:

Hillary did not apologize for what her "country" had done, unless you can show me what she actually said (since you did not post any links). Personally, I don't care enough to even look it up and that she apologized to China in the first place.

So what? The first I heard about was from you, NOG; it's not even on my radar screen. China did not destroy the Gulf of Mexico, but they are floating a large portion of our national debt. But again, I would have to look at the actual language she used. What I do know is that the Republicans had sense enough (from a political standpoint) to shut the guy down pretty quick. Barton apologized to a company that just destroyed the Gulf of Mexico and then accused the White House of a "shakedown." Personally, I think the Republicans should just let the guy get up and say what he wants. I'd much rather have the Dems in November (even though I'm not that thrilled with them anyway), but by all means, let the guy keep talking....

 

The Gulf nightmare scenario:

Sounds like a Roland Emmerich movie.

 

Praise de lordah that I live in a geologically boring area.

 

For all you know

 

Fair enough. It was a poor choice of words. But then, neither did Barton apologize for the country, at least that I've seen. Again, though, the intent of that was simply to say that, no, I'm not really surprised someone said that.

Personally, I'd much rather all the politicians get up and say what they really think. Maybe then we'd know what they actually stand for. Sadly, I doubt that'll happen any time soon.

That's an... interesting article, Ragusa. I wouldn't count it as too accurate, though. A little too doom and gloom. First off, Deep Horizon is hardly the only such well located near large deposits of methyl hydrate (the form the methane is currently in). Such deposits exist in the ocean bed all over the world, especially in the same geologic formations that form and trap oil. You may consider that encouraging, in that it hasn't happened so far, or not so encouraging, because of all the places it could happen. I leave that to you. Secondly, if it did burst, it wouldn't form a single bubble, but a vast stream of bubbles that would have a mile of ocean to spread through. That'd still spell trouble for nearby vessels, as experiments have shown, but hardly instant death for all aboard. It may or may not set off a tsunami, depending on how the breach happens, and odds are there wouldn't be anything 'explosive' happening unless they're doing a surface burn when it happens. That being said, it still wouldn't be good, and the ecological consequences if the entire thing is released at once would probably be rather dire.

 

A few problems I see with the Nightmare Scenario:

1. There are methane emissions all the time and they don't explode without an ignition source. It's actually a combination of methane, oxygen and heat which causes the explosion -- a methane cloud would quickly rise (it's much lighter than most things in the air) and dissipate at higher elevation where the temperature is too low to cause the explosion. Perhaps the author is simply referring to a pressurized release of methane.

2. Instantly sink ... wtf? Methane gas under 50 tons psi really doesn't take up much room. You'd have to have a deposit much larger than any I've seen predicted anywhere (probably everywhere combined) in the world to cause the ocean floor to shift enough to sink all the rigs. The ships wouldn't sink unless they were directly above a titanic release point (which might be a mile across if you believe the scenario -- not many ships operate within a mile of each other).

3. I think the assumption the methane gas cloud would kill everyone it touches is a bit dramatic. Perhaps in places of high concentration the personnel would succumb do to lack of oxygen but methane gas exists all around us and doesn't kill everyone it touches.

4. A supersonic wave is fiction. Not even the waves generated by meteor strikes were assumed supersonic, nor those caused by nuclear testing. Besides, at sea level supersonic is near 768 mph -- clearly the author did not take time to adequately research the subject.

 

T2,
as for the instant sink ... I read that methane in the water leads to a loss of buoyancy. I understand that's why ships would sink. I don't understand the mechanism. Maybe someone can explain (or dismiss). And I agree that the author apparently means that it will be the rising methane displacing a lot of water rapidly that would cause the described tsunami.

 

That's absolutley true. T2's point is that unless you were directly above the release point of the methane, it wouldn't cause any loss of buoyancy. But many tests have been performed that show it is theoretically possible to sink a ship becaues methane bubbles (or any other gas for that matter) are rising out of the sea floor.

The author's basic premise that a ship could sink due to a methane release is sound. The problem is that the methane release wouldn't be so widespread as it would cause this to happen over a large area.

 

That said, it would sure be nice to be wrong about the worst case scenario in a good way for a change. I'm getting sick and tired of our worst-case estimates proving ...less catastrophic... than actual reality. If nothing else, we should embrace this idea so that what actually happens won't seem so bad...

 

actually thest not true, the idea of an inspector is someone who is knowledgeable in the field. My mother works in a nursing home and the local council will spring a surprise atleast once a month, when they come in they want to see everything, the look at residents rooms, all medical and pharmacy records, all training records, they interview staff and residents and will stay for a period and watch staff work.

We have inspections at the club, our local licencing enforcement officer is an ex police officer, he goes over the place with a fine tooth comb, building regs are likewise civil engineers and very knowledgeable in their field.

an inspector should be able to see when something isnt right.

that is absolutly true, its physics relating to the state of matter, as more gas is in the proximity to the floating object it thins the molecules in that area... ships cant float on air.

 

How can he tell if a blowout preventer is in place? Grab a wetsuit and swim to the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico? If BP had some documentation that stated they had the blowout preventer - even if they didn't - there is no way an inspector is going to be able to visually check that.

 

Actually, I'm not so sure that the wetsuit idea is such a bad one - what's wrong with expecting the inspections to be very thorough and the inspectors capable of going to where the workers go and look at their handiwork firsthand?

Edit: I am speaking in generalities -- I don't know how deep some of that equipment goes -- if NO ONE ever goes down there then of course I'm not suggesting that inspectors do the impossible.

 

yes and no, an inspection should be thorough and take as long as it takes, Ive had an inspector strap on a harness and climb to the top of our lighting rigging 200ft above the floor to make sure the lighting carries its "tested" sticker.

obviously it can only go so far, if a company is employed to carry out safety checks and the paperwork for this is in place and legal then the company responsible for these checks and regulation is responsible. In my description above, the inspector wanted to check the electrical testing, and the paperwork from the electritian which carried out this work was enough, he isnt going to re-test everything himself. but then... the worst that can happen with us is it blows the trip, were not going to kill anyone or cause an environmental disaster

 

Consider that it is 1 mile down....

Not quite the same thing as a nursing home. Also:

And this:

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

 

I said an inspection should be thorough, since the government charge the business for the inspection there is no excuse for not going the whole hog.

thats the oldest and weakest excuse in the book, you dont report it to your boss, you report it to the authorities. Its like drivers hours in the UK, companies fiddle tachographs so drivers can drive HGVs outside their legal drivers hours... and if a driver reports it... the company will sack them... all intelligence reports are annonymous

doesnt matter, the rig is not owned by BP, it is the responsibility of transocean to enforce safety on their rigs.