Who's fault is the Deepwater Horizon oil spill?

[Chukpike]

I have been against drilling (be it on shore or off shore) since I was able to comprehend it. With all of our advancements in entertainment technology, we should be able to find alternative fuel sources with relative ease.

**Accept, not except**

OK...., with these advances in the entertainment industry, are we going to dance and sing our way to energy independance?:-D

Personally I think wind energy, hydro-electric, and solar power is WAY better than ANY petroleum product we could ever get ahold of.

The renewable energy sources except for hydroelectric cost any where from 3 to 15 times as much as fossil fuels per kilowatt. So you will not see your electric bill decline.

Hydroelectric is cheaper but you are not going to see very many dams built due to environmental concerns.

All sources of energy have drawbacks, so be prepared to pay more for electricity in the future no matter what form is supplied.

Unless of course you can dance and sing like Rob.:-D

 

[-- Dusty]

I've heard some right wingers proclaim it is "an act of God" and are trying (in vain) to compare it to Katrina.

I never heard any "right wingers" say that Obama did it....? Do you have a link?

That was to get the oil slick to land. The "oily slick" would make it possible for the invasion force to slide 50 miles inland in no time.

In history the English took a terrible loss getting bogged down outside of New Orleans. What better payback than to slide through the area?

Would it be an invasion, or considering who is in office and the disregard he has had for our bothers in the UK, would it really be a rescue?

Bill Maher said everyone who's ever chanted "Drill baby, drill!" should have to report to the coast for clean up duty.

I couldn't agree more.

Drill baby, drrrrrrrill! :firedevi:


OHHH! You went for oil, not Sarah. Ok, my bad. ;-)

 

[perseus]

See, the wind farms can leak and spill and no environmental damage is done, PLUS the wind farm require very little maint outside of regularly scheduled maint. AND if they take off useing the Natural world as a power supply, my power bill should go down

You are fortunate enough to live in a big country. You should see the level of opposition to large wind turbines in the UK when they are built on land. http://www.wwfo.co.uk/

Even in country areas people claim they spoil the landscape. In some respects nuclear stations are less provocative and release less radiation than coal. There are environmental pros and cons to all forms of energy.

The big problem with renewables of course is the intermittency and the need for 100% standby increases the real cost substantially. In practice renewables have their place but are only part of the solution.

 

[perseus]

The three causes of BP’s Titanic oil disaster: Recklessness, Arrogance, and Hubris - Salazar says drilling companies made "some very major mistakes"; Expert reviewer finds well's cement seal "was probably faulty" and inadequately tested (to save money); Explosion occured while BP executives were on board "celebrating the rig’s safety record"!

http://climateprogress.org/

 

[HokieMSG]

I have been against drilling (be it on shore or off shore) since I was able to comprehend it. With all of our advancements in entertainment technology, we should be able to find alternative fuel sources with relative ease.

**Accept, not except**

Rob, If you are so against drilling for oil I hope that you don't drive a car. As far as the alternatives go...
One reason that we use oil is because as an energy source it is one of the densest. Even fuel cells are more efficient using hydrocarbon based fuels than straight hydrogen.
Wind is very effiecient, but it is not as reliable.
Hydroelectric is good too but most rivers have been tapped as a source and there is only a finite amount of dams you can build. If snow and rainfalls are reduced, so will the ability to generate power. Not to mention environmental impacts.
Nuclear is clean, until you have to decide where to put the spent fuel rods. NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) anyone.
I guess the point that I am trying to make is I can find reasons NOT to use alternative sources when we have so much infrastructure devoted to using oil. The first being COST. Risk/Reward will have to be investigated before using any alternative energy source. It should also be pointed out again, it was pointed out ealier IIRC, that alternatives should be used to supplement existing energy sources, not replace. This does not address issues of efficiency, as much could be done to improve efficiency and reduce demand. Too many times the answer to energy shortages is build more production.

My $0.02.

 

[HokieMSG]

See, the wind farms can leak and spill and no environmental damage is done, PLUS the wind farm require very little maint outside of regularly scheduled maint. AND if they take off useing the Natural world as a power supply, my power bill should go down

The only thing that will reduce your power bill is an energy surplus. If plenty of power is available (supply > demand), your bill will go down. If there are shortages (demand > supply) your power bill will go up. Even artifically induced shortages (ENRON) will spike the costs and cause an increase in power rates.

Maybe geothermal is the answer?

 

[senojekips]

Even in country areas people claim they spoil the landscape. In some respects nuclear stations are less provocative and release less radiation than coal. There are environmental pros and cons to all forms of energy.

If people claim that Wind turbines are spoiling the landscape, what are people doing, building all over it and driving their vehicles making smog and pollution.

Get rid of the people and the problem is solved, we won't need wind turbines to power their homes and workplaces.

Hey presto back to a pristine landscape. These idiots are just NIMBY twits.

 

[Rob Henderson]

OK...., with these advances in the entertainment industry, are we going to dance and sing our way to energy independance?:-D

George, I'm answering you here too. I meant with things like computers advancing as quickly as they are, cell phones coming out with new technology almost daily, DVD/Blu-ray players constantly being updated, etc. etc. Pop culture entertainment technology. No one like a smart ass, Chukpike.

The renewable energy sources except for hydroelectric cost any where from 3 to 15 times as much as fossil fuels per kilowatt. So you will not see your electric bill decline.

Hydroelectric is cheaper but you are not going to see very many dams built due to environmental concerns.

All sources of energy have drawbacks, so be prepared to pay more for electricity in the future no matter what form is supplied.

Unless of course you can dance and sing like Rob.:-D

Paying more and sustaining the only planet on which humans can live seems like an even trade off to me.


Hokie, I would not be able to survive in this world without a car, and you'd be hard pressed to find someone who could. But I do bike around town, and carpool whenever possible. The day I can afford a Nissan Cube, I'll buy one. Hell, by that time, there will probably be alternative fuel sources. I do drive a car, but I am also conscious of what that car is doing to the earth, and I despise it.

 

[HokieMSG]

George, I'm answering you here too. I meant with things like computers advancing as quickly as they are, cell phones coming out with new technology almost daily, DVD/Blu-ray players constantly being updated, etc. etc. Pop culture entertainment technology. No one like a smart ass, Chukpike.

Paying more and sustaining the only planet on which humans can live seems like an even trade off to me.

Hokie, I would not be able to survive in this world without a car, and you'd be hard pressed to find someone who could. But I do bike around town, and carpool whenever possible. The day I can afford a Nissan Cube, I'll buy one. Hell, by that time, there will probably be alternative fuel sources. I do drive a car, but I am also conscious of what that car is doing to the earth, and I despise it.

Here is an interesting commentary on the trip around the world that the Nickel for the Prius' batteries takes.
Mined in Ontario, Smelted in Gerogian Bay, Shipped to Wales for refining, shipped to China to be converted into Nickel Foam, shipped to Japan to be converted into batteries. Quite a huge carbon footprint I think.

You did mention buying a Nissan Cube. This model uses Lithium Ion batteries. Be careful as most Lithium Ion batteries contain toxic and flammable electrolytes.

I refer you to my post. Alternative energy sources are supplemental not replacement. Cost is the biggest factor right now and until the costs can be made manageable, we are going to continue to use oil.
Dennis Miller said it best. "American ingenuity will kick in when we actually run out of oil. Until that happens there is no motivation because oil is cheap. I'll keep driving my SUV until then."

 

[Chukpike]

George, I'm answering you here too. I meant with things like computers advancing as quickly as they are, cell phones coming out with new technology almost daily, DVD/Blu-ray players constantly being updated, etc. etc. Pop culture entertainment technology. No one like a smart ass, Chukpike.

Computers, cell phones, blue-ray players. What do they have in common?
They all use power.

New technology is great, but it is not reducing the demand for power.

You need to get a sense of humor. Your idea the entertainment industry will solve the energy situation was hilarious. I have worked in the industry and one fact you are probably not aware of is, when making movies, TV shows, and etc, the entertainment industry is considered a gross polluter. For effects we burn old oil releasing it into the atmosphere.

Paying more and sustaining the only planet on which humans can live seems like an even trade off to me.

I am glad you are willing to pay more, as you will have no choice, Too bad you are not paying the bills now. Might want to ask your parents how they feel about.

I am resigned to paying more for energy.

I was answering wolfens post suggesting renewable energy should be cheaper because wind is free. The wind may be, but the method for converting it to power is not.

Hokie, I would not be able to survive in this world without a car, and you'd be hard pressed to find someone who could. But I do bike around town, and carpool whenever possible. The day I can afford a Nissan Cube, I'll buy one. Hell, by that time, there will probably be alternative fuel sources. I do drive a car, but I am also conscious of what that car is doing to the earth, and I despise it.

Just shows how self centered people can be.

We just think we can not survive with out a car.
I will be leaving on a trip next week. I am going to drive across the Midwest, starting in So Cal and going as far east and north as Iowa and then down through Missouri and into Arkansas. Then head back through Oklahoma and on to California. Maybe 4,000 miles.

Could I survive without the trip, sure but I don't want to. So I will spend what it costs and have fun doing it.

You are a college student. You can't survive without a car?:lol:
Well over half the population of the world survives with out having a car.

 

[wolfen]

Entertainment technology????

Plasma tv

 

[Rob Henderson]

Just shows how self centered people can be.

We just think we can not survive with out a car.
I will be leaving on a trip next week. I am going to drive across the Midwest, starting in So Cal and going as far east and north as Iowa and then down through Missouri and into Arkansas. Then head back through Oklahoma and on to California. Maybe 4,000 miles.

Could I survive without the trip, sure but I don't want to. So I will spend what it costs and have fun doing it.

You are a college student. You can't survive without a car?:lol:
Well over half the population of the world survives with out having a car.

To become what I want to become, I have to go to school, since I cannot afford to live on campus, I must live a considerable distance away from said school. I drive to school and to gigs around the city, but I ride my bike to work, pal.

 

[perseus]

Firms in the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster are set to present conflicting claims at the first US Senate hearing, US media say, citing leaked testimony. BP intends to tell the Senate that the spill was due to the failure of safety equipment owned by drilling company Transocean, the reports say.
Transocean is expected to blame the spill on the failure of a cement wall built by a firm contracted by BP. Meanwhile BP says it will try to place a new dome over the blown-out well.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8674073.stm

Usually a disaster requires several simultaneous failures, unless we would be knee deep in them every day!

 

[HokieMSG]

Because there are multiple companies involved in the running of this rig, they are all going to point their fingers at each other. It was only a matter of time before the companies involved were hauled before congress. Politicians will NEVER pass on an opportunity to pontificate.
Looks like the execs are going before congress on tuesday.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/11/senate-point-fingers-oil-spill-hearing/

BP says a blowout protector failed. Transocean owns that piece of equipment so it's their fault.
Transocean says that since BP is the operator they are responsible. They also point fingers at Halliburton who enclosed the pipeline in concrete just prior to the accident.
Halliburton says that their work was finished to the specification provided by BP as well as industry standards. In other words "Not our fault".

"Given sufficient time, a board of inquiry can prove ANYTHING" - unknown

Time will tell.

 

[austin1015]

Im almoust 100% sure its transoceans fault. :biggun:

 

[senojekips]

As for the BOP failure, it will all depend very much on the way it was fitted and it's condition and prior to it being fitted.

BOPs use several methods to seal off the well (shearing and crushing), and are a piece of relatively simple machinery in the way that they work, some would say foolproof,... that rely on being in good working order and properly fitted to do their jobs. I would say that there will now be a witch hunt to see what actually caused it to fail.

 

[RayManKiller3]

Actually, I believe more options DO drive down costs. If we use Renewable energy and nonrenewables, then the price should drop down.

So in the long run as renewables become more frequent, the prices should drop down. As for everyone saying it is more expensive... Only in first costs, I met plenty of people who upgraded their homes with Eco-friendly materials (such as powering their house with Solar panels) who have a great difference in their electricity bill. It only cost as much as it do because people refuse to put a long term investment in it. People should realize by now that we are going to sooner or later be required to do this, so why wait later when the homework is close to its due date?

As for who's fault it is? It is BP's fault no matter who made the parts. They bought it to save costs and therefore should have known the consequences. As for human lives on the rig, I kind of find it hard for them to complain that much. Don't they realize before working there that their lives will always be in danger?

If they bought parts that were more reliable and this happened still, then people would know they tried their best to keep any accidents from happening. Also, shouldn't they be more prepared for things like this?

Sorry, but a person can't buy sympathy with stupidity.

 

[Rob Henderson]

So in the long run as renewables become more frequent, the prices should drop down. As for everyone saying it is more expensive... Only in first costs, I met plenty of people who upgraded their homes with Eco-friendly materials (such as powering their house with Solar panels) who have a great difference in their electricity bill. It only cost as much as it do because people refuse to put a long term investment in it. People should realize by now that we are going to sooner or later be required to do this, so why wait later when the homework is close to its due date?


Sorry, but a person can't buy sympathy with stupidity.

Beautifully said.

 

[senojekips]

As for who's fault it is? It is BP's fault no matter who made the parts. They bought it to save costs and therefore should have known the consequences.

No,... not at all. In my experience BOPs are not "bought", they are only hired by the drillers to be used while the hole is being put in. They are then removed and replaced with a "Christmas Tree" for production.

Generally they are provided by specialist firms like Cameron, Schlumberger or Halliburton or a dozen others. This is true of nearly all equipment used, drill bits,down hole motors, loggers, you name it, with the exception of the fittings that remain in place for the life of the well, casing, pipework and flow control equipment, that is bought by the well "owners" and installed by other specialist companies. just about the only thing the drilling contractor is responsible for is the hole and the fitted casing.

Putting in a well is a joint effort with many contractors being involved. Generally the owners are not the drillers.

I just went looking and found:

Documents discussed during congressional hearings June 17, 2010, suggested that a battery in the device's control pod was flat and that the rig's owner, Transocean, may have "modified" Cameron's equipment for the Macondo site (including incorrectly routing hydraulic pressure to a stack test valve instead of a pipe ram BOP) which increased the risk of BOP failure, in spite of warnings from their contractor to that effect. Another hypothesis is that a junction in the drilling pipe may have been positioned in the BOP stack in such way that its shear rams had an insurmountable thickness of material to cut through.[11]

If this is found to be true, it looks like the blame would fall squarely on the shoulders of Transocean.

 

[RayManKiller3]

No,... not at all. In my experience BOPs are not "bought", they are only hired by the drillers to be used while the hole is being put in. They are then removed and replaced with a "Christmas Tree" for production.

But don't they still have the options of having higher quality materials? If so it still leaves them responsible. Even if someone wanted to pin the blame on those who made (or however they do it), no one will accept that.

Its sort of like this... I buy a Wal-mart store and one employee mops the floor, but forgets to put up a wet floor sign and someone slip. Who's fault is it? It is the employee's fault technically, but I hold responsibility of that Employee's actions and therefore, I can be sued. It is sort of the same with parts I believe.

They hold responsibility for the working condition of that rig no matter who "made" it. That is how it works in USA, that is, not sure about other countries.