27
   

The Gulf Oil Spill in a Nutshell

 
 
Reply Tue 4 May, 2010 11:39 pm
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 27 • Views: 8,524 • Replies: 211

 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 May, 2010 11:54 pm
In my house if you spill something you clean it up. Making the oil company pay is the least that should happen. But for what and how should they pay ? How about restoring the wild life to its previous numbers ...
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 12:19 am
@Robert Gentel,
If we make the company responsible for paying damages, will they then be eligible for a bailout?
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  4  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 11:40 am
@Ionus,
They will pay billions in the cleanup effort itself, they will pay billions in damages, and the US is trying to pass a law with retroactive effect to raise the direct damages they are liable for to make it all happen.

I think this can easily cost them something like $10 billion. So I'm not too worried about them getting stuck for the bill, I'm pretty sure it will happen.

But more importantly why aren't Americans asking why they don't better regulate this off-shore drilling? Brazil requires remotely-controlled valves that can be shut off in exactly such a case but in the US oil companies are allowed to operate without such restrictions.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 11:46 am
@Robert Gentel,
Quote:
But more importantly why aren't Americans asking why they don't better regulate this off-shore drilling? Brazil requires remotely-controlled valves that can be shut off in exactly such a case but in the US oil companies are allowed to operate without such restrictions.


Probably because 'regulations are bad for business!' was the motto of the last administration, and the new one is constantly being attacked for proposing new ones.

Cycloptichorn
dyslexia
 
  2  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 11:50 am
@Robert Gentel,
because "regulation" is the slippery slope to socialism. Drill baby drill.
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 12:06 pm
Because the Oil Companies have tons of $$, great lobbyists, and no ethics.
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 12:06 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Probably because 'regulations are bad for business!' was the motto of the last administration, and the new one is constantly being attacked for proposing new ones.


What's the connection to the last administration other than that you didn't like it?
Robert Gentel
 
  3  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 12:07 pm
@Mame,
Yes, but they do in Brazil and other countries with better regulation as well. I understand the basic conflict of interest, I'm saying that the American people should care about this more than they do just a black/white of drill or no drill.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 12:09 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Probably because 'regulations are bad for business!' was the motto of the last administration, and the new one is constantly being attacked for proposing new ones.


What's the connection to the last administration other than that you didn't like it?


The last admin was the one who decided that the very valves you mention were not, in fact, necessary, as at 500k each they were 'too big a burden' for the oil companies to shoulder.

It has nothing to do with my personal dislike for them, Robert.

Cycloptichorn
hamburgboy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 12:25 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
" major oilspill ? = " it'll never happen "

" another major oilspill ? " = " it'll never happen - case closed - let's move on "
......................................................................................................................

remember : if we want better protection against oilspills , it'll likely drive oil prices up ( perhaps a penny a gallon ? )
" gasoline is already expensive enough . who wants to see the price increased ?
please raise your hand ! no one ? o.k. - keep drilling ! " .
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 12:31 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
The last admin was the one who decided that the very valves you mention were not, in fact, necessary, as at 500k each they were 'too big a burden' for the oil companies to shoulder.

It has nothing to do with my personal dislike for them, Robert.


I was under the impression that this happened long before the last administration, but I'll take your word for it.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 12:36 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
The last admin was the one who decided that the very valves you mention were not, in fact, necessary, as at 500k each they were 'too big a burden' for the oil companies to shoulder.

It has nothing to do with my personal dislike for them, Robert.


I was under the impression that this happened long before the last administration, but I'll take your word for it.


As you may know, I always consider it appropriate to ask someone for their sources in online conversations. It's the only way to move forward with confidence.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704423504575212031417936798.html

Quote:
The oil well spewing crude into the Gulf of Mexico didn't have a remote-control shut-off switch used in two other major oil-producing nations as last-resort protection against underwater spills.

The lack of the device, called an acoustic switch, could amplify concerns over the environmental impact of offshore drilling after the explosion and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon rig last week...

... regulators in two major oil-producing countries, Norway and Brazil, in effect require them. Norway has had acoustic triggers on almost every offshore rig since 1993.

The U.S. considered requiring a remote-controlled shut-off mechanism several years ago, but drilling companies questioned its cost and effectiveness, according to the agency overseeing offshore drilling. The agency, the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service, says it decided the remote device wasn't needed because rigs had other back-up plans to cut off a well.


The U.K., where BP is headquartered, doesn't require the use of acoustic triggers.


The Minerals Management service under Bush was one of the most incredibly corrupt departments ever - literally trading permits for sex and drugs. They are still being investigated by the current congress; and there is plenty of evidence that Cheney and other highly-ranked Bush admin officials were directly involved in telling them what to do, as part of the secret 'energy task force' that Cheney held in 2001 and 2002.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
eoe
 
  2  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 01:07 pm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/sex-lies-and-oil-spills_b_564163.html

More info on Bush, Cheney & Co.'s involvement in present oil industry's drilling regulations.
0 Replies
 
TTH
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 01:52 pm
"SEATTLE " Desperate Gulf Coast leaders are turning to the Pacific Northwest for help in battling the incoming oil spill. A pipeline of Northwest equipment and expertise is already flowing south."

"This area has spent millions of dollars on equipment and training to become the most oil spill-ready region in the country, and has already begun sending tools and people to the Gulf."

http://www.nwcn.com/news/washington/Northwest-sending-oil-spill-resources-to-Gulf-92727884.html

Hoping people will learn from this disaster and do what it takes to not let it happen again.
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  2  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 02:12 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Absolutely they should care more but until your politicians get some teeth, cojones or a conscience, I don't see too much changing. This isn't any different than North American companies farming out their manufacturing to Chinese, Indian, etc companies to save a lot of $$ then acting surprised and outraged when inferior products (baby formula, lead-painted toys, sulphur-infested drywall) are sent back. It's all about the almight $.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 02:18 pm
@hamburgboy,
I suspect you are exactly right on the actual cost of gasoline at the pump.

I've never been involved in actual drilling operations, to say nothing of offshore operations, but I do have some familiarity with workover operations on the little oil and gas wells in this area. The blowout preventer is installed before work commences. It is removed when the job is complete. If the same procedure is followed in offshore drilling, the BOP is not an expense to an individual well.

I'm wondering about the incident, though. At one time, I read that the blowout was supposed to have been caused by poor cement, or poor cementing technique. If this is the case, I doubt any design of BOP would have helped. BOP has some control of what happens inside the casing. If the blowout is around the outside of the casing, but inside the well bore there is a different kind of problem. I am not at all sure which is the actual situation.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  2  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 07:21 pm
@Robert Gentel,
I think oil companies would have more access to places if they could convince the people of their high safety standards . They always seem to be playing catch-up. Exxon Valdez, Piper, now this...one lesson at a time at the expense of the environment and their credibilty. And these lessons dont come cheap.
0 Replies
 
eoe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 08:32 pm
@Mame,
Mame wrote:

Absolutely they should care more but until your politicians get some teeth, cojones or a conscience, I don't see too much changing. This isn't any different than North American companies farming out their manufacturing to Chinese, Indian, etc companies to save a lot of $$ then acting surprised and outraged when inferior products (baby formula, lead-painted toys, sulphur-infested drywall) are sent back. It's all about the almight $.


Taking that another step Mame, this isn't any different than North American companies farming out their manufacturing to Chinese, Indian, etc companies to save a lot of $$ then acting surprised and outraged when there is so much poverty and joblessness here. When so many people are in need of government assistance because blue color jobs requiring nothing more than a determination to work and pull one's own weight are no longer available here. It's all about the almighty dollar alright. Money (and greed) truly is the root of all evil.
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 08:45 pm
@eoe,
I think companies employing people overseas is a good thing. The jobs go to people who need it a lot more than Americans (who for the most part simply don't know what "poverty" means) which is why they are willing to do it for less and I hope to see more and more of it as globalization marches on. It's lifting people out of real poverty.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Are all Republicans Idiots? - Question by BigEgo
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The Gulf Oil Spill in a Nutshell
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 4.27 seconds on 07/25/2014 at 02:36:32