Official Simtroplis Gulf Oil Spill Thread

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: Rymac91

They probably as plan F(or is it G now?) start throwing money at it in hopes it stops the leak.

Btw, would it be wise to update the title of this thread to what is now happening as opposed to what originally happened?quote>

Done

New title !

[Ryan123220 18]

So how long till hurricane season? That may make things a little more messy! Lets hope its fixed and at lease mostly cleaned up before then.

[Easy Bakes 253]

BP to try untested manuver some time this week.

Somthing called "TopKill"

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/05/25/gulf.oil.spill/index.html?hpt=T1

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Not being facetious, this really is a case of hubris brings nemesis.  The oil companies rush into oil drilling and production without sufficient safety precautions, never mind if it is in a relatively inaccessible place one mile below the surface of the ocean.  They are so enamoured of their ability to "get out of anything that happens" that they have now had the chickens come home to roost, and are discovering that the chickens are a whole flock of 500 pound canaries.  They are all saying: "Cheap, cheap".

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

The oil companies rush into oil drilling and production without sufficient safety precautions, never mind if it is in a relatively inaccessible place one mile below the surface of the ocean.quote>

You do realize that they are prohibited from drilling on the continental shelf, right?

The best part: that restriction is due to environmental concerns. Oops.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

The oil companies rush into oil drilling and production without sufficient safety precautions, never mind if it is in a relatively inaccessible place one mile below the surface of the ocean.quote>

You do realize that they are prohibited from drilling on the continental shelf, right?

The best part: that restriction is due to environmental concerns. Oops.

quote>

Well, yes.  You can't drill on the Grand Banks off Newfoundland either.  And after this, I don't think any drilling permits will be issued for anywhere in the territorial waters at all.  Just what will happen if someone wants to do drilling in international waters is probably moot right now but don't bet it will be looked on with any kind of favour considering the plastic junk sea, etc.

I have a feeling that dinosaur juice will soon be very unpopular.

[morriswalters 16]

Deep or shallow,  the failure here is one of hubris.  The industry should have developed a plan for this contingency.  It was inevitable that it would happen.  Anyone who believes otherwise needs to look at the history of engineering and of oil drilling. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

It is a good thing that the "oil shortage" has caused a scable for a vehicle propelled by other than fossil fuels.  After this fiasco more funds in this directioin should be forthcoming.

Meanwhile, back at the BP boardroom, where is all the money for all these measures that fail coming from?  I doubt even the insurance companies have pockets deep enough.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

I have a feeling that dinosaur juice will soon be very unpopular.quote>

Doubtful. At the end of the day, people and goods still need to get places. By car or truck, by bus, by boat, by plane, by train... it all requires some sort of petroleum product. As does plastic, which, in case you haven't noticed, is part of everything nowadays.

The greenies that complain about this sort of stuff will keep complaining, naturally, but for everyone else, nothing changes. Oil spills have happened before and people didn't all of a sudden turn away from oil (face it: we can't just up and do that), what makes this one any different?

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Ryan123220 18]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

It is a good thing that the "oil shortage" has caused a scable for a vehicle propelled by other than fossil fuels.  After this fiasco more funds in this directioin should be forthcoming.

Meanwhile, back at the BP boardroom, where is all the money for all these measures that fail coming from?  I doubt even the insurance companies have pockets deep enough.

quote>

Im sure they are going to claim they are paying for everything, but everybody knows once this is over they will push the costs onto the people with jacked up oil prices and such.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

It is a good thing that the "oil shortage" has caused a scable for a vehicle propelled by other than fossil fuels.  After this fiasco more funds in this directioin should be forthcoming.

Meanwhile, back at the BP boardroom, where is all the money for all these measures that fail coming from?  I doubt even the insurance companies have pockets deep enough.

quote>

Who pays what and how much and to who will be in the courts for 20+years.

Exxon is still stalling  in the courts over the Valdeze spill. that was 1989.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

They are going to try to cap it with cement.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

It is a good thing that the "oil shortage" has caused a scable for a vehicle propelled by other than fossil fuels.  After this fiasco more funds in this directioin should be forthcoming.

Meanwhile, back at the BP boardroom, where is all the money for all these measures that fail coming from?  I doubt even the insurance companies have pockets deep enough.

quote>

Who pays what and how much and to who will be in the courts for 20+years.

Exxon is still stalling  in the courts over the Valdeze spill. that was 1989.

quote>

I am not so sure.  This is likely to go to a Court of Admiralty because it involves the sinking of a vessel at sea in international waters.  There might be a lot of collateral litigations, but the blame will be decided by the Admiralty Court under the international regulations, and after that, all is just comment.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

It is a good thing that the "oil shortage" has caused a scable for a vehicle propelled by other than fossil fuels.  After this fiasco more funds in this directioin should be forthcoming.

Meanwhile, back at the BP boardroom, where is all the money for all these measures that fail coming from?  I doubt even the insurance companies have pockets deep enough.

quote>

Who pays what and how much and to who will be in the courts for 20+years.

Exxon is still stalling  in the courts over the Valdeze spill. that was 1989.

quote>

I am not so sure.  This is likely to go to a Court of Admiralty because it involves the sinking of a vessel at sea in international waters.  There might be a lot of collateral litigations, but the blame will be decided by the Admiralty Court under the international regulations, and after that, all is just comment.

quote>

Just the fight over if an oil rig is  sea going vessel will take years

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Besides the impact on the coast of some southern states, is there any impact on Mexico and central american countries?  If the U.S. is the only ox being gored, I can see it winding up in a long litigious struggle in each of the states involved as well as several fights in various federal appelate courts and the Supreme Court.

Was the rig over 200 miles from shore?  If so, it was indeed in international waters.  If not, then was it in Mexican or U.S. waters?

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

I doubt even the insurance companies have pockets deep enough.quote>

The money is coming from insurance companies. BP, Transocean, and Halliburton all have insurance to protect them from the costs of an oil spill in the event that one happens.  Also, the estimated cost at this moment is only $750 million.  That is easily inside the ability of the insurance companies to pay.

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

A rig platform is not a vessel.  It does not move and has no ability to do so under it's own volition.quote>

That is incorrect.  Oil rigs have the capability to move.  The Deepwater Horizon wasn't tethered to anything and floated freely.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[catty-cb 4,412]

I think I read somewhere that it was moved by tug, but according to its specs it does have engines to hold it in position

http://www.deepwater.com/fw/main/Deepwater-Horizon-56C15.html?LayoutID=17

[joshriddle 29]

BP needs to get the idea that they keep on failing! They have been cited several times, and have broken several safety laws, and now they are coming out and saying that they didn't monitor the rig away. You may havwe seen the video of the tube shooting out what looks like thousands of agallons of oil a minute... and to me it seems as if golf balls arent going to help any... try sealing it up with cement and pressure would build up and it blow, spilling the rest out... BP is not really good at that stuff..... no siree.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: hym

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

A rig platform is not a vessel.  It does not move and has no ability to do so under it's own volition.quote>

That is incorrect.  Oil rigs have the capability to move.  The Deepwater Horizon wasn't tethered to anything and floated freely.

quote>

Quite right, and if it has thrusters being operated to hold its position, then under the Internation Regulations for Collisions at Sea it is a Vessel Under Command.  Artificial constructs floating in the sea not underway, not at anchor, nor tethered to a pier are Vessels Not Under Command.

The collision regs really only handle collisions between vessels and other objects, but the defintions apply across the board in matters maritime.

Now in the U.S. there are three sets of navigation rules:  IALA system B used on the east coast and great lakes, USCG Inland Waterway Rules for vessels in those passages, the the pacific coast rules used on the west coast.  In all cases, the Collision Reguslations apply.

Whoever was captain of the vessel has a lot of explaining to do, and he may even get the Lord Jim treatment.

Originally posted by: joshriddle

BP needs to get the idea that they keep on failing! They have been cited several times, and have broken several safety laws, and now they are coming out and saying that they didn't monitor the rig away. You may havwe seen the video of the tube shooting out what looks like thousands of agallons of oil a minute... and to me it seems as if golf balls arent going to help any... try sealing it up with cement and pressure would build up and it blow, spilling the rest out... BP is not really good at that stuff..... no siree.quote>

Sorry, I don't understand what you said at the end where the highlight is.  Can you rephrase it or fix it?

[pagenotfound 53]

Well BP, you fail again. Top Kill has failed and the oil keeps gushing forth. So how are we gonna stop this, plug the leak with BP workers? I think that is an awesome idea.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gulf_oil_spill

[sneakeypete 16]

Woah, BP hate is pretty stupid guys. You really think that the same people trying to fix it now have anything at all to do with the department who broke it? Its like blaming a toyota factory worker for all their computer trouble...

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: sneakeypete

Woah, BP hate is pretty stupid guys. You really think that the same people trying to fix it now have anything at all to do with the department who broke it? Its like blaming a toyota factory worker for all their computer trouble...quote>

Yea nothing like this has ever happened before so theres no plan.

I dont think there ever been a case of an explosion on a rig that sank the rig, so there wasnt  any type of  equipment platform near that they can use to properly stop the leak.

lots of blame is going to be thrown around  concerning this accident, BP, Transocean, Haliburton, the workers.

remember 100 some people escaped from the rig, and  iv heard nothing from these people so far about what realy happened.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

Yea nothing like this has ever happened before so theres no plan.quote>

Well, why not?  Just because it's never happened before is no excuse not to have a contingency plan.

I'm being serious.   Some companies (corporations, agencies, whatever) had disaster contingency plans a decade ago.  Others realized after 9/11 that they should get one.

Are we really supposed to believe that NO ONE thought about what to do in case an oil rig exploded?

I'm not saying this was a terrorist act.  I have insufficient information to form an opinion about that. 

I am saying that it isn't a major stretch of the imagination to think that blowing up an oil rig just might maybe be on a terrorist's to-do list.  and, judging by the last month, no one had put any prior thought into how to handle it if it did happen.

Maybe it's because I live in an area that routinely conducts multi-jurisdiction disaster drills.  A certain level of preparation just seems obvious.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: Meg

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

Yea nothing like this has ever happened before so theres no plan.quote>

Well, why not?  Just because it's never happened before is no excuse not to have a contingency plan.

I'm being serious.   Some companies (corporations, agencies, whatever) had disaster contingency plans a decade ago.  Others realized after 9/11 that they should get one.

Are we really supposed to believe that NO ONE thought about what to do in case an oil rig exploded?

I'm not saying this was a terrorist act.  I have insufficient information to form an opinion about that. 

I am saying that it isn't a major stretch of the imagination to think that blowing up an oil rig just might maybe be on a terrorist's to-do list.  and, judging by the last month, no one had put any prior thought into how to handle it if it did happen.

Maybe it's because I live in an area that routinely conducts multi-jurisdiction disaster drills.  A certain level of preparation just seems obvious.quote>

well mabey not no plan, but but with no  platform in place, not one that has a better chance of stoping the leak then the other things they have tried.

Im not a oil rig engineer but im thinking there are several engineery things, Remote Shut off valves ect , on them that are there to prevent leaks, explosions and the like but when the whole rig goes?

aside from haveing another rig close by to move in place with in a couple days theres not much contingincy you can do.and those rigs are expensive, you  got a half  billion to invest for an idle rig?

[Duke87 1,070]

I'm sure they had plenty of emergency plans in case of fire and/or explosion. They even had a contingency in mind for if the pipe broke: a safety valve that's supposed to automatically cut off the flow. You know, that "blowout preventer" people have been talking about?

The problem here, really, is that not only did the rig go down, but the safety mechanism failed as well. Kinda like as if your ship sinks, and then your lifeboat sinks too. Nobody thinks about what to do if the contingency plan fails, because that's an extremely unlikely circumstance. We weren't prepared to deal with this situation because, frankly, before it happened it would have sounded more like the plot of a crazy horror novel than a realistic possibility.

Given that, no one can really be blamed for this. And those responsible are doing everything they can to try and clean up the mess. But it's difficult because we've never seen anything quite like it before and probably never will again. All possible methods of trying to stop the flow are unproven and thus unreliable.

[Easy Bakes 253]

I have heard rumors but not seen anything in print that the workers were told to pump back in

regular water rather then the more expensive and thicker chemicals they were supposed to be using

[Boggy1 45]

To anyone who thinks a nuclear option is viable; it is correct the Russians have used a nuclear weapon to sea four oil leaks before. But there is a tiny tiny difference between their attempts and this oil spill.

...

The Russians have only ever attempted it in oil wells underground. The nuclear option seals the well by collapsing several hundred tonnes of rock and ground ontop of the pipe. This leak is on the ocean bed, with nothing to collapse onto it.

At best, using the nuclear option would destroy the blow-out-preventer, exposing and cracking the pipeline. At worst it could cause a massive undersea earthquake, that could create thousands of fissures along the seabed, leading to hundreds of oil leaks; something which could never be stopped until all of the oil was gone.