Gulf oil spill. Help me understand.

[Philbiker]

We need oil, and I am all for drilling. But please tell me why we can have an oil rig with a valve that turns off if there is a problem. How about a valve that turns off everyday unless it receives the 'stay open' command from topside. What am I missing here? We can drive robots on MARS but we can turn off a valve 5000 feet away?

-facepalm-

Right. You're the first person who ever thought of that! All those petroleum geologists/engineers and 150+years of experience should read your off topic paragraph.

The fact that this kind of thing happens rarely, considering the large amount of rigs we have offsore, means the petroleum people must be doing something right.

 

[ryco]

All they would need is a remotely operated valve and a receiver. However, I bet all that is in place and has failed for some reason. The BBC article mentions a BOP on the well head. Obviously something is not working correctly there. Sucks, this will be more [DEL]fodder[/DEL] concern & evidence backed by real world proof for the anti-oil crowd.

not anti-oil; pro responsibility

 

[Gard]

Great post Gard, but I don't agree with this:



If we utilized our own resources, we could cut Mideast oil out of the equation over time.

Depends, are we talking JUST oil reserves, or are we talking ALL available resources?

Yes, we can get off the foreign oil "teat", but not with our own oil reserves alone. To do so we are going to have to make it a point to develop other sources of energy and quickly. And using ethanol ain't an answer. We need a sensible energy policy, and I'm not seeing one.

Again, I'm not driving a Nissan Leaf, I'm not chaining myself to trees, I'm an "environmentalist", but a realist as well. My reasons for my position are at least as much economic as they are environmental. I'm tired of us sending a large part of our GDP overseas for energy that we should be able to source locally. However, I do still drive a gasoline powered auto, and am connected to the local grid for electricity...not to mention I manage a shop that builds bass guitars out of exotic woods.

I want energy independence, not patchouli and hemp shirts. (Well, the hemp cloth, and hemp as a commercial product, yeah, that makes sense, but no one will smarten up on that either - anyone here ever research the energy density of hemp oil? )

 

[aborgman]

Ah, it's BP. That explains a lot. They have to be top-tier in slimyness even for an oil company. They have gotten away with and continue to get away with seriously questionable practices: robber-barons, production trimming, price fixing, etc. And that's just on the economic side of things.

Dirtier than the oil they pump.

Yeah, they got nailed a few years back for ignoring oil leaks in their pipelines in Alaska.

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

 

[aborgman]

If we utilized our own resources, we could cut Mideast oil out of the equation over time.

Not if you mean oil.

We currently produce ~9 million barrels a day.

We currently use ~20 million barrels a day.

If we assume we can economically extract all know oil resources, and we assume best case USGS estimates - about 10-15 years from now we could increase our ~9 million barrels per day all the way up to about 10.5 million barrels per day.

 

[RWP]

-facepalm-

Right. You're the first person who ever thought of that! All those petroleum geologists/engineers and 150+years of experience should read your off topic paragraph.

The fact that this kind of thing happens rarely, considering the large amount of rigs we have offsore, means the petroleum people must be doing something right.

-double facepalm-


Maybe they should. Pumping 44,000 gallons of crude oil into the Gulf a day is unacceptable. There needs to be a fool proof way to shut down a well in a situation like this, not just most of the time, every time. They are saying it could take 2 months to get a relief well drilled. 264,000,000 gallons of crude will be in the water by then.

 

[bassrique]

Depends, are we talking JUST oil reserves, or are we talking ALL available resources?

Yes, we can get off the foreign oil "teat", but not with our own oil reserves alone. To do so we are going to have to make it a point to develop other sources of energy and quickly. And using ethanol ain't an answer. We need a sensible energy policy, and I'm not seeing one.

Again, I'm not driving a Nissan Leaf, I'm not chaining myself to trees, I'm an "environmentalist", but a realist as well. My reasons for my position are at least as much economic as they are environmental. I'm tired of us sending a large part of our GDP overseas for energy that we should be able to source locally. However, I do still drive a gasoline powered auto, and am connected to the local grid for electricity...not to mention I manage a shop that builds bass guitars out of exotic woods.

I want energy independence, not patchouli and hemp shirts. (Well, the hemp cloth, and hemp as a commercial product, yeah, that makes sense, but no one will smarten up on that either - anyone here ever research the energy density of hemp oil? )

Not if you mean oil.

We currently produce ~9 million barrels a day.

We currently use ~20 million barrels a day.

If we assume we can economically extract all know oil resources, and we assume best case USGS estimates - about 10-15 years from now we could increase our ~9 million barrels per day all the way up to about 10.5 million barrels per day.

We're talking about cutting the oil imports of countries "that hate us" [via increased domestic production]. Most of our imported oil is from Canada and Mexico, and last time I checked, we're friends.

I don't have the numbers in front of me, but cutting OPEC out of the picture is quite doable [with the notable exception of Venezuela]. I'll come back this evening with facts.

Oh, I'm talking about natural gas as well, as we have lots of that.

 

[warwick.hoy]

Depends, are we talking JUST oil reserves, or are we talking ALL available resources?

Yes, we can get off the foreign oil "teat", but not with our own oil reserves alone. To do so we are going to have to make it a point to develop other sources of energy and quickly. And using ethanol ain't an answer. We need a sensible energy policy, and I'm not seeing one.

Again, I'm not driving a Nissan Leaf, I'm not chaining myself to trees, I'm an "environmentalist", but a realist as well. My reasons for my position are at least as much economic as they are environmental. I'm tired of us sending a large part of our GDP overseas for energy that we should be able to source locally. However, I do still drive a gasoline powered auto, and am connected to the local grid for electricity...not to mention I manage a shop that builds bass guitars out of exotic woods.

I want energy independence, not patchouli and hemp shirts. (Well, the hemp cloth, and hemp as a commercial product, yeah, that makes sense, but no one will smarten up on that either - anyone here ever research the energy density of hemp oil? )

I've never crunched the numbers but I'm aware that it is nearly as high if not higher than petroleum.

I've heard arguments that there is a reason that hemp is not taken seriously and it involves certain lobbies invested in their own interests seeking to squash any form of competition.

I'm also a little dumbfounded that there is little distinction made; in the US, between Hemp and C.Sativa one of which is very useful in industrial applications and the other of which is only useful in getting you high.

I guess that's a different thread though.

 

[aborgman]

We're talking about cutting the oil imports of countries "that hate us" [via increased domestic production]. Most of our imported oil is from Canada and Mexico, and last time I checked, we're friends.

I don't have the numbers in front of me, but cutting OPEC out of the picture is quite doable [with the notable exception of Venezuela]. I'll come back this evening with facts.

Our biggest imports:

Canada - ~2.6 million bpd.
Saudi Arabia - ~1.4 million bpd.
Mexico - ~1.4 million bpd.
Venezuela - ~1.4 million bpd.
Algeria - ~.72 million bpd.
Iraq - ~.58 million bpd.
Angola - ~.55 million bpd.
Nigeria - ~.5 million bpd.
Russia - ~.5 million bpd.

All in italics basically hate us.

Oil imported from OPEC:

Algeria - .72 million bpd.
Angola - .55 million bpd.
Ecuador - .28 million bpd.
Iraq - .57 million bpd.
Nigeria - .5 million bpd.
Saudi Arabia - 1.4 million bpd.
Venezuela - 1.4 million bpd.

Total: 5.4 million barrels per day.

Total minus Venezuela: 4 million barrels per day.

Maximum estimated increase given all possible oil production: ~1.5 million barrels per day (15 years from now).

1.5 million <<<<<< 4 million.

 

[Phalex]

I'm a little freaked out that they're talking about setting the oil on fire as a way to dispose of it. There are 11 people unaccounted for. Maybe dead, but maybe floating around in that oil slick. I really hope they look very closely before they set it on fire.

 

[PSPookie]

-double facepalm-


Maybe they should. Pumping 44,000 gallons of crude oil into the Gulf a day is unacceptable. There needs to be a fool proof way to shut down a well in a situation like this, not just most of the time, every time. They are saying it could take 2 months to get a relief well drilled. 264,000,000 gallons of crude will be in the water by then.

Clearly, you are not an engineer. As such, you may be out of your depth in this aspect of the discussion.

 

[SpamBot]

Subscribed, this is interesting

 

[john turner]

-double facepalm-


Maybe they should. Pumping 44,000 gallons of crude oil into the Gulf a day is unacceptable. There needs to be a fool proof way to shut down a well in a situation like this, not just most of the time, every time. They are saying it could take 2 months to get a relief well drilled. 264,000,000 gallons of crude will be in the water by then.

well, we do not have the technology to be 100% fool proof with -anything- at 2+ tons per square inch pressure. that's just the way it is. until material's science catches up with doc manhattan, that's not going to change, either.

to be honest, though, engineering is not about 100% fool proof, not the vast majority of it. diminishing returns plays a huge part in most engineering designs. your car is not 100% fool proof, and your life is dependant on it. would you have paid 10x as much for a similar vehicle that might have halved the "error region" in your car's design? that's what you're looking at, after all. i would imagine it's the same thing here - requisite massive outlay of funds for just a few percentage points, or fractions thereof, increase in reliability.

 

[MatticusMania]

I'm a little freaked out that they're talking about setting the oil on fire as a way to dispose of it. There are 11 people unaccounted for. Maybe dead, but maybe floating around in that oil slick. I really hope they look very closely before they set it on fire.

It doesnt even seem like a good plan in the first place. Its already polluting the water, might as well pollute the air as well?

 

[Gard]

I'm a little freaked out that they're talking about setting the oil on fire as a way to dispose of it. There are 11 people unaccounted for. Maybe dead, but maybe floating around in that oil slick. I really hope they look very closely before they set it on fire.

If they're IN the water, pushing a full week, surrounded by crude oil (which by the way is TOXIC and will be absorbed through skin), they don't have any survivors to be concerned about.

With the magnitude of the slick, that may be the only solution to deal with it before it starts to cause real environmental damage.

 

[Steve]

If I had a paranoid mind, I would be asking myself, why is it that after 40 years without and kind of oil rig problem...just weeks after new oil leases are approved...there is some mysterious explosion that dumps a bunch of oil everywhere?.

Then I would ask myself why is it that all the tree huggers that would normally be screaming "I told you so!!!' over something like this seem to be strangely silent.

If I had a paranoid mind....

 

[PSPookie]

It doesnt even seem like a good plan in the first place. Its already polluting the water, might as well pollute the air as well?

I believe the idea here is that you move the pollution from the water to the air and that the combustion by-products are less harmful to the air than the oil is to the water.

 

[ryco]

Then I would ask myself why is it that all the tree huggers that would normally be screaming "I told you so!!!' over something like this seem to be strangely silent.

After 60 years of screaming and pleading, what is there left to say? Why reason with the unreasonable?
Saying much more amounts to verbal masturbation - the choir is already very well informed.

Just jaw dropping!

btw, I don't think it was environmental terrorists - they're still celebrating their awesome coal mine explosion win.*

 

[GregC]

If I had a paranoid mind, I would be asking myself, why is it that after 40 years without and kind of oil rig problem...just weeks after new oil leases are approved...there is some mysterious explosion that dumps a bunch of oil everywhere?.

Then I would ask myself why is it that all the tree huggers that would normally be screaming "I told you so!!!' over something like this seem to be strangely silent.

If I had a paranoid mind....

LOL. Damned if they do, damned if they don't?

 

[hbarcat]

A few things to ponder:

--Oil has a tendency to spill, polluting the water, and it adds to atmospheric CO2

--Coal is dangerous to mine and it pollutes the air and adds to atmospheric CO2

--All refined fossil fuels pollute the air and water to some extent and add to atmospheric CO2

--Nuclear power creates radioactive waste that remains toxic for thousands of years and can be made into nuclear weapons

--Alcohol and other renewable fuels are prohibitively expensive to produce in great quantities at our current level of technology

--Solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric and other "green" technologies aren't capable of providing enough power for our modern needs




The bottom line is there is no good solution to our energy problems. We can only pick and choose among numerous imperfect alternatives and do our best to deal with the inevitable consequences.