Gulf oil spill. Help me understand.

[Philbiker]

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....

You may want to go check out the chemtrails thread. Lots of speculative conspiracy kookiness to be had there.

 

[aborgman]

ANWR isn't the only new production we can get out of AK.

No - it's just the biggest, by far.

We'd need about 8-10 discoveries as big or bigger than ANWR, to come close to making up 5 million barrels per day.

Never mind that we're ignoring the fungibility of oil.

Then there's the vast potential [likely?] of the OCS and East Gulf.

Not nearly vast enough to cope with our oil appetite.

 

[bassrique]

No - it's just the biggest, by far.

We'd need about 8-10 discoveries as big or bigger than ANWR, to come close to making up 5 million barrels per day.

Never mind that we're ignoring the fungibility of oil.



Not nearly vast enough to cope with our oil appetite.

With such large areas declared off-limits, we don't know what we can get at, but it's reasonable to assume it's a large amount of oil and natural gas. I've seen reasonable estimates that we can replace OPEC with domestic oil and gas.

As far as fungibility goes, would you rather have supplies coming from our hemisphere rather than an area of the world that could be engulfed in war at any moment? We have China aggressively securing oil/gas contracts globally [including off the FL coast]. Isn't it smart to do something similar with our own resources? As a national security matter, that shouldn't be a problem.

 

[McHaven]

Haven't read every single post yet.

Yes, I think it is ridiculous they're talking about setting the spill on fire. Doesn't seem like a good idea, (but I'm not an engineer or whatever, so...)

Also, as far as domestic production/drilling versus foreign oil imports:

It does not matter what we do. We need to start looking past oil and figure out what we're going to do. Oil is going to run out. Soon. Perhaps in under 100 years. Oil production on the planet has peaked, and we need to find alternative fuels.

We import 50% of Canada's oil production into the US. How long do you think we can keep that up? If that relationship ends, there goes a large portion of our nation's energy.

Oil is dead and we have to move on, otherwise American civilization as we know it will crumble.

 

[bassrique]

McHaven,

Innovation will happen naturally in the energy sector. 100 years looks to be a reasonable time to bridge over to some other energy sources. In the meantime, we should be using our own resources while the science and engineering march onward.

 

[RWP]

Understatement of the thread.

Yeah, I need to stay in the fart threads where I won't be out of my depth in the aspect of the discussion.

 

[Randall]

Haven't read every single post yet.

Yes, I think it is ridiculous they're talking about setting the spill on fire. Doesn't seem like a good idea, (but I'm not an engineer or whatever, so...)

Also, as far as domestic production/drilling versus foreign oil imports:

It does not matter what we do. We need to start looking past oil and figure out what we're going to do. Oil is going to run out. Soon. Perhaps in under 100 years. Oil production on the planet has peaked, and we need to find alternative fuels.

We import 50% of Canada's oil production into the US. How long do you think we can keep that up? If that relationship ends, there goes a large portion of our nation's energy.

Oil is dead and we have to move on, otherwise American civilization as we know it will crumble.

Alberta has the tar sands with massive untapped reserves. Canada (USA too) can depend on this resource for many years.

 

[john turner]

Yeah, I know... but it was funnier to say the Canadians were responsible. We Brits have a bad enough reputation for destroying things!

oh i certainly agree. i still hope for the day when southpark proves prophetic and the canadians finally, once and for all, muster their military juggernaut to take out the baldwins .

 

[aborgman]

With such large areas declared off-limits, we don't know what we can get at, but it's reasonable to assume it's a large amount of oil and natural gas. I've seen reasonable estimates that we can replace OPEC with domestic oil and gas.

Sorry - I just don't buy it.

We cannot, no matter what we open up, increase our petroleum production 50%.

As far as fungibility goes, would you rather have supplies coming from our hemisphere rather than an area of the world that could be engulfed in war at any moment?

Not really, no. I'm generally of the opinion that if we're going to continue to use oil at high levels instead of replacing it, it's smart to use everyone elses oil while it's cheap and available.

We have China aggressively securing oil/gas contracts globally [including off the FL coast].

You mean off the Cuban coast, in Cuban territorial waters.

Isn't it smart to do something similar with our own resources? As a national security matter, that shouldn't be a problem.

The smartest thing we can do as a national security matter is USE LESS OIL. What is really best for national security is hoarding our oil supplies and depleting everyone else.

We could save way more oil than ANWR could produce just be improving fleet fuel economy 10%.

 

[RWP]

Swat teams being assigned to oil rigs? Humm........

 

[bassrique]

Sorry - I just don't buy it.

We cannot, no matter what we open up, increase our petroleum production 50%.

You let a closed mind do your analysis w/out letting facts get involved. Please do some reading on how much oil and gas could likely be in forbidden waters.

Not really, no. I'm generally of the opinion that if we're going to continue to use oil at high levels instead of replacing it, it's smart to use everyone elses oil while it's cheap and available.

When war breaks out in the Mideast again, it's in no one's best interests to have an energy crisis.



You mean off the Cuban coast, in Cuban territorial waters.

Drilling horizontally.



The smartest thing we can do as a national security matter is USE LESS OIL. What is really best for national security is hoarding our oil supplies and depleting everyone else.

We'll use less oil as technologies improve, but for now, we're using lots of oil and gas and coal. There's no getting around that in the short to intermediate term.

We could save way more oil than ANWR could produce just be improving fleet fuel economy 10%.

There's much more than ANWR. I did my reading last time oil prices spiked a few years ago and was amazed at the possibilities.

.

 

[bassrique]

Swat teams being assigned to oil rigs? Humm........

Mr. Obama said SWAT teams were being dispatched to the Gulf to investigate oil rigs and said his administration is now working to determine the cause of the disaster.

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

Looks like firms like Blackwat....I mean Xe will be busy on oil rigs as there may be new security requirements.

 

[Munjibunga]

As someone that grew up in the saltwater marshes of southern Louisiana, and saw first hand the devastation that the oil industry was leaving in their wake there, count me in as one of those that has issues with this situation.

I'm with you on this, Gard, but let me ask you this. Are you in favor of nuclear (nukular, if you wish) energy?

 

[mike_v_s]

Woke up this morning with the smell of crude in the air. Nice.

Mike

 

[bassrique]

A sandy beach is bad enough, but swamps and wetlands? I don't know how that gets cleaned.

 

[fdeck]

and if the only component of the system involved in the automatic shuttoff, or in the subsequent efforts to manually shut the leak off, were pure blobs of steel, then you'd be right. don't think that's the case though, and any system involved is going to be only as strong as its weakest link.

and -my- point was that the definiton of "one that works" is what the issue is here. these obviously work "most of the time" since we haven't gotten headline news reports of them failing before. i still think that 100% foolproof is going to be very difficult to achieve in that harsh an environment. it's hard enough to get anything to work 100% in 1 atmosphere.

That's cool. I was just going after the notion that nothing can be expected to work under such a hostile environment. If that was true, then it would have been irresponsible to even begin drilling at that depth. Of course nothing is 100% risk free. Still, risks can be managed.

Here's a piece of equipment that's rated at 4500 psi:

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

Now I am willing to make a bet, which is that the BOP was conservatively engineered to operate at 4000 psi and beyond, but it was not being used according to the instructions, which probably call for routine preventive maintenance and inspection.

To the other poster who asked about doubling up these devices, an image search for BOPs suggests that they are typically doubled up.

 

[john turner]

That's cool. I was just going after the notion that nothing can be expected to work under such a hostile environment. If that was true, then it would have been irresponsible to even begin drilling at that depth. Of course nothing is 100% risk free. Still, risks can be managed.

Here's a piece of equipment that's rated at 4500 psi:

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

Now I am willing to make a bet, which is that the BOP was designed to operate at 4000 psi, but it was not being used according to the instructions, which probably call for routine preventive maintenance and inspection.

To the other poster who asked about doubling up these devices, an image search for BOPs suggests that they are typically doubled up.

probably. also, and this is just pure speculation, but with this BOP device you have something with not only a bunch of moving parts but electronic control from a long distance away. that is a much more complicated engineering feat to pull off reliably.

this whole situation just reminds me of the venera landers the russians sent to venus. the environment on venus being what it was, these devices - the epitome of engineering at the time - were unable to long withstand the environment they were sent to. granted, it's not 900 degrees at the bottom of the ocean, but the vast pressure is suffcient, in my eyes, to bring out flaws in materials and manufacture that are difficult, i would think, to test for pre-implementation.

 

[john turner]

Woke up this morning with the smell of crude in the air. Nice.

Mike

seriously? how far inland are you?

 

[fdeck]

probably. also, and this is just pure speculation, but with this BOP device you have something with not only a bunch of moving parts but electronic control from a long distance away. that is a much more complicated engineering feat to pull off reliably.

Actually, by all appearances looking at pictures and diagrams online, the BOPs are passive. But indeed, I can't imagine designing one myself.

Another possibility is that the BOPs had malfunctioned, and were bypassed for convenience. To make another comparison, the Exxon Valdez should have been capable of hauling its load reliably.

 

[john turner]

Actually, by all appearances looking at pictures and diagrams online, the BOPs are passive. But indeed, I can't imagine designing one myself.

Another possibility is that the BOPs had malfunctioned, and were bypassed for convenience. To make another comparison, the Exxon Valdez should have been capable of hauling its load reliably.

ah. yeah. the human error element. that is sorta being glossed over in a lot of reports, at least that i have read.