Deepwater Horizon/BP Oil Spill

Murdoch

Murdoch

Half-way Through My Half-life
Orderite
We've all been watching the enormous oil disaster that unfolding off of Louisiana. This thing has a huge variety of repercussions and implications, so here is a list of the things it will affect. It is by no means inclusive.

  • US Energy Policy. A Big Deal was made earlier in Obama's first term over the 20-year moratorium ending over new US offshore oil drilling. Now everyone from thehttp://www.fresnobee.com/2010/05/03/1919739/schwarzenegger-pulls-plug-on-offshore.html] Governator in California [/url]to Gulf oil proponents like Mary Landrieu stumbling over each other trying to get to a mic and denounce the actions of the Big Oil that line their pockets.

    Environmental Disaster, part I. If and when the oil reaches land in large quantities it will kill the vegetation that holds the Gulf Coast barrier islands in place, allowing them to erode, advancing the human-made destruction of the Mississippi Delta started by the Corps of Engineers. This in turn will make New Orleans ever more vulnerable by hurricane-meditated storm surge and another Katrina-like disaster more likely. Letting aside the issue about the birds, turtles and the rest of the flora and fauna ending up dead. Booms and the like to corral the oil work poorly in the windy environment of the Gulf at this time of year, and only by the grace of wind patterns has the full brunt of the Delaware-sized slick not hit the coastline.

    Environmental Disaster, part II. Use of oil dispersants, which while proprietary are basically detergents, can prevent oil from affecting the coastline. The problem is that the oil doesn't go anywhere but the bottom of the ocean, where it sits for undetermined time periods in a quiescent and biologically inert, undegraded state. Filter feeders inhabit this same environment and bio-accumulate the oil that permeates their habitat. BP has recently bought up a third of the world's supply of dispersants, and is readying to deploy them across the oil spill, with long term consequences to the Gulf of Mexico fishing and shellfish industry.

    Economic Disaster.     The Gulf Coast is supported by four main industries: oil exploration, tourism, fishing and shipping. With political problems due to this disaster making current and future oil exploration difficult to predict, this industry has an imperiled future. Tourism and sport fishing in these usually highly productive waters has basically stopped along the coast, hitting many small towns that rely on outside money for their existence. Fishing is obviously affected, both vertebrate and invertabrate varieties. The long term effect on shrimp and shellfish hinges mostly on the use of dispersants and whether the oil ends up in them, while fish fishing may cease for years as the food chain breaks down due to oil pollutants killing the plankton and the like. Shipping will only be affected if and when the Mississippi delta further deteriorates, making shipping more difficult. All told the oil spill has large scale, long term repercussions into the tens of billions of dollars on the Gulf Coast economy.

    Legal quagmire. Currently there is a 75 million dollar cap on liability claims that can be made against oil spills. On a multibillion dollar true liability, all as a result of the Exxon Valdez spill. This is being remedied retroactively by the Senate, but it's unclear whether precedent exists to do so, assuming it's even possible to pass over a Senate fillibuster. Then there's the fact that it is unclear who exactly is at fault: BP, the platform operator or Halliburton (who made the plug and valve that may have/did fail. The Exxon Valdez spill was only settled for good in 2008 by the Supreme Court, 20 years after the actual spill. Expect similar results here.

Questions:
Who do you think is the most to blame for the disaster? Regulation? BP? Halliburton? The carbon-based economy?

What do you think will happen to the environment? In general, specifically, etc.

What does this mean for energy legislation? Will climate change be easier or harder to pass now? What will happen to offshore drilling?

What will the ultimate human cost be of this? What will happen to the shrimping and fishing fleets that ply the gulf?
 
I'm usually all over cases like these, but I've been very busy lately, and unable to pay attention to what's been going on.

Either way, putting the blame on the entire (corrupt and destructive) industry can't really be done in an isolated incident such as this one. THe blame here is on maintenance, the owner of the platform, but it all boils down to the company that is drilling for oil, not the platform operator. THey didn't check up on their maintenanec well enough.

Sadly, this probably wont have any effect whatsoever on global climate politics. I think that very little can have any substantial effect on the climate politics. THere is just too much money in the oil and coal industry to put it away, no matter if it kills the world. Greed and capitalism, yeah.

I'm having a hard time writing due to this crappy computer. It's lagging like hell, and I'll just stop now.
 
Another thing you might want to list is the potential damage to the Coral Reefs that might happen if the oil spreads there.
 
To early to say soon if they manage anything. If it does become a larger disaster or if those attempts they are currently doing to shut it down will work. If the worst case scenarios does happen it will probably end with endless lawsuits sitting forever in the courts while the local fishermen and other people that are affected will slowly lose their jobs. Right now BP is trying to create a image of someone that does anything in their power to fix this.

When the media coverage goes away I bet they will suddenly be more eager to go to the courts.

For the general oil production in the world and the policies on oil production this will last as long as media cares(which may be the whole summer) while for the rest of the people that are directly affected such as the fishermen and people that are dependant on the life in the gulf it will last much longer.
 
In other news Rush Limbaugh suggests it was those dirty pinko commie wacko enviromentalists who blew it up for some reason.
I'm not crazy enough to understand his logic. :V
 
Alphadrop said:
In other news Rush Limbaugh suggests it was those dirty pinko commie wacko enviromentalists who blew it up for some reason.
I'm not crazy enough to understand his logic. :V
Click to expand...
Wait, seriously?
 
This reminds me of the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska back in '89. Seems to be the same kind of blame game, from reading the first post. And, as Murdoch mentioned, I think the affected locals will definitely come out of this as the biggest losers.
 
Alphadrop said:
In other news Rush Limbaugh suggests it was those dirty pinko commie wacko enviromentalists who blew it up for some reason.
I'm not crazy enough to understand his logic. :V
Click to expand...

His logic is make shit up without any sources because he's behind a microphone. Microphone = Fact.
 
More on the chemical dispersants:
As they struggle to plug a leak from a ruptured oil well in the Gulf of Mexico, BP and federal officials are also engaging in one of the largest and most aggressive experiments with chemical dispersants in the history of the country, and perhaps the world.

Rules, Revolving Doors and the Oil Industry

In looking for ways to prevent future oil spills, are tighter regulations the key?

With oil continuing to gush from the deep well, they have sprayed 160,000 gallons of chemical dispersant on the water’s surface and pumped an additional 6,000 gallons directly onto the leak, a mile beneath the surface.

John Curry, director of external affairs at BP, said the company was encouraged by the results so far. But some environmental groups are deeply nervous.

“I understand it’s the only thing they can do,” said Paul Orr of the group Lower Mississippi Riverkeeper. “But I think it’s vital afterwards to really monitor what’s happening with aquatic life, with oil on the sea floor and things like oyster beds.”

Even in the best cases, dispersants are applied in what might be termed a lose-lose strategy. Scientists make the calculation that it is better to have the ocean filled with low concentrations of the dispersant chemicals — which are in themselves mild to moderate poisons — than to have dense oil on the surface or washing up onshore, places where it is most likely to harm wildlife.

And while most environmentalists support the application of dispersants as a necessary evil to limit the damage, some have assailed an industry policy that guards their chemical makeup. Keeping the exact mix secret makes it harder to evaluate the risks to marine ecosystems and to know what side effects to look for as the crisis unfolds.

What is more, the main dispersants applied so far, from a product line called Corexit, had their approval rescinded in Britain a decade ago because laboratory tests found them harmful to sea life that inhabits rocky shores, like limpets, said Mark Kirby, a scientific adviser to the British government on the testing, use and approval of oil spill treatment options.

But Mr. Kirby added that the finding might have little to no relevance to the current situation, where the product is being applied in the open ocean. While Corexit failed the British government’s limpet test, it passed its offshore safety tests, Mr. Kirby said. (The dispersant had to pass both tests for British waters.)

Still, as the molecules from the 160,000 gallons of dispersant bind with the oil from Deepwater Horizon, the oil drilling rig that exploded on April 20, and fan out across the gulf, some groups are fighting for more information about the product’s composition. That amount of dispersant is greater than the entire stockpile kept by oil-producing nations like Norway.

“We flew over there and saw BP spraying all over the place,” said Frederic Hauge, head of the international environment group Bellona, based in Oslo. “We deserve to know what’s in there.”

Although the Nalco Company, which makes the Corexit dispersants, posted copies of the safety documents for two of its dispersants online Wednesday, some of the ingredients are listed as “proprietary.”

The 10-page documents go into detail about compounds that must be handled with great care in their original form, that should not touch the skin and can damage lungs. Although the documents state that the potential environmental hazard is “moderate,” they say that when used as directed at sea in the recommended amounts the potential environmental exposure is “low.”

“It’s like any other product,” said Charlie Pajor, a senior manager at the Illinois-based company: “We developed them and we’re protecting our trade secret.”

Mr. Pajor said that the company increased production over the weekend because it generally stockpiles only a small amount, Corexit products are generally used in much smaller amounts to treat far smaller spills, he added.

Mr. Pajor said he could not recall a deployment of the product comparable to the current effort.

Dispersants do not remove the oil from the ocean but instead bind with it and cause oil slicks to break up into tiny droplets that sink and can be “dispersed” by the current. They are particularly effective in treating spills in deep water and far from land, where the current can spread the particles over a large range, diluting their dangerous effects.

“You’re basically taking the oil and transferring it to other compartments where it won’t do so much damage,” said Mr. Kirby, a team leader at Cefas Lowestoft Laboratory in Britain.

Most dispersants, he said, are a mixture of four to six chemicals that in tandem cause the oil to break up. Roughly 20-odd dispersant products exist, he said, and while they have generally similar types of components, they “have proprietary recipes like Coca-Cola.”

When used out at sea, the products create a toxic plume in the immediate area that might be dangerous for marine life there, scientists agree, but they are diluted rather quickly by currents.

Like the United States and Britain, many countries test and approve the products before they are used, determining how toxic they are when administered in low doses to marine animals like shrimp.

New products are constantly being developed to be more effective. Still, a few countries forbid their use because their long-term effects are somewhat uncertain and many require prior approval of national officials before deployment.
Click to expand...

I think we're trading poison on the surface with terrible but known consequences for poison on the seafloor with unknown consequences.

I prefer the devil we know.
 
So where's all the people who apparently have practical/everyday use of other forms of energy? Oh wait, they're complaining about this, instead of making a new form of energy into something practical for every day use.
 
What the hell are you babbling about?

This is not a thread for your random verbal diarrhea. Go rate avatars if that is the extent of your interest and capacity.
 
Murdoch said:
What the hell are you babbling about?

This is not a thread for your random verbal diarrhea. Go rate avatars if that is the extent of your interest and capacity.
Click to expand...

What the hell are you babbling about?

Great addition to the thread, by the way.

Here's my avatar rating addition to the thread:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS...US+/+Top+News)&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

BP engineers prepared on Thursday to start lowering a 98-ton metal chamber over a ruptured undersea oil well in the Gulf of Mexico, trying to control a spill that threatens an environmental catastrophe for the U.S. shoreline.
Click to expand...

What does everyone else think of this?
 
I have a friend that works at a government program called the "Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration" (NRDAR) program (created in response to the Exxon Valdez disaster in 1989). My friend has been involved since the explosion happened and is currently in NOLA to assess (and respond to?) the situation. Good to personally know that there really are folks out there that give a damn and are in positions to do something about it.

Even without a fancy science degree, people may find a way to get involved if they want to make a difference in this situation. According to BWB, there are paid and volunteer positions available to folks that want to get involved in the clean-up operations. Even without leaving their hometowns, folks can also donate hair clippings and nylons to Matter of Trust to soup the oil in the water.
 
Ozrat said:
Even without leaving their hometowns, folks can also donate hair clippings and nylons to Matter of Trust to soup the oil in the water.
Click to expand...

Whoa, I didn't know this could be done.

I'm too scared that Barack Hussein Obama will use the clippings to cast voodoo curses on me, so this option is ruled out.

EDIT: Wait, they accept fur too. SHAVE ALL THE FURRIES!

Seriously though, I didn't know this could be done, but honestly, I can't see how I could influence the matter. It's up to the US government, and the government could hire temps to help with the clean-up and fine the living crud out of the company responsible for this. It's their mess, they pay for the cleanup.
 
Professor Danger! said:
So where's all the people who apparently have practical/everyday use of other forms of energy? Oh wait, they're complaining about this, instead of making a new form of energy into something practical for every day use.
Click to expand...
Oh, yeah, because complaining about this completely rules out them doing any productive work.

That's just stupid.
 
KristofferAG said:
Professor Danger! said:
So where's all the people who apparently have practical/everyday use of other forms of energy? Oh wait, they're complaining about this, instead of making a new form of energy into something practical for every day use.
Click to expand...
Oh, yeah, because complaining about this completely rules out them doing any productive work.

That's just stupid.
Click to expand...

Where is it? Why is it not out of more experimental stages and in the mainstream?
 
Because getting that sort of technology to be price competitive against an established form of energy is almost impossible early on?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top