Oil Leak

[jasonfish320]

I am not sure if anyone has brought up the topic of the big leak in Gulf yet, but I was thinking about the government's role in all of this earlier today. It seems to me that if they are the ones who control leasing the territory than they should definitely take some responsibility. However, it's not like this is their fault either...SHT HAPPENS! You think you have all the safety measures in place and boom..this happens.

Here's my thought: Recently the feds cut back a lot of their funding to NASA..so now you've got the smartest guys (probably in the world) sitting on the sidelines twiddling their thumbs. Sorry but if I was the prez in this position I would have had those boys on the phone pronto to come up with a solution for this plug. I guarantee that the first solution out of NASA would have plugged the well...these guys have no room for error..

It's a shame what is going to happen to the evironment in that area of the Gulf. As if the people in that area haven't suffered enough..

[nofearengineer]

Originally Posted by jasonfish320

. However, it's not like this is their fault either...SHT HAPPENS!

Jason, you touch on the central issue here. Politicians are simply never allowed to say "sht happens". It's political suicide, because society is so trained in kneejerk reactions, and the delusion that everything is always somebody's fault, and something has to be done about it, and they took eer jubs.....you get the point.

Sometimes I feel like I'm one of about 5 people who grasp and accept the cold, hard realities of a mortal existence in an imperfect world. The rest stand around screaming and whining.

[WTL]

Sht does happen. I don't think this should be made into a political issue right now. Its like Katrina. The federal government is bulky and impotent, I might be one of the few who understands this in the way that I think I am willing to give them a pass cause I just dont expect much.

I also think the boys at NASA would be no better than you or me or your average shade tree mechanic. The idea of shooting mud down in the hole and then concreting over...well that idea on its face is not complicated. It is happening to your kitchen sink every time you try to empty that half can of chilly down the drain. Not complicated. I could have suggested it, in fact I was thinking it in a clumsy way.

Then again the specifics of such an operation call for a level of specialized engineering and scientific experience, and the average rocket scientist, nobel poet/philosphoper or politician, even if they are brilliant, arent likely to be technically exercised in the areas this requires.

[CMorg]

Originally Posted by WTL

Sht does happen. I don't think this should be made into a political issue right now. Its like Katrina. The federal government is bulky and impotent, I might be one of the few who understands this in the way that I think I am willing to give them a pass cause I just dont expect much.

I also think the boys at NASA would be no better than you or me or your average shade tree mechanic. The idea of shooting mud down in the hole and then concreting over...well that idea on its face is not complicated. It is happening to your kitchen sink every time you try to empty that half can of chilly down the drain. Not complicated. I could have suggested it, in fact I was thinking it in a clumsy way.

Then again the specifics of such an operation call for a level of specialized engineering and scientific experience, and the average rocket scientist, nobel poet/philosphoper or politician, even if they are brilliant, arent likely to be technically exercised in the areas this requires.

I think some of my swimbaits are bulky and impotent as well...

[MallenManson]

Originally Posted by WTL

Sht does happen. I don't think this should be made into a political issue right now. Its like Katrina. The federal government is bulky and impotent, I might be one of the few who understands this in the way that I think I am willing to give them a pass cause I just dont expect much.

I also think the boys at NASA would be no better than you or me or your average shade tree mechanic. The idea of shooting mud down in the hole and then concreting over...well that idea on its face is not complicated. It is happening to your kitchen sink every time you try to empty that half can of chilly down the drain. Not complicated. I could have suggested it, in fact I was thinking it in a clumsy way.

Then again the specifics of such an operation call for a level of specialized engineering and scientific experience, and the average rocket scientist, nobel poet/philosphoper or politician, even if they are brilliant, arent likely to be technically exercised in the areas this requires.

Rice works even better

[Bassboss]

IMO it is somewhat political. If Dick never allowed the oil companies to make the fail safe non-mandatory, it never would have happened. True, it so political weather it was on there or not, but if it was on there, chances are we would not be having this discussion.

But as much as it hurts to say, I think this could be a good thing in the long run in one way. It might help people pull there heads out the a$ses and stop relying on unsafe fossil fuels. We've got what we need, lets fuggin do it all ready, lets for once not let greed get in the way of what's right!!!!!!

[MIbasser]

Originally Posted by Bassboss

IMO it is somewhat political. If Dick never allowed the oil companies to make the fail safe non-mandatory, it never would have happened. True, it so political weather it was on there or not, but if it was on there, chances are we would not be having this discussion.

But as much as it hurts to say, I think this could be a good thing in the long run in one way. It might help people pull there heads out the a$ses and stop relying on unsafe fossil fuels. We've got what we need, lets fuggin do it all ready, lets for once not let greed get in the way of what's right!!!!!!

I heard and I could have heard wrong, but it did have a fail safe on it. However it was an electrical one not a mechanical one and that the batteries had died on it.

[WTL]

Originally Posted by Bassboss

We've got what we need

I have no clue what you are referring to.

If its an alternative to fossil fuels that you are referring to, we most certainly, emphatically do not.

[nofearengineer]

Cummon, WTL...you know the world runs on good intentions and fairy dust.

Hilarious. I would blame it on age, but I'm sure the older version feels the same way.

[TN_Bassin]

Originally Posted by MIbasser

I heard and I could have heard wrong, but it did have a fail safe on it. However it was an electrical one not a mechanical one and that the batteries had died on it.

Actually instead of BP spending the extra 100k to put the failsafe in, we are having to deal with the spill now. Hindsight's 20/20 i guess.

[MIbasser]

Originally Posted by TN_Bassin

Actually instead of BP spending the extra 100k to put the failsafe in, we are having to deal with the spill now. Hindsight's 20/20 i guess.

I guess I heard right.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...051202190.html

[1/4 stick]

Originally Posted by WTL

I have no clue what you are referring to.

If its an alternative to fossil fuels that you are referring to, we most certainly, emphatically do not.

Of course we do! It just cost way too much to impliment and only works if the wind is blowing and the sun is shining. And nobody who says we should use it is willing to have to look at the ugly contraptions needed to create the energy.

[nofearengineer]

Originally Posted by MIbasser

I heard and I could have heard wrong, but it did have a fail safe on it. However it was an electrical one not a mechanical one and that the batteries had died on it.

By the way....as a guy who specifies "failsafe" devices (not drilling gear, obviously) you have to understand the terminology.

There is "fail-safe", whereupon, if something fails, things proceed to a safe condition. In this instance, if batteries were to die, the blowout preventer would close, and shut the well down.

Then there is "fail-secure", whereupon, if the batteries were to die, the blowout prevention function of the preventer would just stop working, and the well would keep flowing. We'll have to ask Garey, but I don't think a device like this actually exists. There appears to be no reason you would want this to occur.

So in essence, I don't think there could have been a "battery powered fail-safe" blowout preventer for this application. If there was, it would have worked. I would think it would be a mechanical device. Either that, or their wording is really screwed up. Garey?

[Bubba_Bruiser]

I have heard 2 different stories from people that worked with some of the men on the Horizon. And they both make good sense.
1) They had previous problems from the well giving them hydrocarbons back and it was freezing the subsea equipment days before this happened. They had ROVs down at the stack spraying it to melt the ice because they were having trouble functioning some items on the BOP stack (Blow Out Preventer). This would make sense in the fact that if you have ever seen a well flow for production, it will make a 3" line look like a 6" with the ice coating. The well basically unloaded a 6000' column of water in seconds and the gas was full blown. This could have led to a failure due to everything freezing. Any stack I have ever seen has worked mechanically by hydraulic fluid or a like fluid pressured to operate the equipment. I have never seen an electric function on them. These items are usually kept under a constant pressure to hold equipment opened or closed. If there is any kind of interruption in the pressure, the item will close or open, whatever its purpose is. Not to say that electrical equipment doesn't exist, but I haven't seen it in 13 years.
2) They were at the tail end of the well and rigged down some of the items to save some time. Maybe some of the wrong lines were disconnected. I really don't believe this one because the BOPs is the most critical equipment on the rig as far a separation from the well. And if they did, then shame on Transocean for letting BP persuade them to do it. BP is the decision maker, TO just carries out the orders. But then again, they did get there posi/neg test on the well and thought all was good, so it can't be ruled out.
But everyone has there opinion, but many coming from the media don't mean squat. I wouldn't enter NFE's territory and try to explain engineering or WTL's once he finishes his quest for the law. A lot of these people in the media would be better off explaining how a dog barks than what they are talking about on the drilling industry.

[66KingFisher]

Originally Posted by Bubba_Bruiser

A lot of these people in the media would be better off explaining how a dog barks than what they are talking about on the drilling industry.

Hahaha....I'll bet thats right.

[texasbasser]

Any news on Top Kill?

TB

[Bassboss]

Yeah. We've got it. While I'm in no place to say as I have not done much research on the topic, I'm sure soler, wind, and nuclear energy (that prolly be the most expensive of the lot and works rain or shin, mind or not) can't be much more expensive than drilling. Also thats why we make storage tanks (or lack of a better word) to store the energy made through wind or soler when it's cloudy or not windy. Even if it is a little more, don't you think that the good out weighs the bad?

Pros:

• Cleaner/Greener
• Safer
• Depletes our dependence on foreign oil
• Makes more Jobs here in America

Cons:

• Will produce economics shift (similar to shift from the house and buggy to auto mobile) - It will take time, but so what, the good out weights the bad

Pros of oil:

• No economic shift

Cons:

• Bad for the environment
• Can cause very long term disasters that may not be fixable (the spill we got going now).
• We help terrorist sympathizing countries (among others) economies.
• ^^ which in turn takes away from out economy
• ^^ in turn makes us less safe

the list could go on

[Stew]

Originally Posted by jasonfish320

I am not sure if anyone has brought up the topic of the big leak in Gulf yet, but I was thinking about the government's role in all of this earlier today. It seems to me that if they are the ones who control leasing the territory than they should definitely take some responsibility. However, it's not like this is their fault either...SHT HAPPENS! You think you have all the safety measures in place and boom..this happens.

Here's my thought: Recently the feds cut back a lot of their funding to NASA..so now you've got the smartest guys (probably in the world) sitting on the sidelines twiddling their thumbs. Sorry but if I was the prez in this position I would have had those boys on the phone pronto to come up with a solution for this plug. I guarantee that the first solution out of NASA would have plugged the well...these guys have no room for error.

It's a shame what is going to happen to the environment in that area of the Gulf. As if the people in that area haven't suffered enough..

We have to understand some of this in context of the law as it developed historically in relation to oil spills.

Prior the Exxon Valdez spill, the onus of the cleanup burden fell upon the federal government. As a way of making the companies responsible to avoid having to pay billions for cleanup, Congress changed that in law after the Exxon Valdez. Now, it is the companies who are LEGALLY responsible for their own cleanups, not the government. So the law right now actually ties the federal government's hands. They by law can't just go in and take over and be the lead authority in a cleanup. I imagine this would feel extremely frustrating for whatever presidential administration would be in office right now: the government is ultimately deemed responsible in the eyes of the public but Congress has said that it is the legal responsibility of the companies. It's a no win scenario if the private company turns out to be inept.

Also, during the George W. Bush administration, the feds were commanded to deregulate the oil industry. This is what we've inherited in the right here and now.

Norway and Canada serve as excellent models of tight regulation of oil. If we had not deregulated under Bush but had followed their model, this Gulf disaster would have been a mere blip on our television screen for one day, because there would have been only a minor spill for a few hours. Government exist for a reason and its not to be so small it's inept.

So really, the best discussion to have is how do we as a country learn from this. I think we need to inaugurate a huge shift in energy toward cleaner technologies, even if it means dumping many billions of taxpayer money into the country to do it. We'll all be better for it in the long run. MUCH better.

[WTL]

Originally Posted by Bassboss

Yeah. We've got it. While I'm in no place to say as I have not done much research on the topic, I'm sure soler, wind, and nuclear energy (that prolly be the most expensive of the lot and works rain or shin, mind or not) can't be much more expensive than drilling. Also thats why we make storage tanks (or lack of a better word) to store the energy made through wind or soler when it's cloudy or not windy. Even if it is a little more, don't you think that the good out weighs the bad?

Pros:

• Cleaner/Greener
• Safer
• Depletes our dependence on foreign oil
• Makes more Jobs here in America

Cons:

• Will produce economics shift (similar to shift from the house and buggy to auto mobile) - It will take time, but so what, the good out weights the bad

Pros of oil:

• No economic shift

Cons:

• Bad for the environment
• Can cause very long term disasters that may not be fixable (the spill we got going now).
• We help terrorist sympathizing countries (among others) economies.
• ^^ which in turn takes away from out economy
• ^^ in turn makes us less safe

the list could go on

The economic shift that occurred during the time the automobile was popularized was one of positive economic consequences. When the internal combustion power car came on the scene, it quickly became clear that it was a more efficient, comfortable, valuable means of long range, personal travel than the horse, stage coach or train. Still, people gradually moved away from the horse because not everyone could afford a car. That was the way a transition should go, one without economic inefficiency being injected into the economy on a large scale.

Your proposed shift is the opposite of the horse and buggy to the automobile. What you are really suggesting is that people convert to a type of technology that is vastly more expensive and less efficient (efficiency being the bare bones cost it takes to produce and operate equipment, not the mere MPG rating), and yet you don't seem to have in mind the consequences of that expense. Its not a wee little shift. What you are suggesting, moving us away from fossil fuels by government mandate, will destroy the economic output of the world from day 1. Again, the technology is not there to do what you want to do.

You see the free market, individuals buying what they want, what is valuable to them, and only that market, will determine when the right time is to make a switch.
__________________________________________________ _____________


Stew, the other day President Obama complained about the "cozy" relationship between big oil and its regulators in the government. What many don't seem to be able to understand is the inherit susceptibility to corruption that exists in liberal democracies. Such pro-corporate corruption is endemic, and the larger the government, the more power large corporations have by means of their lobbying arms to write the regulations in a way that is conducive to maintaining their % of market share. The same thing happens to all governments, big and small. The only reason to argue in favor of limited government is at least you cut down on the angles from which the corrupt can screw you.

[nofearengineer]

I'm proud of you, Stew. I had faith that somehow this would be George W. Bush's fault, and you didn't disappoint. Death, taxes, and the hysterical left.

[Bassboss]

Originally Posted by WTL

The economic shift that occurred during the time the automobile was popularized was one of positive economic consequences. When the internal combustion power car came on the scene, it quickly became clear that it was a more efficient, comfortable, valuable means of long range, personal travel than the horse, stage coach or train. Still, people gradually moved away from the horse because not everyone could afford a car. That was the way a transition should go, one without economic inefficiency being injected into the economy on a large scale.

Your proposed shift is the opposite of the horse and buggy to the automobile. What you are really suggesting is that people convert to a type of technology that is vastly more expensive and less efficient (efficiency being the bare bones cost it takes to produce and operate equipment, not the mere MPG rating), and yet you don't seem to have in mind the consequences of that expense. Its not a wee little shift. What you are suggesting, moving us away from fossil fuels by government mandate, will destroy the economic output of the world from day 1. Again, the technology is not there to do what you want to do.

You see the free market, individuals buying what they want, what is valuable to them, and only that market, will determine when the right time is to make a switch.

I was not suggesting that they transition would be half as easy as horse/car transition. I merely giving an example of another economic transition. So now that you've picked apart a small detail of my post, mind addressing the main idea?

[WTL]

Let me reread your post and I will find some more fallacies of logic and get back to you....but right quick, let me be clear....


THE ECONOMY OF THE WORLD COLLAPSING IS A BIG DEAL...


not a small detail.

[Jim80]

Originally Posted by WTL

Let me reread your post and I will find some more fallacies of logic and get back to you....but right quick, let me be clear....


THE ECONOMY OF THE WORLD COLLAPSING IS A BIG DEAL...


not a small detail.

I have to say I knew that was coming and could not have said it better myself



Jim

[WTL]

Originally Posted by Bassboss

Yeah. We've got it. While I'm in no place to say as I have not done much research on the topic, I'm sure soler, wind, and nuclear energy (that prolly be the most expensive of the lot and works rain or shin, mind or not) can't be much more expensive than drilling.

Saying your sure of something doesnt make it so. Nuclear is very expensive because of the safety concerns and technology. Solar and wind don't produce much energy that we can tap.

Actually the best is probably hydroelectric, but there are environmental consequences to that too.

Originally Posted by Bassboss

Also thats why we make storage tanks (or lack of a better word) to store the energy made through wind or soler when it's cloudy or not windy. Even if it is a little more, don't you think that the good out weighs the bad?

If you could tell the difference between a little and a lot, expensive and cheap, then we might not be having this discussion.

Originally Posted by Bassboss

Also thats why we make storage tanks (or lack of a better word) to store the energy made through wind or soler when it's cloudy or not windy. Even if it is a little more, don't you think that the good out weighs the bad?
Pros:

• Cleaner/Greener (Not when your electricity comes from Oil, Coal, Nuclear and Hyrdoelectric also has drawbacks)
• Safer (nuclear)
• Depletes our dependence on foreign oil (and instead introduces us to 3 world economic capability which in turn makes us less secure)
• Makes more Jobs here in America (do remember to subtract the jobs you eliminate, which is probably more than you make)
  

Cons:

• Will produce economics shift (similar to shift from the house and buggy to auto mobile) - It will take time, but so what, the good out weights the bad ***No, it does not.
  

Pros of oil: Your life as you know it depends on oil.

[/QUOTE]

[nofearengineer]

Look, I don't want to get personal here, and as it is still, for the time being, America...everyone has the right to an opinion.

But what I'm not going to do is argue complicated matters such as physical chemistry, energy production, and global economics with a teenager who has yet to have so much as a job delivering newspapers.

Sammy, you're a good kid, enthusiastic, and fun to talk bass fishing with. But a man of the world, you are not.