Gulf Coast Oil Spill

[Pinner]

Originally Posted by JD

It really is a one-in-a-million event but instead the public will view this as typical dangerous, environment-raping oilpatch.

I'm sure BP had a great safety program and mean no harm to it's workers or the environment, however, Stupid is as Stupid does...

[Jake]

Originally Posted by Pinner

I'm sure BP had a great safety program and mean no harm to it's workers or the environment, however, Stupid is as Stupid does...

The problem with this "one in a million" event is that it may destroy an entire coastal fishery. Any decline in the public view of off shore drilling is deserved.

[JD]

Originally Posted by Jake

The problem with this "one in a million" event is that it may destroy an entire coastal fishery. Any decline in the public view of off shore drilling is deserved.

Well obviously. That's the impact of screwing up.

I'm just remarking at the number of things that had to go wrong for this to occur. It would have taken several peoples'/parties' negligent actions. I'm not saying they don't deserve blame, because they do.

One thing that's been bugging me through all this is the opinion writers and letters to the Herald that have been saying, "See!! The Alberta oilsands aren't so bad now are they???". Just because we haven't destroyed an ecosystem the size of Newfoundland doesn't mean we don't have room to improve. As mom used to say, two wrongs don't make a right.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Because I am not working right now and my experience with animals I volunteered for the Louisiana Humane Society animal rescue team down there. I am just waiting to hear back from the director to see if they will need me or not and if they do then I will be staying at a buddies down there and probably washing birds, ect.. Louisiana is my home away from home and I love animals so why not right.

What is your experience with animals?

[CaptainCrunch]

Could they seal it with a small thermonuclear device?

[Hack&Lube]

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Could they seal it with a small thermonuclear device?

I would think that compounding the environmental impact by irradiating the area and dispersing radioactive particles into the sea right by the coast and fishing industry is not a good idea! Yum yum! I love eating louisiana cancer crawfish!

[CaptainCrunch]

I was kinda kidding, but I bet someone in the inner circle has asked that question.

and how do you know that the radiation wouldn't create 600 pound Crawfish that tasted like Lobster?

[burn_this_city]

BP blows. I'd like to see them tossed on their asses for this. It was only a couple years ago they had that pipeline rupture on the north slope in Alaska.

[Brewmaster]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

BP blows. I'd like to see them tossed on their asses for this. It was only a couple years ago they had that pipeline rupture on the north slope in Alaska.

Take it for what it's worth, but I've heard that BP has some of the strictest environmental and safety policies in the industry.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I was kinda kidding, but I bet someone in the inner circle has asked that question.

and how do you know that the radiation wouldn't create 600 pound Crawfish that tasted like Lobster?

If radiation really worked that way, we'd all have superpowers by now. Too bad.

They should make some comics about cancer for fundraising where superheroes don't get their powers from radioactive spiders etc. They just end up in chemo and dying a slow and debilitating death.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Brewmaster

Take it for what it's worth, but I've heard that BP has some of the strictest environmental and safety policies in the industry.

I've heard they have some of the worst.

Two of my professors basically use BP as an example of what NOT to do when it comes to pipeline integrity and response, stemming mostly from the 2002 Alaska incident but others that are more recent as well. They use BP as an example of a company that does the minimum required by the standards, while the other big companies go the extra mile to ensure safety.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Regorium

I've heard they have some of the worst.

Two of my professors basically use BP as an example of what NOT to do when it comes to pipeline integrity and response, stemming mostly from the 2002 Alaska incident but others that are more recent as well. They use BP as an example of a company that does the minimum required by the standards, while the other big companies go the extra mile to ensure safety.

I agree with this. BP has been found to be negligent in the past. Not to say this well blowout is their fault, but they seem to push the envelope to save money.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

What is your experience with animals?

I have volunteered in Aylmer ON at an animal rehabilitation centre for hurt or sick animals for seven years now. I also have a large amount of experience with exotic animals like reptiles and amphibians as a breeder. It looks like they will have enough local volunteers anyhow but I made the offer because if they needed the help I was willing to go. I am sure I would have had to be trained to do jobs, I have zero experience washing down oily animals. If they need me they have my number. Here is the form I filled out online to volunteer, a lady called me to confirm my application.

http://www.humanela.org/bpoilspill.htm

[RougeUnderoos]

But BP has that nifty green logo now. Knowing that, it's unfair to question their practices.

There was a story on CNN today that said BP was trying to hire fishermen to help with the cleanup since they won't be catching fish. They were offering a contract that basically said "sign here and you agree to never, ever say anything about us and you waive your right to sue us over all the dead fish". Apparently a judge put the kybosh on this thing.

Seems kind of weird, but that was the story.

[burn_this_city]

Not surprising, probably trying to limit their lawsuit exposure from destroying the fishing industry there.

[Jake]

A good argument could be made that this is harming more than just local fisheries. I believe all of the fish stocks in the Gulf of Mexico will be adversly impacted. There are plenty of studies to back that up - marine reserves can dramatically increase fish stocks in large areas of ocean surrounding them. However, a lower supply may off set this loss by increasing fish prices, which may, unfortunatly, hide the losses (a common theme in fisheries is "if we're still making money right now, everything is fine").

[Pastiche]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/us/04spill.html

At least one worker who was on the oil rig at the time of the explosion on April 20, and who handled company records for BP, said the rig had been drilling deeper than 22,000 feet, even though the company’s federal permit allowed it to go only 18,000 to 20,000 feet deep, the lawyers said.

Divest BP.

Another worker familiar with the rig told the lawyers that the company had chosen not to install a deep-water valve that would have been placed about 200 feet under the sea floor. Much like blowout preventers, devices that are meant to seal leaks, this valve could have served as a cutoff of last resort in explosions, the lawyers said.

I reiterate.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Pastiche's Article

The concrete work apparently did not achieve a complete seal, and natural gas started seeping into the well in the late stages, the lawyers said. But idling a rig to address such a problem can cost huge sums. The lawyers said that supervisors either missed or ignored the signals and proceeded with the job.

Just trying to understand the issue a bit more, but is this the same issue that DFO brought up earlier regarding how Canada requires companies to idle a rig for situations like this when they do offshore drilling?

Are the codes more lax in the states? I found in my studies usually Canada's codes (due to being newer) are less conservative.

[burn_this_city]

Nah what its saying is they didnt want to stop the completion to address the issue. They would use the exisiting rig to fix the leak in the concrete.