Why the oil spill in the Gulf?

[rigney]

While I've never been a "conspiracy" nut case, this oil spill thing in the gulf has me wondering? Of all the areas that could have been drilled on land or in much more shallow water, why was B.P. demanded to drill so deep? With the Anwar in Alaska as an example, and many other areas on the high and dry, again, why so deep? And trying to cap, plug or control a well @ a 5,000ft. depth, and after the fact, is like trying to cram a wet noodle up a "Wild Cats" behind. And to lose a full crew in the process doesn't make any sense either. But then, we are trying to get away from oil and go with wind, solar and probably more atomic power. What a waste of resource. To think, a drilling like this in the Anwar may have caused a caribou or bear a bad headache by running into the rig. But the devastation to wildlife along these gulf shores and in the sea will be immeasurable for years to come. At that depth, and as cold as it is down there, those massive jello like globules of deep oil will likely be releasing for a long time. Believe me, I just don't see it as B.Ps fault alone. A "lot of unknowns" in high places can take the blame for this disaster.

Edited June 14, 2010 by rigney

[insane_alien]

Of all the areas that could have been drilled on land or in much more shallow water, why was B.P. demanded to drill so deep?

 

because they bought the rights to drill there and it was deemed profitable. 5000ft isn't actually that exceptional for offshore

 

And to lose a full crew in the process doesn't make any sense either.

 

when things go wrong, they can go very wrong very fast. can't save people if they don't have time to get off.

 

Believe me, I just don't see it as B.Ps fault alone. A "lot of unknowns" can take the blame for this disaster.

 

BP should have had the proper safety mechanisms in place and tested to deal with this. they should know oil drilling can cause a lot of problems.

[rigney]

I'm not making light of your understanding of the event Insane Guy, but this is arguably the most catastrophic "accident" in my life time. Was it neglect? I hope not. Was it an honest, but possibly preventable accident? I hope nothing more. But when I see a call for extreme change to other power sources for this country, I wonder?

Edited June 14, 2010 by rigney

[insane_alien]

in all likelihood it was an accident, BUT chemical plants(and an oil rig is one) have a whole load of safety features and protocols that are supposed to prevent any one mistake causing a catastrophic result(this being one of them). it's called defence in depth.

 

the basic idea is that you have multiple layers of security because every layer is going to have holes in it where an accident can progress in to something worse. the idea being that the different layers have different holes so anything that gets through one layer gets caught by the next layer and at the very least prevented from escalating further.

 

however, it can and will fail from time to time but these situations are quite rare(and unfortunately tend to have catastrophic results) usually as a result of multiple things going wrong and accumulating over time.

 

the Piper Alpha oil rig disaster in the north sea is a prime example of a failure of defence in depth. There was a whole series of events over the past couple of months that lead to the disaster, if any of them had been fixed earlier than they were then it would not have occured or not been as bad. unfortunately humans are prone to errors, our base error rate is quite high too, 1 in 100 things will be wrong in some fashion. it is possible that for certain things our error rate will be lower or higher but it is typically 1 in 100.

[rigney]

This year, April 5, a methane explosion killed 29 men in a Whitesville, West Virginia coal mining accident. I'm sure you're are aware of the disaster and the proceeding hue and cry of the blame game? By 15 April, even President Obama had jumped in with both feet to denounce the owner, Massey; as being "Responsible" for negligence leading up to the event. Today, June 15, as far as I know there hasn't been one new editorial concerning the happening. 29 men are simply dead, but mining will not stop, just yet. Excitement has died down and only the families grieve. This oil spill in the gulf? Even though in a couple months the names of the men who died there will be forgotton by other than family, the moratoriam over this spill will be in litigation until the United States has moved itself to an entirely new power source. Make a bet?

Edited June 15, 2010 by rigney

[insane_alien]

there hasn't been a new editorial on the events because the investigation hasn't been completed yet. it takes time to collate the evidence and work backwards to find the root causes of the event.

 

there isn't any conspiracy, just a massive cock-up.

[Ophiolite]

Of all the areas that could have been drilled on land or in much more shallow water, why was B.P. demanded to drill so deep? .

Because that's where the remaining big oil plays are thought to be.

[ecoli]

All conspiracy theorists should be required to learn about Normal Accident theory and familiarize themselves with the hindsight bias.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

BP should have had the proper safety mechanisms in place and tested to deal with this. they should know oil drilling can cause a lot of problems.

 

Agreed, but since there has never before been a case where this specific safety acoustic shutoff thing has ever been required or used to prevent a spill, it's a lot easier, in hindsight, to claim that it was foreseeably necessarily.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

BP should have had the proper safety mechanisms in place and tested to deal with this. they should know oil drilling can cause a lot of problems.

 

Agreed, but since there has never before been a case where this specific safety acoustic shutoff thing has ever been required or used to prevent a spill, it's a lot easier, in hindsight, to claim that it was foreseeably necessarily.

[Pangloss]

The problem is that they appear to have a serious history of accidents due to carelessness. I don't know at this point how much of that is valid and how much of it is being blown out of proportion by the media, but if the observation is legitimate then it would seem to support the idea that the overall criticism is not just an example of hindsight bias.

 

One statistic commonly bandied about a few weeks ago was that BP had 80-something government infractions, and that the number was at least ten times the number levied against any other oil company (Exxon-Mobil had 1, if memory serves). I don't have a source on this so take it with a grain of salt, but this is the kind of thing I'd be looking at in seeking an answer to the hindsight bias question.

[rigney]

Conspiracy is in the mind of the thinker. I do believe there was a collusive conspiracy to assinate Abe Lincoln. A conspiracy to assinate Hitler? Yes. Conspiracies to harm our soldiers and allies by civilians in the wars we're now in? Yes. To blow up the Trade Center, the Pentegon? Yes. But I never once considered it to be other than a lone, sad and miserable soul, that assinatated President Kennedy. Surhan Surhan and brother Bobby, I haven't a clue? The maniac that did the assassinations at Ft. Hood? What can I say? Today, the confluence of deranged minds are not too far away from the main stream of societies. But, if this erosive spirit continues to run free and can't be challanged or changed, there is a lot of trouble ahead for normality!!

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Conspitory Theorist? Nay, Ecoli. But have you been watching todays news? Tsk-Tsk!

Edited June 15, 2010 by rigney