The fire on the gulf coast drill platform (which killed 11 men) is out now, as platform sank, but the political fire storm it will cause is just starting. "... The Coast Guard said there is a one-mile by 5-mile sheen of oil in the area where the rig sank, and it has skimmers in the area to capture the crude. “We are determined to do everything in our power to contain this oil spill and resolve the situation as rapidly, safely and effectively as possible,” Tony Hayward, chief executive officer of BP, said in a statement. ..." From: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aJrVzEIS9Uys&pos=9 I hope that also includes paying for the coast guards efforts in oil slick containment. I assume the riser pipe is broken off and the oil will flow for some time, making the slick continue to grow. I doubt if the people of Virgina beach area will fail to notice this as off Va beach is one of the first new areas open for drilling. On the good news side, come the elections this fall, at least there will not be a vocal chorus of "Drill, baby Drill."
Yes people in Virgina Beach are a bit particular about their beaches. But I wouldn't be suprise to hear the drill baby chant this fall. The oil companies have a lot of money, and a group of volunteers as the ready...armed volunteers too by the way.
What is the international law about other nations drilling close to somebody else's shore? Is it like 100 nautical miles or something? After all the Russians are having plans to drill in the Mexican gulf, in the Cuban's behalf...
Major off-shore accidents like this seem pretty rare, I don't think it's much of an issue. The natural oil seepage in the ocean is probably a lot worse than an accident like this.
Is this really how you think offshore oil platforms are built? This makes absolutely no sense. 1.) Why would a company risk losing millions of dollars of oil when a rig is destroyed or the pipe happens to break? Don't you think they'd put some automatic cutoff valve SOMEwhere to prevent this from happening? You know, so $100/barrel oil doesn't just go dumping into the Gulf? 2.) Don't you think there's a safety regulation to this effect? Aside from the economic DISincentive to not just piss oil away, don't you think SOMEone in the EPA thought that at some point, some oilrig MIGHT be destroyed?
PRO: Not getting my power turned off because I dont have the money for both gas and power. It cost me $105 more ontop of my $115 bill to get my power turned back on. Gas prices arent helping me Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The deepest hole ever drilled by man is the Kola Superdeep Borehole, in Russia. It reached a depth of 12,261 meters (about 40,226 feet or 7.62 miles). It was drilled for scientific research and gave up some unexpected discoveries, one of which was a huge deposit of hydrogen - so massive that the mud coming from the hole was boiling with it.
Replying to Ben's post 5 and Syzygys' post 8: I too would assume that there are some automatic values in the riser pipe line, but things do fail. This was an accident* with huge fire that burned for more than a day - only the platform sinking put it out. (Typically floating crude will not burn. If it would clean up of oil spills would be much cheaper.) Several high capacity fire boats pumped tons of water on the fire each minute and failed to even slow the fire. It must have had a steady supply of crude (and probably methane gas) coming up I would conclude from this. (I have seen spectacular photos of these fire boats in close up action. - These photos probably will win some photographic prizes.) If the check values were still functional how did the slick get to be > 5 square miles shortly after the fire went out? You may be right and the slick will not grow, or you may be wrong and it will. Only time will tell. ------------------ * The report I read about the cause of the accident said there was a sudden uncontrolled blow out - that could indicate something failed.
To return to the intended political focus of this thread, I will reply to Sandy: Why? (Do you have financial interest in oil companies?) Would it not be better to invest in converting US cars to run on natural gas which the US is fortunate to have in great abundance now that horizontal drilling and hydro-fracturing of shale deposits is already economically competitive? Natural gas is mainly methane, CH4, and octane gasoline is C8H16, (almost sure). In any case burning methane gives the same energy with less CO2 production. You can see this in their H/C ratios: Methane is twice that of octane and the more H you have, the more you are just producing water, H2O coming out of the car's exhaust pipe. Of course an even better alternative which requires less conversion expense per car is to allow the importation of tropical alcohol. That actually REDUCES the CO2 content of the atmosphere. Sugar cane captures carbon from the air and part of it remains in the ground as roots. Part of the carbon ,which was in the air is now in the alcohol in ocean tanker transit or in storage tanks, including those of the cars and filling stations (plus the large tanks at the ports of importation - parts of NJ along US1 and I-95, seem to be covered with fuel storage tanks already. Their total volume would need to be increased by 30% as the energy volumetric density of alcohol is only 70% of that in gasoline.) If the cost to the tax payer of the current subsides of the corn to alcohol program is added to what Joe American pays at the filling station pump when he fills his car's tank AND the 54cents per gallon duty on imported tropical alcohol were eliminated, then Joe's cost of diving would be, at current gasoline prices, cut in half. (When gas is more expensive the saving for Joe would of course be greater.) It would help the economy considerably if Joe did not need to pay so much for the fuel he needs to drive to /from his suburban home and work. Building a suburban infrastructure was a serious mistake - lacks understanding that era of cheap energy is coming to an end; but I have several post on that already so stop here and just ask again: Why drill with the risk (both uncertain if there is much supply, possible oil spills and the certain greater contribution to global warming)When at least two, cheaper, less polluting alternative are available and sure to work as there is no "supply uncertainty"? (Natural gas and renewable alcohol do exist) Perhaps your shallow knee-jerk reason is that: "Obama was against off shore drilling so I am for it?" or do you have a more valid reason ("God told me to be for off shore drilling." does not count.)
My Opinion only. Pros More money in the economy. better roads, Schools, Infrastructure, because of this Money. Lower Taxes, because of the high paid jobs that spin off of a few oil rigs. More oil rigs will help take some authority off of O.P.E.C IF they make rigs that are close to land and can be seen, they will probaly look like little islands with a few buildings on them and Produce a new eco system, for the local wild life. Cons Possible Accident, which can be prevented, but with Normal Western society's safety and environment rules these days, there is less likely to be an accident of any major consequence to the environment or peoples lives. I think the pros outway the cons, how could you argue with that, unless you're all ready set for life, and don't care about other peoples fortunes?
I would think they would but not furiously burn for more than a day with many tons of water being poured on them each minute. There was both and initial explosion and then a prolonged fire no one could put out (Except the heat causing structural failure to a very large structure so it sank and put the fire out.)
I Think that is false. As I pointed out to Sandy in post 11 it is a lot cheaper to drill on land for the natural gas that is sure to be there (already producing). Off shore oil is more expensive than current supplies, so if we go the drill off shore route (and hope the oil is there) the best we can hope for is more expensive oil and less money in the economy spent by Joe American as he pays his higher fuel cost bills. Natural gas is already a cheaper fuel for cars and in such abundance that power companies are switching to it from oil. If there is not much economically recoverable off shore oil, we will need to convert cars to run on natural gas anyway (pay twice for the development of a domestic energy source / system.) Also, as pointed out simply switching to tropical alcohol is very cheap car conversion cost (less than going to natural gas) and lets Joe American drive for half his current cost / per mile when taxes on Joe to support the corn to alcohol program are counted. Get rid of the 54 cent /gallon protectionist duty on tropical alcohol! As explained to Sandy, using tropical alcohol actually make a net removal of CO2 from the air whereas using natural gas only increases it less rapidly than using gasoline. BTW, Iowa's corn based alcohol makes more GHG pollution than natural gas does as they must use a lot of fertilizer to compensate for the shorter growing season. The bacteria in the soil convert much of the nitrogen of this fertilizer into NOx which is not only a GHG but also a health hazard. A Nobel prize winner, in this field of soil biology, has estimated that it much worse than burning gasoline when the NOx pollution is considered as well as the CO2 of the fuel production/use cycle. SUMMARY: The current Iowa corn to alcohol program is the worst possible choice that does actually make fuel for cars, for many reasons (price of food being one not yet mentioned).
you can still get that oil for much cheaper then opec is selling it for, so in todays market, i would have to say, more expensive then oil from land rigs yes, but more expensive then what your paying for oil today no.
I think you have a wrong estimate about the cost / gallon of shipping oil by large modern tankers. - a few cents / gallon I think is tops for oil from Saudi Arabia to the East Coast of US. They produce oil several DOLLARS per gallon cheaper that drilling in US coastal waters - I.e. can and will easily absorb the shipping cost.
yeah i know it is fairly cheap to ship it here, but with increased US production, it would work in our favor, through supply and demand, dropping the price a bit over all. Oil is the single biggest strain on our Econimies these days which is not fair because Opec keeps lowering production if we start consuming less oil, to keep prices high. good for them, hell it is good for provences like Alberta and states like texas as well, but for our Countries in general it hurts and it hurts alot. then you have these wars driving prices up, http://www.energybulletin.net/node/13199
