Are Technology Risks Worth It?

We are destroyig the Food resources for our energy.

Resource in sea are unlimited in comparison to land resources. If marine life is at risk & plution of other items used for food & medicines what gain we are getting.

Already on experiments & other than food "bio-diesal" is being produced on the cost of human life. Food products' roces had already gone out of the reach of poor people.

It sounds like BP took too many shortcuts and that is the real fault - we will only know after the dust settles, if then.

Not necessairly anything wrong with the tech but if you don't follow safety and correct procedures every time you will get bit sooner or later.

The way to insure procedures are followed would be to have criminal penalties for the big bosses in companies like BP when everything screws up. Hayward could care less about the whole mess - he will get paid anyway.

I don't suppose it's worth mentioning that the environmental movement had a big hand in forcing the oil companies into deep water drilling in the Gulf. Supposedly, drilling in shallow waters near the shoreline was just too risky a venture according to the environmentalists and their supportive politicians.

Now look what we've got...

Hooker

Nice try Hooker.

• It wasn't just 'environmentalists' that opposed near shore drilling. Lots of folks who had spent lots of money to buy a house on the beach didn't want their expensive views cluttered with oil platforms. No doubt some of these folks were also 'environmentalists', but surely many of them would fall into the category of 'I've got mine Jack...', and would be considered to be 'conservatives' with no interest in the environment. They just didn't want to have to look at the oil wells.
• Nobody 'forces' a private corporation to drill for oil in deep water. Nobody is forced to go into the oil business, and nobody in the oil business is forced to stay in the oil business. BP and others chose to go for it. From the recent testimony of the heads of the big 5 before congress it appears that they all knew there was a potential for a major catastrophe, they all used the same disaster plans (only the logos were changed), and they all knew that the plans were seriously deficient. The plans existed chiefly to allow a friendly bureaucrat at MMS to check the box labeled 'disaster response plan in place'. They placed their bets, the wheel was spun, and for BP it came up double zero.
  

However, like most "environmental" movements, they are mostly driven promoted on the basis of an environmental cause by the NIMBY movements of people who want free "public use" of some amenities they have receive in the past without any thing they find aestetically displeasing. Even PETA is really about soemthing that the people in hollywood find aesthetically displeasing , which is the sympathy (not empathy) they feel for the plight of the animals they perceive as aesthetically pleasing. (Note PETA doesn't spend much effort trying to save cockroaches, must not have those aestheitcally pleasing qualities that hollywood likes). Tourism and beach front properties sales/development is huge money based solely on the aesthetic opinions of the buyers.

John

Point 1 - You're right. I left out the nimby's. My bad. Thanks for pointing that out!

Point 2 - So YOU are in the oil drilling business and the only new leases the gov't is willing to permit (for whatever reason) are in deep water. You mull over the pro's and con's, and decide it's too risky. Even if it's being done all over the world. I guarantee YOU would not be in that decision making seat very long. That's their business, and your point is a straw man argument.

Hooker

The environmental crowd is trying to figure out a way to shift the responsibility for no drilling on the continental shelf away from themselves!

Maybe. But then again maybe it was the oil industry (Unocal) and their 1968 100,000 barrel leak in the Santa Barbara Channel that gave the environmental movement its start. It was the response to this disaster that led Congress to ban drilling on the continental shelf, except for Alaska (which is virtually uninhabited) and the states around Gulf of Mexico (which would be a complete economic basket case without oil). I believe that ban expired in 2008 without much notice.

On point 2 you are of almost certainly correct. The shareholders would scream bloody murder and the board of directors would send you packing. But then if you follow this observation to its logical conclusion, this would seem to be an indictment of the whole corporate capitalist system. A corporation becomes a sort of perpetual motion machine that is prevented by design from responding to factors that may be morally and ethically persuasive but that ding the bottom line. Individuals may be kind and thoughtful, or rude and sociopathic as a matter of personal choice, but corporations are denied the first option, unless of course the cost is minimal and can be included in the PR and advertising budget. Maybe we should consider regulation to help them out of this quandary?

Obviously the facts aren't in yet, but it does appear that BP/Transocean/Halliburton were cutting corners to save time and money (going ahead with a BPO that was damaged, removing the drilling mud prematurely, rushing to finish because the drill platform was due at another site), and these may well have been major factors in the disaster.

I've been in business for myself most of the last forty years and I think the free enterprise system has worked pretty well for me, but I don't worship at that altar. I don't think it is wise for government to be pro-business or anti-business. Government (and in a democracy the majority of voters) should be neutral toward business. Anti-business policies can ruin good businesses, and pro-business policies can sustain businesses that are inefficient. The problem is that it is deceptively easy to 'figure out' what is pro or anti business: listen to hear which side is yelling. It is much harder to figure out what is fair because both sides are yelling.

There are a lot of folks out there who let emotion cloud reason. Many on the left have an almost tribal hatred for business (particularly big business), and want to see them get their comeuppance for their sins (real or imaginary). Many on the right have a strong emotional attachment to business, probably a result of spending too many lonely nights in college reading Ayn Rand's smutty little books. I think both side are full of it, but in a democracy they are well represented in government.

I think the original post dealing with sending a man to the moon is instructive. NASA for all it faults was pretty good at building redundancy into their project, and since cost was not a big issue they were free to do so. Private enterprise doesn't have that freedom to spend. About a year ago I heard the heads of the same big 5 oil companies testify to congress that they were too small to compete in the new global market (Exxon-Mobil our biggest is seventeenth in the world rankings). It almost sounded to me like they were asking to be nationalized, or at least allowed to merge into one big operation. Considering that the risks they are now taking may often be beyond their ability to absorb, we might be wise to consider these and other similar options. Seriously, what kind of oil company can't even afford to own their own drilling rigs?

Is there one oil company that is also a drilling company? or oil field services company?

They are separate specialties these days.

It is not really an indictment of the capitalist system, but there are things that are not representative quantified costs in the system. There are costs that are incurred that we as a society subsizes through opur government. Government is supposed to offset these costs by maintaining quality assurances and forcing a higher level of quality control, since the majority of the cost/risk arises from failure due to the poorest quality controls. If governments forced a cost based on probable cost incurred due to risk to the environment, public health and welfare upon these businesses would not be as profitable, if the government forced better quality control and monitored that QC and provided adequate QA then the probabilities of disasters decline substantially and the incurred long term costs. Capitalism forces efficiency in business, this is why you should not have unions bargaining with governments over pay, no incentives to keep the pay within some profit margins and you end up with the Greek system. The problem really lies in that not all the costs of doing business get incurred on those businesses, and some of those costs have to be subsidized by the general public or other businesses ancillary or adjacent to those failed business activities. The businesses along the Gulf coast not related to oil, are going to end up picking up a portion of the cost, as will the government. If BP truly had to pay for the damages they have incurred it would break that company, and a domino effect would occur throughout the British government and public pensions there. So our governemnt is trying to balance the intersts of some against the intersts of others.

Must we go to such extremes to fill our gas tanks?

Perhaps the question should be, "must we fill up our gas tanks so much". Depending on who you ask, something up to about 40% of a barrel ends up in gas tanks. Most people here drive cars, and they are almost certainly aware of the fact that oil well blow-outs occur. Driving a car implies acceptance of the risk. Unfortunately, the risk is shared by all, not just car drivers.

Before the shouting begins, we all depend on oil one way or another. The issue (IMHO) is not just about minimizing risk by technologies in oil extraction, but minimizing risk by minimizing use. We all know people who would pale at the though of walking more than a hundred yards, we've all seen obese kids being dropped of at school when they should be walking, etc etc etc.

Drilling for oil in deep water and picturesque places is happening/inevitable, like it or not.

Some of the 'green' alternatives are not exactly ethical ; Places such as South American countries being financially muscled into growing bio-fuels ('hack down that forest, and to heck with your food needs - we want fuel !'. Countries/states importing carbon fuels to appear more 'green' on their own balance books.

The question expresses a fine sentiment but is, alas, null. As long as there is demand, the available technology and it's risks will be deemed acceptable by those who thirst for oil (or whatever else it may be).

Best be on me bike (after I've lubed the chain) before a bunch of enraged Humvee owners come run me down .

Humvee, I thought it was a ford expedition that guy was using in SF to run down the bicyclist

OK, I understand there was a terrible tragedy and loss of life with the rig explosion, but why are we not focusing on why the spill happened. Everyone wants to blame BP, and probably rightfully so. BUT, why did the BOP fail? These are supposed to be multiply redundant so why did all mode fail? Are these not truly capable at these depths? If so, maybe we should be ceasing ALL underwater drilling until a suitable replacement can be found. I find it hard to believe this was a one-ff failure. Maybe BP bent the rules a bit, but the BOP should have saved their bacon. IT DID NOT, this is a problem.

Wasn'rt just BP, and this is usually where you see big disasters develop, Halliburton, BP, everyone involved out there contributed a little bit to the the problem which in turn quite likely compounded to a much greater problem. What really kills BP, is that the unsafe conditions were identified, and BP directed the drillers to continue even though they told BP it was a bad idea. It is one thing to make decisions over minor things with no other information, another to direct activities against the safety advise of the workers and then have them die in the process. For a normal person at a minimum that would be negligent homicide or man slaughter (of course who is going to convict a manager from BP).

I think it was in the congressional hearings last week that documents and testimony were given indicating that:

• The historic failure rate for this BOP was just less than 50% for wells at this depth
• One of the seals on the BOP was damaged during installation (you can watch this on video)
• The battery driving the hydraulics for one of the undamaged valves was undercharged, so the pump couldn't generate enough pressure to close the valve, even during testing.

I think it's pretty likely that these two specific problems increased the probability well beyond 50%

This is not the 1st big spill in the gulf

the similarities from 30 years ago are scarry

Ocean currents

Similar? Ixtoc was is 150 feet of water and this in 5000 feet seem to be somewhat different.

I see this brought up constantly - but outside of being in the Gulf, what makes it mthe same?

There are some other similarities, and they are not reassuring:

• On Ixtoc the BOP failed.
• They tried all the 'top hat', 'top kill' and 'junk shot' methods and they failed
• The leak was finally stopped by the relief well 'bottom kill' method, on the fifth try

On a more positive note, no walruses or fur seals were killed or injured in either leak.

İf we knew the business I expect we would see that terms are the same but equipment, methods etc are very different.

About the walrus - penguins haven't suffered either!

for the Ixtoc spill

The tophat was heavier at 100ton

the balls were steel

junk is junk

Here's a fun look at BP's reaction to the spill

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AAa0gd7ClM

you would think drilling at extraordinary depth, would require extraordinary safety measures

Actually there is a reason for wanting the balls made of a dense material like steel and rounded in shape, with regards to pumping them and moving them down the borehole.

So why did golfballs seem like a good idea 30 years later?

Golf balls or steel balls would pump about the same would they not?

Golf balls have a much lower density, the viscosity and density of the pumping fluids to deliver the material would have to be different. The spheres have to sink in the fluid in the bore hole rapidly and set into a dense packing formation, and have sufficient density to resist the uplifting pressures incurred by the fluid being forced throught the pore spaces. Plus to resist the uplifting flow, since they are round objects and have minimal contact friction, they need a substantial density in each sphere relative to the surface area (profile). It is fluid dynamics, since it is the weight of the matrix of sphere that resist the flow pressures induced by the much smaller pore sizes and the length over which the resistance occurs. Once in place it is really an application of darcy's law as the flow is inhibited by the packing, but the packing must be capable of resisting the uplift pressures. With a well packed spherical packing you can usually achieve a effective porosity of about 0.4, which means a reduction of flow channel space to 40% of original (add in the much higher flow resistance of the multiple smaller flow channels and you can drastically cut the flow).

The benefit of the golf balls are that they would not settle into a tight packing, could easily be drilled out or extracted, and are soft so they have minimal chance of damaging the casing (though bouyancy and uplift might just blow them out rather than allowing them to fall into place and form the packing). Something else to consider, how well do golf balls hold up in the organic solvents and sulfur in petroleum.

Actually you could increase the resistance to flow, better packing and stronger structure by adding a well graded mix of sizes of sphere, with a high density, except the placement by falling down the borehole would likely cause a size separation.

When they were using golf balls and rubber strips I believe they were most interested stopping the flow out of the cracks and through the supposedly partly closed off BOP. At least a significant part of the target was upward.

I would opt for the greatest mass junk possible...

I'm sure the budget for the development of deep water drilling technology is almost [as are the profits] unlimited.

as you point out there have been amazing advancements in the technologies involved in working at depth.

it is always hard to justify expenditures for safety, being an expenditure not a profit center.

the hydrate "problem" was known, but mostly ignored. doing research a mile down is incredibly expensive & not likely to be undertaken with out either a mandate or incident...

effective oversight is lacking being a

Fox Guarding the hen house situation

the industry has taken the approach that of mostly hoping for the best

would you want to ride on tires that had a 45% failure rate when new?

I have heard on the news that BP has done no R&D in recent years on spill response. They claim to have outsourced this work to another organization, but that group denies doing any such research for BP or anyone else. It could be that like their response plans (which are mostly dated boilerplate), their equipment has also not been updated. Considering BP's earlier problem with a pipeline leak in Alaska due to poor maintenance, I think we should be aware of the possibility that maintenance and R&D for fossil fuel projects were not a high priority for BP. I hope I am wrong.

You know the instrumentation 30 years back was rather basic - the BP guys had a heck of a lot more information about what was going on down below - apparently ignored most of it though.

The mud mix is the same?

The pumps are the same?

The BOP must have been much more basic - of course don't work is don't work

Drilling methods the same?

Down hole instrumentation?

This is like comparing a 30 year old car to a new car - both have an engine, wheels and all that but they aren't the same.

Actually, the mud mix was modified prior to the blow out, to maintain schedule. Also, there were some pressure issues that were overlooked that typically have shut the operation down until abated. However, under the current conditions the mud in the hole is gone, except the wall lining fluids, so some of the operational aspects of drilling the hole get flushed out or are not of any consequence at this point with regards to abating the problem. Only those things remaining at the top and in the hole need to be considered. I think the problem seems that BP keeps trying to do things that would allow them to recover the hole for future use, and that may not be viable.

'the problem seems that BP keeps trying to do things that would allow them to recover the hole for future use'

I'm not so sure. Either of the two relief wells being drilled could serve as a replacement for the current hole, if they don't blow out from the extreme pressure as well. Or they could at a later date and at considerable expense drill a fourth well (if they think there is enough oil left in this pocket). The idea of reusing this well may have played a part in their thinking early on, but I doubt that they see it as a real option at this point.

I would think it likely that they now understand how bad this situation has become (this well has spewed more oil in two months than Itox 1 did in nine), and they are trying to keep as much as possible out of the gulf. I'd guess that the price they get for the recovered oil doesn't even begin to cover the recovery cost.