|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Fri May 28, 2010 5:23 pm Post subject: Why Didn't We Learn From the Ixtoc? |
 |
|
That's the question implicit in this clip from Rachel Maddow's show, and I think it's a good one.
*They tried a "top hat" and it failed.
*They tried a "garbage plug" and it failed.
*They tried a "top kill" and it failed.
The ultimate solution was relief wells, which obviously took a long time to build. And it was all even caused by the same original problem: lack of a properly functioning blow-out preventer.
Maybe the BP top kill will work, and maybe it won't. But whether it does or not, immense damage has been done. Many people's livelihoods have been ruined, the fishing industry in that area has been damaged, and immense ecological damage has occured. We're at a point in history where it's technologically possible to substantially reduce our dependence on oil. Given that, and given the fact that an off shore drilling mistake can result in horrific environmental catastrophe, maybe it's just time to stop off shore drilling period and move on to other means of energy production to make up the difference. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
kotakji
Joined: 23 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Sat May 29, 2010 5:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well I think her comments on us following the same plans as before are a bit disingenuous. I mean it wouldn't be repeating the mistakes of the past if we continue to use water to fight house fires, would it? Sometimes the best response tactics simply aren't particularly effective. That doesn't mean you scrap them for something worse.
As for calculating the cost of offshore drilling, we cant make a direct comparison between the benefits of one rig vs the damage caused by a spill. Rather, you have to do the math considering all the rigs that don't fail in between spills. (Or more scientifically an average number of successful ventures per catastrophic failure.) I would suspect that it works out that a big spill every 10 years or so falls in the category of acceptable losses. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat May 29, 2010 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kotakji wrote: |
| Well I think her comments on us following the same plans as before are a bit disingenuous. I mean it wouldn't be repeating the mistakes of the past if we continue to use water to fight house fires, would it? Sometimes the best response tactics simply aren't particularly effective. That doesn't mean you scrap them for something worse. |
That wasn't her point. Rather, her point was that in the 30 years since then, the oil industry has learned nothing with regards to how to effectively respond to this kind of accident. For all their talk of technological advancement, none of it has been applicable to ensuring they can respond to this kind of catastrophe. Not even with regards to theory. In 30 years, the oil companies haven't thought of a better approach than things like, "Let's stuff garbage in the hole and hope it works."
Oh, as an an update, the top kill unsurprisingly failed. What a shock.
| kotakji wrote: |
| As for calculating the cost of offshore drilling, we cant make a direct comparison between the benefits of one rig vs the damage caused by a spill. Rather, you have to do the math considering all the rigs that don't fail in between spills. (Or more scientifically an average number of successful ventures per catastrophic failure.) I would suspect that it works out that a big spill every 10 years or so falls in the category of acceptable losses. |
What is happening in the Gulf right now is not an acceptable loss, especially since our society isn't gaining as a result of it. We have other, cleaner energy sources we can begin turning to. The Gulf of Mexico suffering an endless cycle of horrific oil spills just so we can keep enriching big oil companies instead of turning to cleaner power is not a good trade off. The number of operations per catastrophe is irrelevent; all that matters is how bad the catastrophe is when it inevitably happens, and in this case, it's too bad to be worth it.
I'm not saying we need to get off oil entirely right now, but we can certainly start easing off of oil by ending off-shore drilling which, in case of an accident, causes a horrific catastrophe that the oil industry has conclusively proven itself incapable of handling effectively. Alternative energy technologies can certainly pick up that share of our energy needs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think maybe Canada demands a relief well is built with the main well which means this could be activated immediately after an accident.
BP doesn't want to bother with this extra cost. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
I think maybe Canada demands a relief well is built with the main well which means this could be activated immediately after an accident.
BP doesn't want to bother with this extra cost. |
Hell, BP doesn't even want to bother with the extra cost of having effective cut off switches (or even the R&D costs of ensuring they can deal with catastrophes effectively when they occur through alternate means). They cut every corner they possibly can, and the tangled, accommodating mess that certain parties have made of our regulatory agencies ensures it goes on unchecked.
This comic pretty much cuts to the core of the matter. I especially like the "$1.97 a piece" part, because when you consider how large and profitable oil companies are, that's pretty much what safety measures amount to: small change. And those savings don't make oil cheaper, they just make profits higher. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 4:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And we may as well cover the latest update while we're at it.
| Quote: |
There is still a hole in the Earth, crude oil is still spewing from it and there is still, excruciatingly, no end in sight. After trying and trying again, one of the world's largest corporations, backed and pushed by the world's most powerful government, can't stop the runaway gusher.
As desperation grows and ecological misery spreads, the operative word on the ground now is, incredibly, August: the earliest moment that a real resolution could be at hand. And even then, there's no guarantee of success. For the United States and the people of its beleaguered Gulf Coast, a dispiriting summer of oil and anger lies dead ahead.
Oh ... and the Atlantic hurricane season begins Tuesday.
...
With the "junk shot" and the "top kill" behind it, BP's next effort involves an assortment of undersea robot maneuvers that would redirect the oil up and out of the water it is poisoning. The decision effectively means that the notion of stopping the crude entirely is receding into the background for now. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jandar
Joined: 11 Jun 2008
|
| Posted: Mon May 31, 2010 9:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
After IXTOC it should have been apparent that responding is not an option.
Prevention is a necessity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AsiaESLbound
Joined: 07 Jan 2010
Location: Truck Stop Missouri
|
| Posted: Mon May 31, 2010 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Why didn't they just connect another tube to that black gold gusher back in April and simply continue to profit from it without destroying the gulf of Mexico? I smell incompetence on a macro level here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon May 31, 2010 9:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AsiaESLbound wrote: |
| Why didn't they just connect another tube to that black gold gusher back in April and simply continue to profit from it without destroying the gulf of Mexico? I smell incompetence on a macro level here. |
It's not that easy. The amount of pressure we're talking about here is immense; it takes very particular equipment to extract it. There's a reason why the Ixtoc required relief wells to be drilled to reduce pressure before it could be brought under control. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AsiaESLbound
Joined: 07 Jan 2010
Location: Truck Stop Missouri
|
| Posted: Mon May 31, 2010 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Maybe we shouldn't play with fire we can't control? Maybe we shouldn't be drilling holes in the Earth we can't control? Oil is a pitiful excuse for an energy we all depend on. Smokey air in our every day lives, polluted waters, and destruction of our natural environment all in the name of money is stupid. I think this catastrophe presents an opportunity for someone in America to innovate something new that runs on something else, because American drilling is going to slow way down while the gas prices increase this Winter and beyond. Who's going to be paying for this mistake? Count on the oil companies passing on the burden to consumers in the end. It's going to make people angrier as time goes on and I hope that anger presents an opportunity for us to give up on oil. I know I'd rather have fresh air, clean waters, clean seafood, great beaches, and robust tourism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon May 31, 2010 9:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AsiaESLbound wrote: |
| Maybe we shouldn't play with fire we can't control? Maybe we shouldn't be drilling holes in the Earth we can't control? |
I agree completely. Simply holding a company economically accountable is insufficient. No amount of money handed out will make this better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ropebreezy
Joined: 27 Aug 2009
|
| Posted: Mon May 31, 2010 11:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't know a whole lot about energy, but I think if we invest in nuclear now (we should have decades ago), we'd be a lot better off and not have to rely on oil so much. Alternative is fine, but nuclear seems to be the most promising in the near future.
Nuclear is at least an industry that has developed numerous numerous failsafes to prevent a catastrophe from happening. From this thread I've gathered oil has done no such thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon May 31, 2010 11:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ropebreezy wrote: |
I don't know a whole lot about energy, but I think if we invest in nuclear now (we should have decades ago), we'd be a lot better off and not have to rely on oil so much. Alternative is fine, but nuclear seems to be the most promising in the near future.
Nuclear is at least an industry that has developed numerous numerous failsafes to prevent a catastrophe from happening. From this thread I've gathered oil has done no such thing. |
I agree, nuclear is a good, reliable, clean source of energy. I think a combination of nuclear and solar is the best way to go. Wind power can be a decent supplement, but I think the first two alone are more than sufficient to power our entire nation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Konglishman
Joined: 14 Sep 2007
Location: Nanjing
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2010 12:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| ropebreezy wrote: |
I don't know a whole lot about energy, but I think if we invest in nuclear now (we should have decades ago), we'd be a lot better off and not have to rely on oil so much. Alternative is fine, but nuclear seems to be the most promising in the near future.
Nuclear is at least an industry that has developed numerous numerous failsafes to prevent a catastrophe from happening. From this thread I've gathered oil has done no such thing. |
I agree, nuclear is a good, reliable, clean source of energy. I think a combination of nuclear and solar is the best way to go. Wind power can be a decent supplement, but I think the first two alone are more than sufficient to power our entire nation. |
Of course, it is unfortunate that the environmental movement chose to demonize nuclear power instead of recognizing it for the largely clean energy that it is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2010 12:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Konglishman wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| ropebreezy wrote: |
I don't know a whole lot about energy, but I think if we invest in nuclear now (we should have decades ago), we'd be a lot better off and not have to rely on oil so much. Alternative is fine, but nuclear seems to be the most promising in the near future.
Nuclear is at least an industry that has developed numerous numerous failsafes to prevent a catastrophe from happening. From this thread I've gathered oil has done no such thing. |
I agree, nuclear is a good, reliable, clean source of energy. I think a combination of nuclear and solar is the best way to go. Wind power can be a decent supplement, but I think the first two alone are more than sufficient to power our entire nation. |
Of course, it is unfortunate that the environmental movement chose to demonize nuclear power instead of recognizing it for the largely clean energy that it is. |
Yes, it is unfortunate. A great example of activists working against their own stated interests. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
