Gulf of Mexico oil spill

[Iguana]

It appears more and more clearly that the leaders of BP sacrificed safety while seeking to limit the delays and expenses, the gangsters!

The Oil Disaster Is About Human, Not System, Failure

Emails ‘prove BP systematically put safety at risk’

BP-Gulf of Mexico – automotive  engineers discussion

Deepwater Horizon - Transocean Oil Rig Fire – drilling engineers discussion

[Iguana]

Ocean currents likely to carry oil to Atlantic

A detailed computer modeling study released today indicates that oil from the massive spill in the Gulf of Mexico might soon extend along thousands of miles of the Atlantic coast and open ocean as early as this summer (see http://www2.ucar.edu/news/ocean-curre... ). The modeling results are captured in a series of dramatic animations produced by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and collaborators.

The colors represent a dilution factor ranging from red (most concentrated) to beige (most diluted).

The simulations do not make any assumptions about the daily rate or total amount of oil spilled and the dilution factor does not attempt to estimate the actual barrels of oil at any spot. Instead, one unit per day of a liquid "dye tracer" is injected in the model at the spill site (injected continuously over the period April 20 through June 20). The animation on this page shows possible scenarios of what might happen to dye released in the upper 65 feet of ocean at the spill site. The dilution factor depicts how dye released at the site of the spill will be progressively diluted as it is transported and mixed by ocean currents. For example, areas showing a dilution factor of 0.01 would have one-hundredth the concentration of oil present at the spill site.

The animation is based on a computer model simulation, using a virtual dye, that assumes weather and current conditions similar to those that occur in a typical year. It is one of a set of six scenarios (see http://www2.ucar.edu/news/oil-spill-a... ) that simulate possible pathways the oil might take under a variety of oceanic conditions. Each of the six scenarios shows the same overall movement of oil through the Gulf to the Atlantic and up the East Coast. However, the timing and fine-scale details differ, depending on the details of the ocean currents in the Gulf. (Visualization by Tim Scheitlin and Mary Haley, NCAR; based on model simulations.)

We're are found of fish and other seefood, aren't we ?

[alphagruis]

Civilization and civilized man including raw paleo dieters are fond of (and actually addicted to) oil too....
Just demonizing a specific oil company is sheer hypocrisy.

[Paleo Donk]

Should we demonize every corporation then or just certain sectors?

I do think its kind of funny we just pick on BP because they happened to have the negative event happen to them. It could easily be that the other oil companies are taking larger risks, just we have no evidence of anything going wrong yet.

Same thing happened in baseball when we focused on all the players that got caught with steroids. Clearly there were so many more and likely many that are still cheating. When incentive is present, people will push the limits regardless. Those that don't just don't make it to the top.

[Iguana]

Civilization and civilized man including raw paleo dieters are fond of (and actually addicted to) oil too....
Just demonizing a specific oil company is sheer hypocrisy.

Sure, we are addicted to oil, the amazingly dense and cheap energy source which allowed the Earth population to reach soon 7 billions. But did you read at least some of the pages I provided the links for before talking of hypocrisy? Are all those engineers and experts hypocrites?

I know, that is perhaps 200 pages of expert’s discussion, and I confess I did not read myself every page. By the way, I would have totally agreed with you before reading a large part of it.

PaleoDonk, I may agree with you to some extend since perhaps other oil companies are taking similar risks. But we have no proof of that yet while it seems quite sure BP did cut corners in order to save time and money, thus taking unacceptable risks.

[Iguana]

By the way, it is not because the captain of the Titanic took unacceptable risks that taking such risks is a standard practice of ships captains.

The Washington Post

In a report for BP dated April 18, two days before the explosion, Halliburton said its computer analysis revealed a "SEVERE gas flow problem" could result if BP used only seven centralizers -- devices to keep the pipe centered -- instead of the 21 Halliburton recommended. BP used six.
(...)
Anadarko fired a rhetorical shot at BP last week, saying the tragedy was preventable and resulted from BP's recklessness.

If reading more than a hundred pages is too much, you may for example read only the relevant posts in that one:
http://forums.autosport.com/index.php?showtopic=131017&st=80
along with this one, linked in the above:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6593/648967
It's really scary.  

[alphagruis]

Should we demonize every corporation then or just certain sectors?

I do think its kind of funny we just pick on BP because they happened to have the negative event happen to them. It could easily be that the other oil companies are taking larger risks, just we have no evidence of anything going wrong yet.

Same thing happened in baseball when we focused on all the players that got caught with steroids. Clearly there were so many more and likely many that are still cheating. When incentive is present, people will push the limits regardless. Those that don't just don't make it to the top.

I agree.

BTW  life is a risky phenomenon and we have to take risks and this has always been so since life exists.

It is too easy to criticize, take advantage of the relevant activity and leave to others taking the risks

[Iguana]

BTW  life is a risky phenomenon and we have to take risks and this has always been so since life exists.

Tell that to airline pilots, bus drivers and nuclear power plant operators !

I agree that some kinds of risks are totally unavoidable, being an intrinsic part of life. But the aim of animals and humans, and moreover in a technological civilisation such as ours, is always to avoid risks as much as possible. Those behaving in the most reckless way have got more chances of been killed before being able to reproduce.

When driving, we do all our best to avoid risks, even if it implies a consequent waste of time. It is forbidden to deliberately take risks, jeopardizing road safety and endangering people’s life. Even in racing, drivers avoid risks like the plague. The winners are regularly not only the fastest drivers, but the safest as well: entering too fast in a bend may end up in swinging around and result at least in a considerable lost of time. Racing drivers taking unconsidered risks are banned.

Oil companies are responsible for the risks they take and accidents they provoke, just like ordinary car drivers. In this uncontrollable spill case, lasting  several months with a leak perhaps equivalent  to an Exxon Valdez every 4 days, it’s evidently the financial interest which drove the company management to compromise with regular technological  safety rules. Bad decisions: the final cost will be incommensurably higher than a few more days of the drilling rig lease!

Even Siberian foxes are more wary than BP, especially when encountering a kind of animal they had never seen before:



 If you'd like to know what happen next, follow that link: Pussycat chasing foxes

[Paleo Donk]

But the aim of animals and humans, and moreover in a technological civilisation such as ours, is always to avoid risks as much as possible.

This is ironic. Do you see why?

What did you learn about risks from the smaller cat chasing the larger fox?

[Iguana]

PaleoDonk, please tell me what you think about the other points I raised.

Re cat and foxes, I suppose it’s not only a matter of size, cats being very rapid and lest animals having nothing to fear from foxes, which in this case flee in order to avoid the risk of being injured in a fight with an animal of a specie seen for the first time.

Men are sometimes not so wise.

“English Russia” is an amazing, funny website and I thought you and others might enjoy a look at it, something I do quite often when I’m bored with my work. It can also be a good diversion from thinking, talking, and speaking about food… there are other things in life! 

[Paleo Donk]

If everyone drove the same (low) speed and rarely changed lanes and I was sure they would always drive with this safe strategy, I would drive much faster and change lanes much more frequently than I do now. This would ensure I would be able to have sex with more young healthy women.

When you are down 2-0 in the 80th minute of a match, you want to play as recklessly as possible.

It is unfortunate that companies now survive simply because they are they are as reckless as possible and capitalism ensures that a strategy of recklessness will necessarily give advantages to it while at the same time looking as safe as possible and even when tragedy strikes you will get bailed out by your future great-grandchildren. In todays world the mistakes that these corporations make are going to be felt by everybody, not just those in the vicinity. Like a steam engine 150 years ago - if it explode, so what a few people die. Eventually one of these "mistakes" will lead to the end of humanity. This, I am certain of.

A good question to ask from the above picture - is why wasn't the cat equally as afraid and retreat, since by your reasoning this must surely happen since they would both want to be safe. Perhaps the cat's DNA is still programmed as though it were much larger.

Whats great though is that we can still make personal choices about health that seem very reckless such as your instincto adventure.

My point is that strategy for taking on risk can change quite dramatically over the course of one's life, especially for those near death.

[raw-al]

Something to consider from an email I received from a friend:

"After 11,000 of you emailed the Department of Justice and urged it not to let BP claim its upcoming settlement over the Gulf oil spill as a tax deductible business expense, we called to see what the DOJ had decided.

The lawyers on the case seemed annoyed that we would ask.

What is the problem here? Two years ago the world watched in horror as BP struggled to contain the disaster, and their culpability is not in doubt. So why shouldn't they pay the full value of the settlement? If the Justice Department doesn't see it that way, we need to speak with their boss.

Tell President Obama that his Department of Justice should make BP pay for its own mistakes.

As if the horrendous human and environmental costs of the oil giant's negligence weren't enough, we could end up paying for BP's settlement, too.

American taxpayers have already picked up the tab for half of the $20 billion restitution fund BP set up to compensate Gulf residents and businesses. BP claimed $10 billion in tax credits for expenses related to the spill.

When a corporation pays a fine, it's not allowed to deduct the cost as a business expense for tax purposes. But, if they settle the case instead, BP can write off those costs unless expressly prohibited by the terms of the settlement.

It's likely that this case will settle, and if the sum is tax-deductible, we could lose as much as 35 cents of every dollar BP is supposed to pay for its misdeeds. The public will pay by covering the lost revenue in the form of higher taxes, cuts to public programs or increased debt.

It doesn't have to be this way. Two years ago, the SEC required that its $535 million civil penalty agreement with Goldman Sachs not be deductible. Like the SEC, the Department of Justice can prohibit BP from deducting the expense of the settlement.

But so far, they haven't promised anything.

Call on President Obama to make sure American taxpayers don't pay—again—for BP's misdeeds.

Sincerely,
Brad Ashwell
Florida PIRG Legislative Advocate

P.S. Thanks for your support. Please feel free to share this email with your friends and family so they can send a message too.
 
Support Florida PIRG. Contributions by people just like you make our advocacy possible. Your contribution supports a staff of organizers, attorneys, scientists and other professionals who monitor government and corporate decisions and advocate on the public’s behalf. "

[LePatron7]

Did BP have another oil spill?

[raw-al]

No same one