Thread: Gulf of Mexico

a

Depends what you want to measure.

Shrimp harvest for example has largely recovered.
Gulf shrimp harvest numbers are eagerly awaited | NOLA.com

Deep water corals, turtles might not be doing so well nor the marshes and might have pushed them over the tipping point as many were already under stress from man-made environmental disasters such as channelization of the Mississippi, the inner coastal canal, extensive dike systems, nitrogen run off, invasive species (nutria rats) etc.
http://www.skillsdrivertraining.co.u.../28/11234.full

We do know the damage was much less and not as persistent as the media hype and some environmentalist were claiming and as the below sober article points out we know it might not be so bad already based on a past accident in the Gulf, but it was still pretty bad, and we really won't know the long term effects---well until the long term.

PLoS Biology: The 2010 Gulf of Mexico Oil Well Blowout: A Little Hindsight

a

a

Originally Posted by lynx

We do know the damage was much less and not as persistent as the media hype and some environmentalist were claiming and as the below sober article points out we know it might not be so bad already based on a past accident in the Gulf,

Or one could say that we know the damage was much greater and far longer lasting than the media hype and the corporate apologists would have us believe - with a bit more effective relevance, since per usual the environmentalists have proved to be in general and on average more accurate and better informed in their analyses than anyone else in the media swirl.

And as the "below sober article" mentions, but does not emphasize as could be done, it might be a really bad mess still rolling in, depending on the actual amount of oil released (almost certainly much more than the official figure quoted there, which had to be defended and proven in court using data that depended on BP's cooperation, and was itself 60 times the corporate PR release claim from BP weeks after the company knew better ) and on what happened to it, which nobody knows. More than half the official, lowball estimate oil leaked is missing, not accounted for by bacterial breakdown or known sediment sequestration or anything else actually measured. It could wash up on Long Island yet, or bubble up into a slick in the mid-Atlantic Gyre and ruin the ecology of half the ocean. It's possible. There's no safety in ignorance.

Here's the sober article's understated and unspecific assessment of the effects of that minority fraction of the oil whose fate has been established:

Originally Posted by article

Widespread predictions notwithstanding, the long-term effects will not be known until the long term. How long, where, and with what effect oil will remain in marsh and seafloor sediments also remains to be seen. The effects of oil on plankton, larval fish, many invertebrates, food webs, and other ecological interactions are largely unknown, and may never be known

So any presumption they are mild and recoverable is without basis in evidence.

a

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

Originally Posted by iceaura

And as the "below sober article" mentions, but does not emphasize as could be done, it might be a really bad mess still rolling in, depending on the actual amount of oil released (almost certainly much more than the official figure quoted there, which had to be defended and proven in court using data that depended on BP's cooperation, and was itself 60 times the corporate PR release claim from BP weeks after the company knew better ) and on what happened to it, which nobody knows. More than half the official, lowball estimate oil leaked is missing, not accounted for by bacterial breakdown or known sediment sequestration or anything else actually measured. It could wash up on Long Island yet, or bubble up into a slick in the mid-Atlantic Gyre and ruin the ecology of half the ocean. It's possible. There's no safety in ignorance.

I think in major disasters like this though the players involved spent to long playing the blame game, there seems to have been so much time, effort and money trying to pin down who was responsible and very little on prevention plans for the future.

I don't that operations as this cleanup or even the well capping at the time should be left in the hands of individual oil companies, there seems to be a major conflict of interest between getting the job done properly and cost too the share holders.

The priority has to be proper management and cleanup, not protecting share holders, that's where an independant specialised marine agency with overall authority and expertise could help.

The blame and prevention for accidents like this, is very simple. But the root cause of the oil spill, is not allowed to be talked about on American TV, or talked about by the US media reporters, so you will never hear about it. (source: Fear and favor in the news room.)

The root cause of the spill was USA oil companies. They do not like oil field regulations, because its expensive to have these regulations in place. These oil companies got their bought and paid for politicians to relax and eliminate these expensive safety regulations.

Once these safety regulations were removed, it greatly increased the chance of oil spills, and other accidents happening.



The following links explain the above, each link shows different aspects of this problem.

Bush Administration likely cause of Gulf oil disaster – Obama followed along « Primewords

Government is Good - Stealth Deregulation: The Untold Story

While I mad as hell to see the environmental statement contained references to arctic wildlife and other signs the entire process was rubber stamped, I don't agree regulation is necessary the cause nor could have prevented the gulf spill. The companies already have huge incentives to succeed--including the cost of the rig ~ up to a $billion, potential suites from accidents and clean up cost, and the worse kinds of PR when something bad happens--regulation would have been a minor concern even if fully employed. The other problem with the "regulation could have stopped this," is regulations for new and inherently risky technology are almost always problematic because the real experts are the operators and engineers or past operators and engineers of the same industry to be regulated--in other words its darn hard to find unbiased experts to write or implement any potential regulation.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

While I mad as hell to see the environmental statement contained references to arctic wildlife and other signs the entire process was rubber stamped, I don't agree regulation is necessary the cause nor could have prevented the gulf spill. The companies already have huge incentives to succeed--including the cost of the rig ~ up to a $billion, potential suites from accidents and clean up cost, and the worse kinds of PR when something bad happens--regulation would have been a minor concern even if fully employed. The other problem with the "regulation could have stopped this," is regulations for new and inherently risky technology are almost always problematic because the real experts are the operators and engineers or past operators and engineers of the same industry to be regulated--in other words its darn hard to find unbiased experts to write or implement any potential regulation.

As one of my links stated,

The explosion that rocked the exploration platform Deepwater Horizon that consequently caught fire and is still gushing oil into the Gulf of Mexico, is likely a direct result of the absence of an acoustical regulator that the Minerals Ministry Service deemed too expensive.

The disaster began to unfold in 2001 when, then Vice President Dick Cheney, held private meetings with oil ministers who helped draft the nation’s energy policy. In 2003, under the Bush Administration, a Minerals Management Services study found that installing an acoustic regulator would be too costly for the oil industry, and the Bush Administration dropped the requirement. This acoustic regulator valve, if present, would have shut off the oil flow at sea level.



(And I would like to note, that European countries use the acoustic regulators. And Americas oil companies are some of the biggest money making industries on the planet. If BP would have been any were else besides America, they would have used the regulator. But since America no longer requires this regulator, BP did not use one.)

If you want to put all your eggs in one basket, and contrive a politically twisted story that a regulation to install this acoustic regulators would have actually been installed, tested, maintains and worked in this specific situation to actually prevents this spill after all the other safeguards fails, I guess that's ok and I can't stop you--but it is far fetched. As I said before, there are already HUGE incentives to make these rigs spill proof put in place by the industry. Regulations are like stop and speed signs--they help but it's foolish to think they are the panacea to anything.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

While I mad as hell to see the environmental statement contained references to arctic wildlife and other signs the entire process was rubber stamped, I don't agree regulation is necessary the cause nor could have prevented the gulf spill. The companies already have huge incentives to succeed--including the cost of the rig ~ up to a $billion, potential suites from accidents and clean up cost, and the worse kinds of PR when something bad happens--regulation would have been a minor concern even if fully employed. The other problem with the "regulation could have stopped this," is regulations for new and inherently risky technology are almost always problematic because the real experts are the operators and engineers or past operators and engineers of the same industry to be regulated--in other words its darn hard to find unbiased experts to write or implement any potential regulation.

You spoke of costs and PR, but in America that does not matter. Look at US drug companies.

US drug companies develop new drugs, that their own clinical tests show kills people. But these US drug companies, still put the drug on the market. They know they will have lawsuits against them for the drug killing people. But they know beforehand, they will make $3 billion dollars in profits from the drug, and only have to pay $1 billion dollars in lawsuits.



You said "The companies already have huge incentives to succeed--including the cost of the rig ~ up to a $billion, potential suites from accidents and clean up cost, and the worse kinds of PR."

Your not the expert on this, ExxonMobils think tanks are, look at ExxonMobils profits.
Trust me, ExxonMobil knows what regulations to have our bought politicians kill, for them to make more profits.


If Exxons think tanks say, Exxon will make more profits without the regulators, I trust them. They know how to make money. I am sure Exxon has already calculated the cost of the cleanup, if Exxons chances to make more money are with the regulators, they will use them.

If Exxons think tanks say, Exxon will make more profits without the regulators, I trust them. They know how to make money. I am sure Exxon has already calculated the cost of the cleanup, if Exxons chances to make more money are with the regulators, they will use them.

And? They can just as well complete choose to ignore the regulation as well--as companies do all the time even paying the fines and whatnot and including them as part of the cost. This is how the world really works--heck its probably how the real world aught to work.

Ow and only Norway and Brazil actually require the acoustic regulators. And have they actually been proven to work in major blow outs for deep wells full of gasifying methyl hydrates?

I like looking at Exxon profits--my only lament is I sold the drip in them many years ago, though I'm sure, like half of America which is smart enough to invest in mutual funds--I am an investor still.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

If Exxons think tanks say, Exxon will make more profits without the regulators, I trust them. They know how to make money. I am sure Exxon has already calculated the cost of the cleanup, if Exxons chances to make more money are with the regulators, they will use them.

And? They can just as well complete choose to ignore the regulation as well--as companies do all the time even paying the fines and whatnot and including them as part of the cost. This is how the world really works--heck its probably how the real world aught to work.

Ow and only Norway and Brazil actually require the acoustic regulators. And have they actually been proven to work in major blow outs for deep wells full of gasifying methyl hydrates?

I like looking at Exxon profits--my only lament is I sold the drip in them many years ago, though I'm sure, like half of America which is smart enough to invest in mutual funds--I am an investor still.

I have family members, who also like looking at Exxon's profits.
I dont like looking at Exxon's profits, but I realize they know how to make money.

It seems that for a while, I have only been arguing/posting to you, and no other forum members. I guess I just respond to your questions/comments out of respect.

So I will try to maneuver myself away, and try to post with other people besides just you.


As always have a nice day/night,
Chad.

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

Well it's good to hear it's not quite as bad as first feared, I remember watching the news at the time and day after day after day they were reporting they still hadn't found a way to cap the well.

It will be good to see them working on some sort of contingency plans for dealing with any future accidents. I read about a new possibility for making the cleanup easier using magnetic emulsion.

Extract:

"Researchers have unveiled a molecule that can make "magnetic emulsions", which has the potential to revolutionise the chemical industry.
Emulsions are blends which normally do not mix, like oil and water.
The team's custom-made molecule, acts as an "emulsifier", coating oily materials and acting to blend the liquids.

But because the molecule responds to magnetic fields, it could be put to use in cleaning up oil spills."

BBC News - 'Magnetic emulsions' could clean up oil spills

Amazing!

Cleaning up oil spills with magnets at MIT - YouTube

a

An oil filter for water | Science News for Kids