Oil Rig Explodes off LA Coast

Topspin said:
it would still take over 40 days, they will have this battened down in less than 40 days, plus valdez happened in a bay. Open ocean isn't good but it's 1,000 times better than a bay.
Click to expand...

Ya know, this things already the size of DELAWARE...maybe we can quit arguing about how it's not as bad as Valdez.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Alright...how many barrels a day does drilling help save from natural seepage?
Click to expand...

When was the last time natural seepage caused a huge oil slick, the clue is in the word?

seep verb

to move or spread slowly out of a hole or through something Pesticides are seeping out of farmland and into the water supply.
figurative Given the intense secrecy of the arms business, information only seeps out in company literature.

seepage noun

Oil spills and seepage from refineries are common.
 
Last edited:
The Gulf has been under siege for years. There is already a "dead zone" that is a fairly incomprehensible # of square miles, caused by industrial and agricultural runoff.

Not to sound all hippy dippy, but we need to drastically change how we do things in the near future. This is our home planet, and we've only got one of 'em....
 
Superfreak said:
and AGAIN.... what about the NATURAL seepage that drilling HELPS relieve?

Why do you continue to ignore the other side of the coin Mott?
Click to expand...


Natural seeps are so diffuse and dispersed, that they don't cause any measurable environmental damage, Professor.

aka, they don't release vast quantities of oil rapidly, in a highly concentrated, and spatially limited area.
 
Onceler said:
Sorry; I'm too lazy to go back through the thread. Does that kind of more gradual leakage have the same kind of ecosystem & economic effect as a more concentrated spill such as this?
Click to expand...

I don't have the totals... I am going by the article I posted where the seepage was cut in half due to the drilling.


As for this incident, yes it is bad. It is the poster child for why the regulations should mandate things like the auto shut off.

My point is that it is entirely a knee jerk reaction from Mott to use this as an example of why we shouldn't drill more sites off shore. There ARE benefits that can be seen from drilling AND the quantity of the spill was largely preventable had BP used the auto shut off when developing the site.
 
Onceler said:
Sorry; I'm too lazy to go back through the thread. Does that kind of more gradual leakage have the same kind of ecosystem & economic effect as a more concentrated spill such as this?
Click to expand...

http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=57272

another article on the topic.

Another result of our study is that for the first time, we can quantify the amount of oil residue that ends up in seafloor sediments after a “natural” oil spill. To compare the amount the oil in the Santa Barbara sediments with a figure people might understand, it's equivalent to 8 to 80 times the oil spilled in the Exxon Valdez accident. But our study by no means is a direct comparison on the overall fate and impacts of the Exxon Valdez spill and the Santa Barbara seeps.
Click to expand...
 
That was my main reason for posting yesterday. Do I want unregulated drilling. Not anywhere, especially in the oceans (or seas as it may be) but to use this incident to try to shut down any and all offshore drilling, especially future drilling is knee-jerk reactions by some folks. Regulations are necessary...like demanding an auto shut off for example. I am in no way for unfetterring the oil companies but I don't want to shut them down out there either. And maybe I am callous but bad things are going to happen no matter how careful the oversight. And as tragic and damaging as this is, its' effects (environmental and economic) will pass and it can/should be used as a learning situation.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Because there is no other side of the coin you ignorant fuck. I'm trying to be patient with you but your are completely fucking clueless about the magnitude of this catastrophe and that is not hyperbole.
Click to expand...

Actually there is....

"Another result of our study is that for the first time, we can quantify the amount of oil residue that ends up in seafloor sediments after a “natural” oil spill. To compare the amount the oil in the Santa Barbara sediments with a figure people might understand, it's equivalent to 8 to 80 times the oil spilled in the Exxon Valdez accident. But our study by no means is a direct comparison on the overall fate and impacts of the Exxon Valdez spill and the Santa Barbara seeps."

Now pay attention, because they are not suggesting the environmental impact is THE SAME by any means. As toppy stated, there is a difference between open ocean spills and spills in a bay.

Your second paragraph was nothing more than you spazzing out, so I deleted it. Not really feeling like responding to an overly emotional twit who refuses to look at the entire picture.

Not only will this be an ecological disaster of historic proportions, and only a nattering nabob of an idiot would argue otherwise, it is the property owners in the spill areas and the people who make their living in this area of the gulf will, as Topper so accurately put it, will get fucked up the ass without even the benefit of a reach around.

What pisses me off the most about this, having seen this to many times in my carreer, is that the idea to not install an automatic shut off valve was done with forethought and malice. I have no doubt that the prevailing attitude by decision makers at BP when informed about the possible consequences to people and the ecosystem pretty much said "Fuck them!"
Click to expand...

I agree that the decision to not have the valve was moronic at best and criminal at worst. Which is one of the other reasons I stated that your knee jerk reaction of 'don't drill no more off shore' was an overly emotional response.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
His argument is academic and utterly irrelevent. Anyone who has ever had to help clean up one of these messes, like me, can only laugh at such clueless ignorance.
Click to expand...

So... oil spills that occur due to drilling... bad

Oil spills that occur naturally that are far larger, albeit slower.... that is just academic?

You are correct. One can only laugh at ignorance such as that you have spewed forth.
 
"Another result of our study is that for the first time, we can quantify the amount of oil residue that ends up in seafloor sediments after a “natural” oil spill. To compare the amount the oil in the Santa Barbara sediments with a figure people might understand, it's equivalent to 8 to 80 times the oil spilled in the Exxon Valdez accident. But our study by no means is a direct comparison on the overall fate and impacts of the Exxon Valdez spill and the Santa Barbara seeps. "

I think the last point is the salient one here. Nothing can really compare to the kind of effects we see from a concentrated, uncontrolled spill like the one in the Gulf right now.

It's all cost/benefit to me. Yes, offshore drilling adds to the economy, creates livelihoods & reduces our reliance on foreign sources. But does it do enough of that to make risks like this worthwhile? We're talking about economy & livelihoods with this, as well, and well beyond that in terms of the natural environment & ecosystem.

To me, it's tougher than most are making it sound. It has really given me pause for thought as far as my support of offshore drilling. I know that, at the very least, I'll get a little queasy if I hear one more giddy cry of "drill, baby, drill!"
 
Cypress said:
Natural seeps are so diffuse and dispersed, that they don't cause any measurable environmental damage, Professor.

aka, they don't release vast quantities of oil rapidly, in a highly concentrated, and spatially limited area.
Click to expand...

Don't you live near Santa Barbara?

http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=57272

1) You are correct, the pace is not nearly what is being displayed in the Horizon incident

2) But you are wrong in terms of it being in a spatially limited area and you are wrong in that they don't cause environmental damage.

The Santa Barbara seeps, for example emit 5,280 to 6,600 gallons (nearly 20 to 25 tons) of oil per day, and natural seeps have been active for hundreds to thousands of years. Local Native Americans used the oil to waterproof their boats. But I just didn’t appreciate how spectacular they were and what a powerful opportunity they provided to study oil spills.
Click to expand...

and this is just ONE location of a natural seep.
 
Onceler said:
"Another result of our study is that for the first time, we can quantify the amount of oil residue that ends up in seafloor sediments after a “natural” oil spill. To compare the amount the oil in the Santa Barbara sediments with a figure people might understand, it's equivalent to 8 to 80 times the oil spilled in the Exxon Valdez accident. But our study by no means is a direct comparison on the overall fate and impacts of the Exxon Valdez spill and the Santa Barbara seeps. "

I think the last point is the salient one here. Nothing can really compare to the kind of effects we see from a concentrated, uncontrolled spill like the one in the Gulf right now.

It's all cost/benefit to me. Yes, offshore drilling adds to the economy, creates livelihoods & reduces our reliance on foreign sources. But does it do enough of that to make risks like this worthwhile? We're talking about economy & livelihoods with this, as well, and well beyond that in terms of the natural environment & ecosystem.

To me, it's tougher than most are making it sound. It has really given me pause for thought as far as my support of offshore drilling. I know that, at the very least, I'll get a little queasy if I hear one more giddy cry of "drill, baby, drill!"
Click to expand...

I understand your points, but again.... to assign this result as the risk is reaching in my opinion. Because we can drill off shore WITH mandatory requirements like the auto shut off valve and that mitigates even further the likelihood of a large spill like this.

The pace certainly can make it harder for 'nature' and/or us to deal with. The seepage occurs at about 5000 gallons at the Santa Barbara site. That is drastically less than what the Horizon rig is causing. No question. But where does that oil go?

Again, this situation was largely preventable (not talking the explosion necessarily as we don't know what caused it yet) had that valve been installed.

This is why we must learn from this, force the regulations through to make sure shit like this doesn't happen again, but NOT succumb to the knee jerk reactionaries who want to use this as an excuse to not drill.
 
Superfreak said:
So... oil spills that occur due to drilling... bad

Oil spills that occur naturally that are far larger, albeit slower.... that is just academic?

You are correct. One can only laugh at ignorance such as that you have spewed forth.
Click to expand...


Did you really just write that? Who writes or talks like that? Maybe Stewie from the Family Guy, but no living, breathing person.
 
Superfreak said:
Don't you live near Santa Barbara?

http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=57272

1) You are correct, the pace is not nearly what is being displayed in the Horizon incident

2) But you are wrong in terms of it being in a spatially limited area and you are wrong in that they don't cause environmental damage.



and this is just ONE location of a natural seep.
Click to expand...


It doesn't cause systemic or widespread measurable environmental damage. The broader ecosystem functions normally in the presence of natural seeps. They are too diffuse and dispersed to cause any systematic environmental damage. At worst, it just a local nuisance. I don't like getting goo on my shoes, but I don't wig out about it either.

I don't know what rightwing blog you read this stuff on, but natural seeps are not a measurable environmental concern.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top