Drill, Obama, Drill

Manwë was known for many things, but wisdom and power are two that lead the rest of his attributes. Join the Councils and discuss the more weighty matters of Tolkien Fandom.

Postby Entmooting » Thu Jul 08, 2010 10:46 am

Gandalf'sMother wrote:
Entmooting wrote:
Gandalf'sMother wrote:Obviously, you have not spent much time in these places...

G20 countries that are not rich (never said anything about whether or not they were capitalist...)

South Africa
Mexico
Brazil
China
India
Indonesia
Russia
Argentina (used to be...)

-GM
It would help, GM, if you could get your head around the concept that "rich capitalists" can, and do, exist and function in countries that aren't, necessarily, per capita "rich".

The G20 is a club for rich capitalists, in which agreements are made for the carve up of resources by rich capitalists whilst minimizing the scope for conflict between those rich capitalists.


Interesting. I am regularly in touch with some very non-rich individuals and organizations in these countries that see their nations' participation in the G20 as enormously beneficial, and who have had direct impact on shaping the objectives of their respective country representatives at the G20. But I suppose, based on deep knowledge of your own ideology, you are better informed about the dynamics around the G20 than I am...

-GM
Maybe not! :lol:

Sometimes cynicism gets the better of me. I've been around long enough to have my idealism sorely compromised. I suppose, to me, your enthusiasm appears naive, but that is my failing, not yours.

We can but hope that, this time, the outcome of this gathering of the great and good will have a positive outcome for the poor and downtrodden, rather than simply filling the trough of the fat cats whilst the huddled masses fight for the scraps.

GM, I think the system is wrong. Capitalist (or more correctly corporatist) greed has brought the planet to the brink of disaster. Expecting the fox to mend the chicken coop fence seems a peculiar means to increase egg production... ;)
User avatar
Entmooting
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1690
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 8:49 pm
Location: More There Than Here
Top

Postby dhalgren » Thu Jul 08, 2010 11:21 pm

I was interested to read this story on BBC News, wherein the commander of one of the Russian Mir subs (two of the four subs in the world which can currently work at 6000m below sea level) states that his teams would have been more than willing to help BP cap the well if they had been asked (he did stress that this would need to have been done on a government level).

Russian sub "could stop oil leak"

"It should all be decided on the government level. Asking [Anatoly] Sagalevich [of Russia's Shirshov Institute of Oceanology, which owns the subs] to simply bring the Mirs over is nonsense. Even though we're able to go to much greater depths than where the damaged well is located, we wouldn't be able to do much on our own.

"We need a team of international specialists and we have to know all the details and probably even build a special device to attach to the subs, and all this needs time," said Mr Chernyaev.


Commonsense would suggest that in future, any oil company engaged in high risk offshore drilling should have ready access to such a submersible fitted with the necessary devices to cap deep water wells, before being allowed to drill at all.
User avatar
dhalgren
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 908
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2002 5:51 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Top

Postby GlassHouse » Fri Jul 09, 2010 12:50 am

I read the article and I didn't see even a hint of what they thought they could do to stop the leak other than dive really deep.

Is there some advantage to having a sub with people in it over a remote controlled sub?

The last time I heard a suggestion from the Russians, it involved exploding a nuclear bomb to cap the well, I hope they're not still suggesting that.
User avatar
GlassHouse
Mariner


 
Posts: 7479
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2001 6:51 pm
Location: NH
Top

Postby oldtoby » Fri Jul 09, 2010 7:27 am

Well we would hardly have needed to ask the Russians, there are similar submersible craft in the US, At Woods Hole Oceanagraphic Inst. for instance.

Actually I think manned submersibles would be at a disadvantage compared to robots, and much less useful.

They are larger and less manuverable.
You have to have crews and allow for all the extra time involved in decompression, something robot subs dont worry about Meaning they can spend much less time actually working on the problem.
and with current equipment its just as easy to pilot a robot sub by remote as it is to have a warm body down there doing the same in a manned craft.

not to mention the risk of problems occuring at depth which could result in death (after all nothing is 100% reliable)
User avatar
oldtoby
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 15281
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2002 10:40 pm
Top

Postby portia » Fri Jul 09, 2010 11:11 am

I am sure that there are a lot of people and companies around who more or less sincerely believe that their equipment and knowledge could stop the "leak." Some of them may be right, many of them are theoretically correct, but their ideas would not work in practice, and some of them are just blowing smoke.

Can anyone suggest a way to tell in advance which is which? If so, contact the Coast Guard or the Army Corps of Engineers. They want to know, too.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Postby basil » Fri Jul 16, 2010 2:26 am

User avatar
basil
Mariner

 
Posts: 8358
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2001 3:34 pm
Top

Postby dhalgren » Fri Jul 16, 2010 2:49 am

Good find basil :) I saw Laurie performing "Expert" (with the new lyrics) on 2 June at the Sydney Opera House...wry, moving and thoughtful as always.
The arts put man at the center of the universe, whether he belongs there or not. Military science, on the other hand, treats man as garbage— and his children, and his cities, too. Military science is probably right about the contemptibility of man in the vastness of the universe. Still— I deny that contemptibility, and I beg you to deny it, through the creation of appreciation of art.

Kurt Vonnegut
Wampeters, Foma and Granfalloons
User avatar
dhalgren
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 908
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2002 5:51 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Top

Postby portia » Fri Jul 16, 2010 8:37 am

The latest cap seems to be holding, though it is too early for a full test. I hope we are finally on the right track.

A minimum requiremnt for further oil drilling, at any depth, should be a reliable, tested procedure for stopping a leak or blowout. If you have the technology to drill, you need to ave the technology to stop a disaster.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Postby Entmooting » Fri Jul 16, 2010 8:48 am

portia wrote:The latest cap seems to be holding, though it is too early for a full test. I hope we are finally on the right track.

A minimum requiremnt for further oil drilling, at any depth, should be a reliable, tested procedure for stopping a leak or blowout. If you have the technology to drill, you need to ave the technology to stop a disaster.
Alas, the technology is there, but the manufacturers of the safety device were Haliburton... :|
User avatar
Entmooting
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1690
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 8:49 pm
Location: More There Than Here
Top

Postby TheEllipticalDisillusion » Fri Jul 16, 2010 12:07 pm

Apparently, 45% of blow-out preventers fail. I think deep water drilling should be held-off until we can come up with a BOP that has a higher success rate.
User avatar
TheEllipticalDisillusion
Mariner

 
Posts: 6454
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2001 7:42 pm
Top

Postby Dave_LF » Fri Jul 16, 2010 1:49 pm

How does that compare to the percentage that is manufactured by Halliburton? :D
User avatar
Dave_LF
Mariner

 
Posts: 7187
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 8:39 pm
Top

Postby Gandalf'sMother » Mon Jul 19, 2010 9:01 am

Interesting pro climate and energy ad from a top Petraeus aide:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/1 ... 50956.html

-GM
User avatar
Gandalf'sMother
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 11164
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2000 2:10 pm
Top

Postby portia » Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:59 pm

Reasonable, intelligent precautions would be to have back-up for things that fail, especially if they fail 45% of the time.

It is called "THINKING", aka "foresight." It is not hard. Someone with knowledge of the process sits down and writes down the things that can go wrong. It takes maybe 1 hour. Then, each of those things is considered as to what can be done to prevent it. These prevention actions are written down and the equipment necessary is obtained. If there is no available way to prevent it, some sort of backup or remedial action is considered.

AT NO TIME IS ANYONE PERMITTED TO UTTER THE OPINION THAT "IT IS FOOL-PROOF" OR "IT CANNOT FAIL."

Simple. The thinking part might take a few days. Obtaining the equipment will take longer.

This is not too much to ask of people who are making upwards of $500,000 a year. Plus bonusses and stock options.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Postby TheEllipticalDisillusion » Tue Jul 20, 2010 4:32 pm

I think if calling a plan a "slam dunk" was good enough for George Tenet (nothing bad came of that), it should be good enough in all situations that libruls claim require "critical thinking" or this "foresight" that portia brings up. BP exercised foresight, though. Let's not be unfair. They foresaw a swollen bank account.

:rofl:
User avatar
TheEllipticalDisillusion
Mariner

 
Posts: 6454
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2001 7:42 pm
Top

Postby basil » Tue Jul 20, 2010 4:40 pm

portia? wrote:AT NO TIME IS ANYONE PERMITTED TO UTTER THE OPINION THAT "IT IS FOOL-PROOF" OR "IT CANNOT FAIL."
portia? Is that really you? ALL CAPS?!?!?!?

:shock:

This is not too much to ask of people who are making upwards of $500,000 a year.


And Class War Fare-ist? Marxism!! Socialism!!!!

Well I never!

:rofl:

Oh but Karma is a you-know-what :!: :)

http://moneyline.cq.com/pml/home.do

Barton Campaign Fund Takes Losses on BP, Other Stocks
Rep. Joe Barton lost more than $154,000 on investments of his campaign funds during the last three months, according to a CQ MoneyLine study of campaign finance reports. The Texas Republican’s campaign fund losses are due in part to drops in energy company stocks, including BP.
Turbulence in the financial markets has taken its toll on several House campaigns, which lost in total more than a quarter of a million dollars in campaign funds since March because they invested in the stock market, but Barton’s losses make up the largest chunk of that.
Barton saw his bottom line fall in part because of losses in broad-based funds that invested in companies linked to the recent Gulf Coast oil spill. His campaign reported losing more than $13,000 in the Fidelity Select Energy Service, which lists Halliburton and Transocean Inc. among the fund’s largest four holdings. Transocean is down more than 36 percent for the year, while Halliburton is down nearly 6 percent so far in 2010.
Barton also lost more than $36,000 in Fidelity Dividend Growth, which bought just more than half a million shares of BP at the end of May — after the oil spill began — according to investment analysis service Morningstar.
Though Barton knew he was investing in energy-based stock funds, a spokesman for the Congressman said he was unaware of the individual stocks in which the fund was investing, including BP, Halliburton and Transocean.


I laugh at his misfortune.

Happily and with gusto.

Yes I do. :wink:

b
User avatar
basil
Mariner

 
Posts: 8358
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2001 3:34 pm
Top

Postby portia » Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:59 am

Yeah, poetic justice is nice.

Actually, I was wrong when I said that the people who needed foresight are aking half a mil a year, plus.The people who would really understand the dangers and how to handle them would be the petroluem engineers, making about $150,000 a year. It is still not too much to expect.

Some things deserve all caps.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Postby Major Kong » Tue Aug 17, 2010 10:19 pm

Here's an idea:

Why don't we drill in a flat, wasteland where the oil is easily recoverable and the safety record is impeccable? Better yet, let's say it is covered with ice 9 months a year and is completely dark for 3 months? Even better, the footprint will be microscopic in an area that is larger than three states and is only inhabited by a few score people, many of whom only live there to operate existing oil operations?

What exactly was the downside? Something about caribou? From an engineering perspective the opposing arguments are insane.
Major Kong
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 768
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 6:02 pm
Top

Postby Gandalf'sMother » Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:19 am

Out of curiosity, MK, do you have any sense of how many barrels of oil are in that "wasteland" you speak of?

I didn't think so.

-GM
User avatar
Gandalf'sMother
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 11164
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2000 2:10 pm
Top

Postby basil » Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:29 am

I'm sure Caribou Barbie has kept him well informed.

:rofl:

Where've ya been lately?

b
User avatar
basil
Mariner

 
Posts: 8358
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2001 3:34 pm
Top

Postby Major Kong » Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:23 pm

She must have been in mourning since her beloved Cap and Trade scheme crashed, burned, got scooped into a plastic bag and tossed in a landfill.
:wink:

Let's just keep buying our oil from Canada. They are positively raping the planet up in Alberta. Producing '10 to 45% more greenhouse gases than conventional crude' from the Oil Sands.

Chirp away, doom and gloomers!
Major Kong
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 768
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 6:02 pm
Top

Postby ILvEowyn » Thu Sep 02, 2010 10:17 am

Completely safe right? No need for even a temporary moratorium, right? :roll:

Another Oil Rig Explosion

An offshore oil platform exploded and was burning Thursday in the Gulf of Mexico about 100 miles off the Louisiana coast. All 13 workers were rescued from the water, the U.S. Coast Guard said.

The explosion aboard the platform, owned by Mariner Energy, occurred west of the site of the April offshore rig blast that caused the massive BP oil spill.

Patrick Cassidy, a spokesman for Mariner Energy, told CNBC that there does not appear to be any oil leaking.

The Coast Guard said the explosion was reported by a commercial helicopter flying over the site around 9 a.m. CDT.

All 13 workers at the platform were plucked from the water by a supply boat and taken to another platform where they were waiting to be picked up by the Coast Guard, the agency said.

"Thirteen people were seen huddled together in the water wearing gumby suits or immersion suits, water protection suits, so we were able to confirm that all people were accounted for," Coast Guard spokesman Chief Petty Officer John Edwards said.

Coast Guard Cmdr. Cheri Ben-Iesau said one of the 13 was reported injured. The extent and nature of the injury was not immediately known.

....

No oil or sheen from the burning platform was seen in the water by Coast Guard helicopters on scene, McNamara said.

Coast Guard Cmdr. Cheri Ben-Iesau said seven Coast Guard helicopters, two airplanes and three cutters were dispatched to the scene from New Orleans, Houston and Mobile, Ala.

In Washington, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said a federal government response was ready if needed.

"We obviously have response assets ready for deployment, should we receive reports of pollution in the water," Gibbs told a daily briefing.

The Department of Homeland Security said the platform, known as Vermilion Oil Platform 380, was owned by Mariner Energy of Houston. DHS said it was not producing oil and gas.

Company records show that the platform and rig is in 340 feet of water.
User avatar
ILvEowyn
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12836
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2000 11:39 am
Location: lovely Western NY
Top

Postby GlassHouse » Thu Sep 02, 2010 11:23 am

you beat me ILE,

Side note, yesterday, it's owner was busy protesting the moratorium.
User avatar
GlassHouse
Mariner


 
Posts: 7479
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2001 6:51 pm
Location: NH
Top

Postby basil » Thu Sep 02, 2010 4:07 pm

Why o why do they have 13 crew membes on board?

:)

Yes, the outcry against shutting down further deep-sea drilling is not for the benefit of lost jobs.

Bottom line material.

b
User avatar
basil
Mariner

 
Posts: 8358
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2001 3:34 pm
Top

Postby portia » Thu Sep 02, 2010 6:21 pm

I'd be intrested to know how many rigs catch fire every year. Before the BP rig, it may not have been considered "news" and we wouldn't have heard about it.

We will see if anything more serious comes of this.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Postby Frelga » Thu Sep 02, 2010 9:24 pm

portia wrote:I'd be intrested to know how many rigs catch fire every year. Before the BP rig, it may not have been considered "news" and we wouldn't have heard about it.

We will see if anything more serious comes of this.


A quick Google came up with this, from shortly after the Deepwater Horizon explosion.

Wall Street Journal wrote:There were at least three rig fires in the Gulf this year before the Horizon incident and 14 last year, including several that forced crew members to evacuate, according to data from the Minerals Management Service.

Major fires, in which oil and gas catch fire, are rarer. In 2001, a big platform tipped over and caught fire off Brazil, killing 11.


So a "minor" fire every month.
User avatar
Frelga
GNU Terry Pratchett


 
Posts: 9274
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 12:05 pm
Top

Postby Griffon64 » Thu Sep 02, 2010 10:18 pm

Somehow the thought of a media that seem(ed?) to consider an industry experiencing roughly a "minor" fire a month not newsworthy is rather unsettling.

Of course, the thought that an industry producing combustible materials is seemingly not that bothered that one of their tricky offshore production zones catch fire every month or so isn't exactly reassuring either. ( The ones on land isn't foolproof either, but more easily tamed. )

Oh well, profit über alles, right?

Right. :roll:
User avatar
Griffon64
Mariner

 
Posts: 7276
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2002 11:47 pm
Top

Postby shiftenter » Fri Sep 03, 2010 4:05 am

It looks like BP is attempting to strongarm the government into granting them more licenses.... or else.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/busin ... r=1&emc=na

a portion of the NY Times article


BP is warning Congress that if lawmakers pass legislation that bars the company from getting new offshore drilling permits, it may not have the money to pay for all the damages caused by its oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Representative George Miller wrote an amendment that would bar any company from receiving permits to drill on the Outer Continental Shelf if more than 10 fatalities had occurred at its offshore or onshore facilities.

The company says a ban would also imperil the ambitious Gulf Coast restoration efforts that officials want the company to voluntarily support.

BP executives insist that they have not backed away from their commitment to the White House to set aside $20 billion in an escrow fund over the next four years to pay damage claims and government penalties stemming from the April 20 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig. The explosion killed 11 workers and spewed millions of barrels of oil into the gulf.

The company has also agreed to contribute $100 million to a foundation to support rig workers who have lost their jobs because of the administration’s deepwater drilling moratorium. And it pledged $500 million for a 10-year research program to study the impact of the spill.

But as state and federal officials, individuals and businesses continue to seek additional funds beyond the minimum fines and compensation that BP must pay under the law, the company has signaled its reluctance to cooperate unless it can continue to operate in the Gulf of Mexico. The gulf accounts for 11 percent of its global production.

“If we are unable to keep those fields going, that is going to have a substantial impact on our cash flow,” said David Nagle, BP’s executive vice president for BP America, in an interview. That, he added, “makes it harder for us to fund things, fund these programs.”


This is amazing in a very negative way.
shiftenter
Rider of the Mark
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 8:38 am
Top

Postby Gandalf'sMother » Fri Sep 03, 2010 9:55 am

Looks like MK will be staying away from this thread for a while...

-GM
User avatar
Gandalf'sMother
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 11164
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2000 2:10 pm
Top

Postby Bombadillo » Fri Sep 03, 2010 1:07 pm

Looks like MK will be staying away from this thread for a while...

No doubt. Xhen too. Corporatocrats get real quiet when their beloved John Galts are shown to be... less than human.
User avatar
Bombadillo
Mariner

 
Posts: 5190
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 8:41 pm
Top

Postby portia » Sat Sep 04, 2010 6:26 am

Why is it surprising or suspicious that a law that will cut into cash flow may affect what a company does with its cash flow?

Of course, one might fail to believe that the cash flow of a company will actually be affected by a particular law, but that is a different issue.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy: Councils of Manwë

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest