Thoughts on the BP oil-rig disaster

[Ryudo Lee]

I'd like to know what you all think about the disaster in the gulf, what with all the oil causing the closures of oyster beds, and how this is going to negatively impact Louisiana and the rest of the gulf coast.

I think that this is going to make oysters prohibitively expensive over the next several years, so much so that the industry may just fail altogether.  Prices are already being affected.  One of the deli's that I go to here has set the price for an oyster poboy from $10 to $15 (depending on the size of the sandwich), where it was less than half of that before the disaster.  And if the FDA law that's supposed to be going to take effect next year (LINK) that would basically require all oysters harvested in the summer months to be sterilized with specialized equipment that the harvesters would have to buy (to eliminate a rare disease, btw), thereby raising the price, the pollution would only multiply that price hike so much so that the supply of oysters would dwindle until no one buys them anymore.  I know it doesn't seem like much, it's only oysters.  But it's a serious thing down here in Louisiana, as the seafood industry is one of the primary forces behind our economy.  The main reason our economy was doing so well is because of our independence in the seafood industry.  Now, this is all going to be hurting, badly.  They're even seeing oil slick on crab traps.  This may raise the price of crabs a bit, but I think that will survive.  But if this hits shrimp and crawfish, then the Louisiana economy will more than likely take a serious hit, and it won't be pretty.  Over the past couple of years, the crawfish harvest hasn't been all that great, and so the prices were high.  This year seems to be doing well, but with all the oil out there, what does the future hold for that part of the industry?  It used to be that sugar was a driving force in our economy, but not so anymore.  Most of the sugar cane fields have been sold off due to urban sprawl, and that's been going on since the 60's, as I understand.  I fear for my little state, I really do.

Thoughts?  Comments?

[Alondro]

I think the great irony in all this was that the deep-sea drilling there was due to environmental concerns that a shallow-water oil rig would pollute too much.

Of course, this has led to what we see now:  the oil well is so deep underwater it makes all traditional methods of stopping it almost useless... which is just what quite a few people no one wanted to listen to warned about years ago (like me).

A shallow-water well could have been capped with the previous failed methods within a few days.  Look how easy it wass to stop the Iraq oil leaks and fires.  Just blast em with TNT and then cap them.  Dozens of such well fires were stopped in less than a week.  Let's face the facts.  When dealing with oil wells, you want them on land or close to shore for the simple reason that they'll much easier to control.

Working in deep water exponentially increases the difficulty if something goes wrong.

Not to mention, close-up to shore or on land, states can also impose their own inspection regulations so it adds another layer of scrutiny to ensure things are being done properly.

After this spill, I don't think anyone can dispute that deep-water drilling is higher prone to accidents getting out of control more easily than land or shallow water wells.

[Cvstos]

I've never been in favor of deep sea drilling. Honestly, I don't even want to see ANWR or shallow-sea drilling. If we can spend the money on drilling, we should instead spend it on clean energy to help get us off of oil instead of spending to feed this addiction. http://apolloalliance.org/

[superluser]

I'd like to know what you all think about the disaster in the gulf, what with all the oil causing the closures of oyster beds, and how this is going to negatively impact Louisiana and the rest of the gulf coast.

Sigh.  You guys just keep getting it, don't you?  Hurricanes, oil spills, annual dead zones... (see also)

[Reese Tora]

I think it's sad that environmentalists (the ones who are more mental then environment conscious) are going to spin this into a huge anti-oil thing when the technology is perfectly safe when properly maintained and correct procedure is followed- which is very much not the case with the deep horizon oil platform.

The problem is corruption in the government agency that's supposed to be monitoring them (the gas that caused the explosion would have been detected and safely dealt with if a battery in the apparatus that is there to detect gas had been replaced- this is something the government is supposed to be monitoring) and BP and the company running the platform, between them, ignoring proper procedure and not replacing a valve which blew earlier (see, a problem occurred in operation, the valve blew to stop the oil from spilling, and a ton of concrete was poured to stop the leak... all routine.  then they went ahead and continued operating without replacing that valve, which might have prevented the gas buildup that caused the explosion that sank the rig.)

I really don't have anything I can comment on how the oil is going to effect everything.  It's bad, no argument, and I doubt anyone can predict all the different ways that it will hurt people before it's cleaned up. (so much as it's possible to clean it up.)

[Cvstos]

Is anyone honestly surprised that *gasp* oil companies are trying to get around regulations? Seriously. This is the same company that the Bush EPA and the GOP-controlled Indiana government granted permission to increase the amount of mercury dumped into Lake Michigan from 2007 to 2012. Not to mention that BP has had several other serious safety violations at refineries before. In fact, one study pegs BP has being the source of 97% of willful safety violations at refineries cited by OSHA.  And what about the one refinery that went "kaboom" in Texas in '05? And if one expects a company to try to get around safety regulations, why in the world should we allow them to try something that could be this disastrous?  Worse, the "last resort" device that is supposed to prevent this has a 50% failure rate.  50%! Why is this "OK"? Not to mention the similarities between tactics being used to stop this spill and another spill waaaaaaaaaaay back in 1979. I'm being serious here, this play book we're seeing? It's three decades old. Top Hat? Top Kill? Junk Shot? Yeah, all these tactics were tried before in a previous spill. There might be a few tweaks here and there but it's basically the same ideas. At this point Americans should be feeling like Charlie Brown with Lucy as the oil companies.

They should never have gotten permission to drill like this in the first place. BP doesn't have the safety record to dig a ditch, much less a mile-deep well, and it's pretty clear they didn't (and likely still don't) have any real plan on what to do if a disaster like this did happen.

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_City_Refinery_(BP)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/17/national/main6491769.shtml

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601072&sid=aKqG43JpQb2w

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#37368377

http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/chi-mercury_27jul27,0,6726083.story

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ixtoc_I_oil_spill

[Alondro]

A scary thought.

China is looking to get oil-drilling rights from the Cubans.  SINOPEC of China has an agreement with CUPEC to develop Cuba's oil resources.  There are claims that it won't lead to any wells, but there has been seismic testing for oil and SINOPEC has a contract for joint production in a potential high-yield offshore area.

I know their history well enough to see how it will proceed:  They will deny there's going to be any drilling until they're half-way through building the rigs and can't deny it anymore.  Just like China denied there was anything wrong with their factory inspections until people started getting poisoned by melamine deliberately added to baby formula and pet to fool protein standards testing.   

The Gulf is teh doomed.   

[Turnsky]

Oil's well that Ends well.

[superluser]

SINOPEC
CUPEC

Sino-Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries?
Cuban Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries?

Wouldn't that just be China or Cuba?

Edit: Wow.  There really is a company called Sinopec.

[Keleth]

I really don't know what to think beyond the fact I'm not educated or qualified enough to make an informed decision about anything ranging from oil to green power.


All I can say is "Crap, it is a big mess"

[Shachza]

Personally, I'm outraged.  And I live in Delaware...

BP currently has to pay only $75 million of the estimated $14 billion that would be needed to clean everything up.  This estimated amount for cleanup is likely much larger by now since the article is nearly a month old, but BP's payment remains the same.

Guess who gets to pay the rest?  Yeah, my taxes.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/05/big_oil_discount.html

P.S.

Not only is liability capped on compensatory damages from oil spills, but payment of punitive damages is also tax deductible.

Are you F-ing kidding me?  SUCCESSFULLY SUING THEM WILL LOWER THEIR TAXES!

[Turnsky]

folks, really all i can say is:

"it's industry, and accidents do happen, the best one can do is to learn from mistakes, and make damn sure they never happen again"

Is it terrible? Yes
Is it one of the worst environmental disasters in recent history? Yes.
Should those responsible be made to pay for their mistake? yes, and they are in several ways.
Should deep sea drilling be stopped? Not yet, all this will do in the long run is put technology on the table that'll make such accidents either a thing of the past, or a recoverable event in the very least.

Folks are also forgetting that while taxes are a pain in the arse, being smited for the full amount of the cleanup would likely cause more problems than good.
It's also worth noting that people are complaining more about the financial cost of this whole event, rather than the environmental damage.

what does that say about people? Yes, that most care about the environment just so long as they're not the ones having to fork out dough to protect it.

[Drayco84]

BP currently has to pay only $75 million of the estimated $14 billion that would be needed to clean everything up.  This estimated amount for cleanup is likely much larger by now since the article is nearly a month old, but BP's payment remains the same.

It gets worse...
I'm just double-checking out the Valdez in Wikipedia, but they were sued for $5 billion in punitive damages, only to have that get reduced to 75% of $507.5 mil. (Although they did get hit with "late fees" of $480 mil in 2009. Yeah, bastards still haven't paid it. It's not like the money isn't there...)

Out of approx. 53.1 million gallons of oil the Valdez was carrying, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says there's still around 26 thousand gallons of oil still in Alaska's soil.

But, as for how it really gets worse? They'll just jump up gas prices to recoup any and all fines they get.

Oh, and Consumerist is keeping up on the news: http://consumerist.com/2010/05/bp-oil-spill-more-like-12-19000-barrels-per-day.html

Folks are also forgetting that while taxes are a pain in the arse, being smited for the full amount of the cleanup would likely cause more problems than good.
It's also worth noting that people are complaining more about the financial cost of this whole event, rather than the environmental damage.

You're also forgetting that taxpayers shouldn't have to be paying for the cleanup AT ALL. I say BP should foot the ENTIRE bill. They screwed up, they should fix it. (It won't happen, but we can dream...) Plus, you can bet your boots that if the Government cracks down on them HARD, other oil companies would get their act together in a hurry.

As for the environmental damage, you CANNOT put a price tag on fixing that... Heck, we're not going to know the extent of the damage for YEARS after the fact and there's going to be little that can be done... (And I hate to say this, but since the crap hit that stream, it's no longer JUST the US's problem...)

[Turnsky]

BP currently has to pay only $75 million of the estimated $14 billion that would be needed to clean everything up.  This estimated amount for cleanup is likely much larger by now since the article is nearly a month old, but BP's payment remains the same.

It gets worse...
I'm just double-checking out the Valdez in Wikipedia, but they were sued for $5 billion in punitive damages, only to have that get reduced to 75% of $507.5 mil. (Although they did get hit with "late fees" of $480 mil in 2009. Yeah, bastards still haven't paid it. It's not like the money isn't there...)

Out of approx. 53.1 million gallons of oil the Valdez was carrying, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says there's still around 26 thousand gallons of oil still in Alaska's soil.

But, as for how it really gets worse? They'll just jump up gas prices to recoup any and all fines they get.

Oh, and Consumerist is keeping up on the news: http://consumerist.com/2010/05/bp-oil-spill-more-like-12-19000-barrels-per-day.html

Folks are also forgetting that while taxes are a pain in the arse, being smited for the full amount of the cleanup would likely cause more problems than good.
It's also worth noting that people are complaining more about the financial cost of this whole event, rather than the environmental damage.

You're also forgetting that taxpayers shouldn't have to be paying for the cleanup AT ALL. I say BP should foot the ENTIRE bill. They screwed up, they should fix it. (It won't happen, but we can dream...) Plus, you can bet your boots that if the Government cracks down on them HARD, other oil companies would get their act together in a hurry.

As for the environmental damage, you CANNOT put a price tag on fixing that... Heck, we're not going to know the extent of the damage for YEARS after the fact and there's going to be little that can be done... (And I hate to say this, but since the crap hit that stream, it's no longer JUST the US's problem...)

yet if they foot the entire bill and go bankrupt as a result of this, that could set the stage for company collapse, which in turn would result in the loss of jobs of lots of people, even those not remotely associated with the company at all.. yes i do realise that 14 bil would be a pittance to a global company like british petroleum (BP), but take into consideration the sheer ramifications of a large global company collapse.

i'm not against them paying their fair share, but people are already paying for it in more ways than you can think.

[Cvstos]

yet if they foot the entire bill and go bankrupt as a result of this, that could set the stage for company collapse, which in turn would result in the loss of jobs of lots of people, even those not remotely associated with the company at all.. yes i do realise that 14 bil would be a pittance to a global company like british petroleum (BP), but take into consideration the sheer ramifications of a large global company collapse.

i'm not against them paying their fair share, but people are already paying for it in more ways than you can think.

Actually, they have insurance against this sort of thing. It's the insurance company they went with that would foot the bulk of the bill. And to be frank, if they cannot afford to fix any problems that might happen as a result of this stuff, why should we let them try it in the first place?

[Drayco84]

Yet if they foot the entire bill and go bankrupt as a result of this, that could set the stage for company collapse, which in turn would result in the loss of jobs of lots of people, even those not remotely associated with the company at all.. yes i do realise that 14 bil would be a pittance to a global company like british petroleum (BP), but take into consideration the sheer ramifications of a large global company collapse.

BP currently has to pay only $75 million of the estimated $14 billion that would be needed to clean everything up.  This estimated amount for cleanup is likely much larger by now since the article is nearly a month old, but BP's payment remains the same.

This is from Wikipedia. And mind you, this is REPORTED earnings... (BP is in the middle, the green box.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Big_Oil.svg
If they need to, "borrow" some from this guy.

And yes, I'm aware that BP is putting money into researching alternative energy sources.

[Turnsky]

okay, so i have no idea how economies work.. but i do know that if folks don't shush and foot the cost and just get it done already, things are gonna get worse.

worry about 'compensation' later.

In courts.


where other people's livelihoods are endangered by an unholy amount of raw crude.

[Noone]

okay, so i have no idea how economies work.. but i do know that if folks don't shush and foot the cost and just get it done already, things are gonna get worse.

worry about 'compensation' later.

In courts.


where other people's livelihoods are endangered by an unholy amount of raw crude.

I'm afraid this isn't likely. The area in question is out in the middle of the ocean, and not technically within any one country's borders. With no clear jurisdiction however, it means that BP doesn't really have to answer to anyone, save their customers. A US court wouldn't likely have the authority to take any direct legal actions against BP. It also means that US regulations would not apply there either. There really aren't any government regulations that exist on an international level, so there is no court that BP could be taken to with a clear case to be made over this incident.

This, in essence, means that BP can do whatever they want with the area, and they don't have to be responsible for cleaning up after themselves. The only place they can be hurt is in their wallet, and customers aren't likely to stop buying their oil just because of this incident (though some may). I suppose it's cheaper for them to do minimal cleanup and to cut costs wherever they can on drilling, they don't have to pay the price when disaster strikes. They're a business, and they'll take whatever path leads them to gaining the most profit.

[Tezkat]

After this spill, I don't think anyone can dispute that deep-water drilling is higher prone to accidents getting out of control more easily than land or shallow water wells.

Um... so what? The reason that BP is blowing billions of dollars developing wells a mile underwater is that there isn't much in way of safer alternatives to explore. Most of the easily accessed wells have already been tapped, and most of those are fast being depleted to the point where it's no longer economical to suck out what's left.

If you're an oil company worried about your dwindling reserves, your options aren't very attractive.

a) Shlock through tons of sand or shale to squeeze out a few drops of bitumen/kerogen that must be (expensively) processed into useable crude.
b) Drill deep holes in the middle of the ocean that risk destroying Lousiana if you fuck up. Oh, and you might lose your rig in the next hurricane anyway, so pump fast!
c) Convince governments to let you dig up protected nature reserves. Endangered species don't need all that oil anyway.
d) Developed undertapped reserves in areas of high geopolitical instability where your billion dollar investments might be arbitrarily nationalized, threatened by dangerous militants, or worse...
e) Give up on silly things cars, plastics, large scale agriculture, capitalism, and the like. Go hug more trees and hope the planet will forgive you even if your shareholders don't.

The only one oil companies don't seem to be trying is e). Go figure.

Ultimately, the question is still: Do you want/need the oil or not? It's fast becoming obvious that global oil production has already peaked. The safe/cheap/easy/clean stuff is going fast, if not already long gone...

Edit: Wow.  There really is a company called Sinopec.

It's actually the China Petroleum & Chemical Corporation. Sinopec is one of the largest corporations in the world (9th by revenues on the Fortune Global 500 last year). Expect that to grow drastically now that the Chinese government is relaxing its price controls over the energy industry. Given the growth the the Chinese automobile industry, it might be bigger than Walmart soon...

I'm afraid this isn't likely. The area in question is out in the middle of the ocean, and not technically within any one country's borders. With no clear jurisdiction however, it means that BP doesn't really have to answer to anyone, save their customers.

Incorrect. Although outside of US sovereign territory proper, the Deepwater Horizon platform is positioned well within the American EEZ, not in international waters. The United States has considerable control over what goes on in there, and the damage from the spill has most definitely made its way to US soil where jurisdiction issues are much less fuzzy.


It's possible--even likely--that this disaster will become the Three Mile Island of offshore drilling in America. It took four decades four the country to get over that and start reinvesting in nuclear technology. The administration has already suspended permits for new offshore developments. Even token efforts to wean the country off of foreign oil failed.

[Tapewolf]

e) Give up on silly things cars, plastics, large scale agriculture, capitalism, and the like. Go hug more trees and hope the planet will forgive you even if your shareholders don't.

The only one oil companies don't seem to be trying is e). Go figure.

Ultimately, the question is still: Do you want/need the oil or not? It's fast becoming obvious that global oil production has already peaked. The safe/cheap/easy/clean stuff is going fast, if not already long gone...

Well, it would be nice if we could stop burning it in cars and trucks, and use electricity for that instead (say, from nuclear plants).  If they were taken out of the equation, existing reserves should go a lot further for plastics and the other things that electricity alone won't do you for.  You would probably still need it for aircraft, for instance.

[eryogigasee]

It's possible--even likely--that this disaster will become the Three Mile Island of offshore drilling in America. It took four decades four the country to get over that and start reinvesting in nuclear technology. The administration has already suspended permits for new offshore developments. Even token efforts to wean the country off of foreign oil failed.

The problem is corruption in the government agency that's supposed to be monitoring them (the gas that caused the explosion would have been detected and safely dealt with if a battery in the apparatus that is there to detect gas had been replaced- this is something the government is supposed to be monitoring) and BP and the company running the platform, between them, ignoring proper procedure and not replacing a valve which blew earlier (see, a problem occurred in operation, the valve blew to stop the oil from spilling, and a ton of concrete was poured to stop the leak... all routine.  then they went ahead and continued operating without replacing that valve, which might have prevented the gas buildup that caused the explosion that sank the rig.)

It was a problem with safety devices that caused Chernobyl to go too; they're still sorting it out.

In my opinion, the watchdog/agencies responsible now have a duty of care for the state and should foot the bill for any economical damage that will result.  The markets seem to have been hit harshly since the start of the leak.

[hapless]

Actually for Chernobyl it was
- Execution by unprepared personnel (other shift was supposed to do the test, and rehearsed it; unfortunately, due to a faulre in ANOTHER power station Chernobyl was ordered to stay operational for few more hours to provide power, and the workshift change happened)
- MISdesign of some parts of reactor - notably, control rods had graphite caps at end, which meant that reaction was actually ACCELERATED as you started to lower the rods down, and was slowed down only afterwards (So instead of a 543210 graph you had an 5676543210 one...)
- A few other things I don't remember, but not sure if failure of failsafes was there anywhere. After all, failsafes put control rods down in, and in RBMK-100 that very action could lead to explosion. (Fear not, they replaced the rods with more sane design in all other operational RBMKs).

[Tezkat]

In my opinion, the watchdog/agencies responsible now have a duty of care for the state and should foot the bill for any economical damage that will result.  The markets seem to have been hit harshly since the start of the leak.

By "watchdog/agencies", you mean "taxpayers", right?

[eryogigasee]

I dare say some taxpayers may have a vested interest in the resolution of the problem.  I don't understand US law or economics, but I would have thought affected states would pay for some of the cleanup; at least if they wanted it to happen quickly...

At the very least, they would have to pay for a new agency, or the reconstruction of the old one.

Actually for Chernobyl it was
- Execution by unprepared personnel (other shift was supposed to do the test, and rehearsed it; unfortunately, due to a faulre in ANOTHER power station Chernobyl was ordered to stay operational for few more hours to provide power, and the workshift change happened)
- MISdesign of some parts of reactor - notably, control rods had graphite caps at end, which meant that reaction was actually ACCELERATED as you started to lower the rods down, and was slowed down only afterwards (So instead of a 543210 graph you had an 5676543210 one...)
- A few other things I don't remember, but not sure if failure of failsafes was there anywhere. After all, failsafes put control rods down in, and in RBMK-100 that very action could lead to explosion. (Fear not, they replaced the rods with more sane design in all other operational RBMKs).

I was under the impression that the backup generator that powers the failsafes wasn't fast enough to prevent them going offline before core failure. At least, according to an old physics book I studied during my A-levels.  Admittedly, it took a lot to go wrong...

[Shachza]

I dare say some taxpayers may have a vested interest in the resolution of the problem.  I don't understand US law or economics, but I would have thought affected states would pay for some of the cleanup; at least if they wanted it to happen quickly...

At the very least, they would have to pay for a new agency, or the reconstruction of the old one.

Oh yes, I fully expect that as a US citizen I will have to pay money to get things done, and to get them done quickly.  What I find most telling is that BP will very likely have to pay a much smaller percentage for cleanup than I probably will for a disaster in which it had a direct hand.

Imagine, if you will, a guy who works at a fast food restaurant fourty hours a week for $8.00 an hour.  That's about $64.00 per day.  He has the unfortunate task of taking out the used oil and grease and disposing of it.  Instead of dealing with proper authorities this man comes to your house and dumps a week's worth of used deep fryer oil all over your house.  Just for giggles we'll say that cleaning all this up will cost $12,000.00 (or 187 times this man's daily income, which is what BP is looking at now).  Here's what happens: he only has to pay $76.00 (a little over a single day's income for him, which is also what BP is facing) while you get to pay the other $11,924.00 to clean his mess out of your house, he is never actually charged with a crime, AND that $76.00 he had to pay reduces his taxes for that year (but anything you pay won't reduce yours).

Personally I think BP should go under.  There is a long long list of people who screwed up to cause this, and the other oil drilling companies need take environmental disasters seriously.  As much as I'd love for everyone to consider the environment first, if want to get a business to pay attention fast you really need to hit their pocket books.

[Alondro]

e) Give up on silly things cars, plastics, large scale agriculture, capitalism, and the like. Go hug more trees and hope the planet will forgive you even if your shareholders don't.

The only one oil companies don't seem to be trying is e). Go figure.

Ultimately, the question is still: Do you want/need the oil or not? It's fast becoming obvious that global oil production has already peaked. The safe/cheap/easy/clean stuff is going fast, if not already long gone...

Well, it would be nice if we could stop burning it in cars and trucks, and use electricity for that instead (say, from nuclear plants).  If they were taken out of the equation, existing reserves should go a lot further for plastics and the other things that electricity alone won't do you for.  You would probably still need it for aircraft, for instance.

Green aircraft:  All the passengers flapping their arms really fast.   

[Turnsky]

Actually for Chernobyl it was
- Execution by unprepared personnel (other shift was supposed to do the test, and rehearsed it; unfortunately, due to a faulre in ANOTHER power station Chernobyl was ordered to stay operational for few more hours to provide power, and the workshift change happened)
- MISdesign of some parts of reactor - notably, control rods had graphite caps at end, which meant that reaction was actually ACCELERATED as you started to lower the rods down, and was slowed down only afterwards (So instead of a 543210 graph you had an 5676543210 one...)
- A few other things I don't remember, but not sure if failure of failsafes was there anywhere. After all, failsafes put control rods down in, and in RBMK-100 that very action could lead to explosion. (Fear not, they replaced the rods with more sane design in all other operational RBMKs).

ironically, however, while not being safe for humans the exclusion zone itself has become a veritable nature preserve and local wildlife seems to be doing quite well..

not nearly as big of an environmental disaster as it initially was back in the eighties. Just goes to show that nature does bounce back if given a chance.

[Keleth]

I just wish we could build powerful enough magnets, that if you equipped em on a turbine and the 'GO' Position was putting the negative ends of the magnets close together, spinning a turbine.


If we had powerful enough magnets, imagine driving a car that ran off of em. XD


. . .

I wonder if that idea  has been patented yet or not

[ShadesFox]

I believe that the problem with the Chernobyl exclusion zone is not that it is 'unsafe' for humans, rather that it is 'unsafe' for the government to allow people to stay there because everyone who gets cancer in there will blame it on the reactor and will want money.  The last figure I saw for the total cases of cancer because of Chernobyl was 1 extra radiation case per 1,000,000 people per year.  Of course, it is god damned radiation, so everyone has to be scared of it.

Plus with an operating profit of $5.6 billion in Q1Y2010[1] I don't see how they can can bankrupt from cleaning up the spill.  They are probably also going to lay some blame on Halliburton (the people who did the cementing) so they will probably take some of the cost too.  Plus, I've been poking some of the documents from the investigation by the Committee of Energy and Commerce[2] and a few documents really don't paint a pretty picture.  Mostly a picture of systemic neglect of basic safety from top to bottom.  A memo on BPs internal review[3] looks especially unpleasant, highlighting a good number of incidents in the 24 hours before the explosion.  Of course, this is all ongoing investigations, so things will change.

[1] http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/STAGING/global_assets/downloads/B/bp_first_quarter_2010_results.pdf
[2] http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1985:energy-a-commerce-committee-investigates-deepwater-horizon-rig-oil-spill&catid=122:media-advisories
[3] http://energycommerce.house.gov/documents/20100525/Memo.BP.Internal.Investigation.pdf

[Tezkat]

Well, it would be nice if we could stop burning it in cars and trucks, and use electricity for that instead (say, from nuclear plants).  If they were taken out of the equation, existing reserves should go a lot further for plastics and the other things that electricity alone won't do you for.  You would probably still need it for aircraft, for instance.

Meh. You can fly a 747 on coconut oil, if so inclined. Biodiesel from algae, cellulosic ethanol, and the like are promising as a stopgap if nothing else. Not so great in terms of carbon footprints, but the problem we're addressing here is oil scarcity.

It's not as if we aren't seeing a push in the direction of greener vehicles, motivated in no small part by skyrocketing oil prices. The major automobile manufacturers will probably phase out production of non-hybrid or electric automobiles by 2020. (Some, like Toyota, have been quite public about such plans.) But let's put that in perspective. There are on the order of 260m motor vehicles currently in registered in the United States. Less than 1% of those are hybrids or electric vehicles. The average vehicle age overall is almost a decade. It'll be the better part of two decades before hybrid or electric vehicles are in the majority. By then, China and India should each have about the same number of cars on the road as there are in America now. China at least is becoming fairly aggressive about fuel economy standards of late. India... not so much. They're still partially subsidizing fuel prices. But the take home message is that, even if we continue to develop greener vehicle technologies and American oil consumption peaks, global demand for oil will be going up, not down. Global supply is not rising, and oil is becoming increasingly expensive to extract even from conventional sources. It's not surprising that companies want to get their paws on whatever new sources of oil become available. And most of that is deep undersea.

Personally I think BP should go under.  There is a long long list of people who screwed up to cause this, and the other oil drilling companies need take environmental disasters seriously.  As much as I'd love for everyone to consider the environment first, if want to get a business to pay attention fast you really need to hit their pocket books.

Heh. Total costs of $14 billion? That's how much BP made in profit for fiscal 2009. They can afford to pay that, write it off as a particularly bad year, and keep on chugging...

Admittedly, a number of people are predicting a buyout by Exxon or Shell, if you want to take that as a consolation prize...

I just wish we could build powerful enough magnets, that if you equipped em on a turbine and the 'GO' Position was putting the negative ends of the magnets close together, spinning a turbine.


If we had powerful enough magnets, imagine driving a car that ran off of em. XD


. . .

I wonder if that idea  has been patented yet or not

It's called an electric motor--first patented back in the 1830s.