Some good graphics of the 'Top Kill' process;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_and_canada/10159626.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_and_canada/10159626.stm
The Gulf oil spill
- Thread starter Drew99GT
- Start date
- Status
Quote:
The ongoing disaster in the gulf has spawned much debate about regulation versus tort liability as a way to prevent environmental diasters. Much of the discussion has not been that useful because it has been too broad brush.The question that needs to be addressed is what specific regulations, or what kind of liability system, would balance the benefits of increased oil extraction against the risk of environmental damage?
Here is one possibility: if the government grants a company like BP the right to drill in an area like the Gulf, where enormous damage to both private and public property is possible, it should also require BP to post a bond equal to something like the expected environmental damage.
Then if BP drills without incident, it gets the money back when it closes its wells.If damage occurs, BP loses some or all of the bond.
This approach gives BP an incentive to be careful. It also means that if an accident occurs, those harmed do not have to collect damages from a company that might alreadybe bankrupt.
The reqirement to post a large bondmight deter most drilling.That isappropriate, assuming the bond has been set at the right level, since this would indicate that the expected benefits of the oil extraction were less than the expected damages.
This approach is far from perfect. It requires reasonable estimates of the expected damages, and BP might litigate against any payouts from its posted bond. But the approach plausibly has better properties than a regulatory scheme that nobody enforces or a tort liability system that is difficult to enforce for large diasters.
What do you think of this idea?
The ongoing disaster in the gulf has spawned much debate about regulation versus tort liability as a way to prevent environmental diasters. Much of the discussion has not been that useful because it has been too broad brush.The question that needs to be addressed is what specific regulations, or what kind of liability system, would balance the benefits of increased oil extraction against the risk of environmental damage?
Here is one possibility: if the government grants a company like BP the right to drill in an area like the Gulf, where enormous damage to both private and public property is possible, it should also require BP to post a bond equal to something like the expected environmental damage.
Then if BP drills without incident, it gets the money back when it closes its wells.If damage occurs, BP loses some or all of the bond.
This approach gives BP an incentive to be careful. It also means that if an accident occurs, those harmed do not have to collect damages from a company that might alreadybe bankrupt.
The reqirement to post a large bondmight deter most drilling.That isappropriate, assuming the bond has been set at the right level, since this would indicate that the expected benefits of the oil extraction were less than the expected damages.
This approach is far from perfect. It requires reasonable estimates of the expected damages, and BP might litigate against any payouts from its posted bond. But the approach plausibly has better properties than a regulatory scheme that nobody enforces or a tort liability system that is difficult to enforce for large diasters.
What do you think of this idea?
Industry uses bonds all the time to ensure outcomes, and to insure against risk.
I like the idea, but industry (like the limited liability nukes), will always argue that they are the experts, and those most able to mange BOTH the financial and the actual risk.
And there will be those among us who agree, and let them "manage" both sometimes to the detriment of all.
I like the idea, but industry (like the limited liability nukes), will always argue that they are the experts, and those most able to mange BOTH the financial and the actual risk.
And there will be those among us who agree, and let them "manage" both sometimes to the detriment of all.
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Quote:
Just look at the people on this board and everywhere that now hate BP. Do you think that will bode well for them in the market? THAT is where BP will really take it's hits, and as it should be. That individual people will decide who to support.
..but what if it was a Mobil 1 oil rig?
Which could mean Amsoil.
Quote:
Just look at the people on this board and everywhere that now hate BP. Do you think that will bode well for them in the market? THAT is where BP will really take it's hits, and as it should be. That individual people will decide who to support.
..but what if it was a Mobil 1 oil rig?
Which could mean Amsoil.
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Originally Posted By: Bryanccfshr
It is tough to hear these comments from longtime friends and people I have had many conversations with but I can appreciate them.
I know you work in the oil industry Bryan, but when the CEO of BP says the leak is "relatively small" compared to the size of the gulf and comes out claiming the US is litigious and that many lawsuits against BP will be frivolous? It's blatantly obvious to me that BP only cares about saving the well and it's bottom line. The evidence is clear that they, along with Transocean, were negligent in the operation of the Deepwater Horrizon.
I have nothing against the oil industry, but I can not stand blatant negligence and greed, along with corruption. Seems to me that's all we have up to this point with BP.
What bothers me is that there appeared to be no real knowledge of how to handle this type of problem.....whether they plug it or connect another pipe and use the oil doesn;t matter to me, but just stop the free-flowing oil----I'm in no way a tree hugger, but jeez---take SOME sort of action quickly and have a plan!!!!3 week response is like going to the ER with a femoral artery ripped open and waiting....too long!!!
Originally Posted By: Bryanccfshr
It is tough to hear these comments from longtime friends and people I have had many conversations with but I can appreciate them.
I know you work in the oil industry Bryan, but when the CEO of BP says the leak is "relatively small" compared to the size of the gulf and comes out claiming the US is litigious and that many lawsuits against BP will be frivolous? It's blatantly obvious to me that BP only cares about saving the well and it's bottom line. The evidence is clear that they, along with Transocean, were negligent in the operation of the Deepwater Horrizon.
I have nothing against the oil industry, but I can not stand blatant negligence and greed, along with corruption. Seems to me that's all we have up to this point with BP.
What bothers me is that there appeared to be no real knowledge of how to handle this type of problem.....whether they plug it or connect another pipe and use the oil doesn;t matter to me, but just stop the free-flowing oil----I'm in no way a tree hugger, but jeez---take SOME sort of action quickly and have a plan!!!!3 week response is like going to the ER with a femoral artery ripped open and waiting....too long!!!
Last edited:
Quote:
It requires reasonable estimates of the expected damages, and BP might litigate against any payouts from its posted bond. But the approach plausibly has better properties than a regulatory scheme that nobody enforces or a tort liability system that is difficult to enforce for large diasters
Originally Posted By: joel95ex
What bothers me is that there appeared to be no real knowledge of how to handle this type of problem.....whether they plug it or connect another pipe and use the oil doesn;t matter to me, but just stop the free-flowing oil----I'm in no way a tree hugger, but jeez---take SOME sort of action quickly and have a plan!!!!3 week response is like going to the ER with a femoral artery ripped open and waiting....too long!!!
The problem is that this is a relatively new drilling method and it is not something that is always predictable. No one can predict everything when you try it out like that, and no one know the worst case scenario on how to clean up the mess if something happen, and how much it cost.
An insurance approach may be good, but I'd imagine most insurance company wouldn't touch a liability that could be bigger than their size with a million foot pole. In the end, it is a "let's try this and see what happen" approach here.
It requires reasonable estimates of the expected damages, and BP might litigate against any payouts from its posted bond. But the approach plausibly has better properties than a regulatory scheme that nobody enforces or a tort liability system that is difficult to enforce for large diasters
Originally Posted By: joel95ex
What bothers me is that there appeared to be no real knowledge of how to handle this type of problem.....whether they plug it or connect another pipe and use the oil doesn;t matter to me, but just stop the free-flowing oil----I'm in no way a tree hugger, but jeez---take SOME sort of action quickly and have a plan!!!!3 week response is like going to the ER with a femoral artery ripped open and waiting....too long!!!
The problem is that this is a relatively new drilling method and it is not something that is always predictable. No one can predict everything when you try it out like that, and no one know the worst case scenario on how to clean up the mess if something happen, and how much it cost.
An insurance approach may be good, but I'd imagine most insurance company wouldn't touch a liability that could be bigger than their size with a million foot pole. In the end, it is a "let's try this and see what happen" approach here.
PandaBear, engineering and actuarial work are surprisingly parallel in a lot of ways, and ways that I've seen.
Neither are a pure science.
Quite often engineering jobs are unique, but that doesn't mean that they are trial and error, they just take some known values and experience, do some extrapolation and risk analysis, and most of the time get it right.
Actuaries, as I've found out over the last 20 years, do exactly the same work, but backwards, using known failure rates of known components, operations and loadings, applying even more conservative safety factors, and apportioning a dollar value to the risk.
Offering the customer a reduced premium, provided that they reduce the risk, in the areas that they feel uncomfortable with, and negotiating a premium/risk profile that either enables the job to proceed or kills it stone motherless dead.
As soon as you say "I'm not sure" to an insurance guy, you will be finding out for yourself, and quickly. If you say "I don't know", you'll be battling for credibility to even be able to negotiate a policy.
And before someone jumps in and mentions "market at work"...it needs some regulation as to responsibility, and quite possibly a punitive component to work as such.
Neither are a pure science.
Quite often engineering jobs are unique, but that doesn't mean that they are trial and error, they just take some known values and experience, do some extrapolation and risk analysis, and most of the time get it right.
Actuaries, as I've found out over the last 20 years, do exactly the same work, but backwards, using known failure rates of known components, operations and loadings, applying even more conservative safety factors, and apportioning a dollar value to the risk.
Offering the customer a reduced premium, provided that they reduce the risk, in the areas that they feel uncomfortable with, and negotiating a premium/risk profile that either enables the job to proceed or kills it stone motherless dead.
As soon as you say "I'm not sure" to an insurance guy, you will be finding out for yourself, and quickly. If you say "I don't know", you'll be battling for credibility to even be able to negotiate a policy.
And before someone jumps in and mentions "market at work"...it needs some regulation as to responsibility, and quite possibly a punitive component to work as such.
Anyone been watching the live video? My goodness. All you know what is breaking out.
Originally Posted By: buster
Quote:
The ongoing disaster in the gulf has spawned much debate about regulation versus tort liability as a way to prevent environmental diasters. Much of the discussion has not been that useful because it has been too broad brush.The question that needs to be addressed is what specific regulations, or what kind of liability system, would balance the benefits of increased oil extraction against the risk of environmental damage?
Here is one possibility: if the government grants a company like BP the right to drill in an area like the Gulf, where enormous damage to both private and public property is possible, it should also require BP to post a bond equal to something like the expected environmental damage.
Then if BP drills without incident, it gets the money back when it closes its wells.If damage occurs, BP loses some or all of the bond.
This approach gives BP an incentive to be careful. It also means that if an accident occurs, those harmed do not have to collect damages from a company that might alreadybe bankrupt.
The reqirement to post a large bondmight deter most drilling.That isappropriate, assuming the bond has been set at the right level, since this would indicate that the expected benefits of the oil extraction were less than the expected damages.
This approach is far from perfect. It requires reasonable estimates of the expected damages, and BP might litigate against any payouts from its posted bond. But the approach plausibly has better properties than a regulatory scheme that nobody enforces or a tort liability system that is difficult to enforce for large diasters.
What do you think of this idea?
I like it, if such a system was in place I'm sure alot more testing on how to drill and solve problems at this depth would've taken place before they drilled into the oil field.
BP made over $5000000000 last quarter, posting a comparable bond to drill in the gulf shouldn't be a major obstacle for them.
Quote:
The ongoing disaster in the gulf has spawned much debate about regulation versus tort liability as a way to prevent environmental diasters. Much of the discussion has not been that useful because it has been too broad brush.The question that needs to be addressed is what specific regulations, or what kind of liability system, would balance the benefits of increased oil extraction against the risk of environmental damage?
Here is one possibility: if the government grants a company like BP the right to drill in an area like the Gulf, where enormous damage to both private and public property is possible, it should also require BP to post a bond equal to something like the expected environmental damage.
Then if BP drills without incident, it gets the money back when it closes its wells.If damage occurs, BP loses some or all of the bond.
This approach gives BP an incentive to be careful. It also means that if an accident occurs, those harmed do not have to collect damages from a company that might alreadybe bankrupt.
The reqirement to post a large bondmight deter most drilling.That isappropriate, assuming the bond has been set at the right level, since this would indicate that the expected benefits of the oil extraction were less than the expected damages.
This approach is far from perfect. It requires reasonable estimates of the expected damages, and BP might litigate against any payouts from its posted bond. But the approach plausibly has better properties than a regulatory scheme that nobody enforces or a tort liability system that is difficult to enforce for large diasters.
What do you think of this idea?
I like it, if such a system was in place I'm sure alot more testing on how to drill and solve problems at this depth would've taken place before they drilled into the oil field.
BP made over $5000000000 last quarter, posting a comparable bond to drill in the gulf shouldn't be a major obstacle for them.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
If they did put this bonding into the mix there would be complaints that it stunted exploration. They would say that they don't have the capital to explore/develop and bond at the same time.
The same spin that's always spun up when you want "proper conduct". It's always depicted as "in the way".
The same spin that's always spun up when you want "proper conduct". It's always depicted as "in the way".
Guys, guys, you seriously think the politicians are not in the pockets of big oil companies?
Any attempt to regulate these giants would be shot down because of lobbyists and campaign contributions (look at the Texas Governor's claim that it is an act of God). The lobbyists will incites emotions among voters that these regulations are communists and will contributes to more oil imports, sending money to terrorists, etc.
It takes a disaster this big to get people to accept the consequences of the actions.
Any attempt to regulate these giants would be shot down because of lobbyists and campaign contributions (look at the Texas Governor's claim that it is an act of God). The lobbyists will incites emotions among voters that these regulations are communists and will contributes to more oil imports, sending money to terrorists, etc.
It takes a disaster this big to get people to accept the consequences of the actions.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Anyone been watching the live video? My goodness. All you know what is breaking out.
various shades of brown vents at the moment... maybe the "heavy mud" is not dense enough to resist the pressure and momentum of the escaping gas and oil.
Anyone been watching the live video? My goodness. All you know what is breaking out.
various shades of brown vents at the moment... maybe the "heavy mud" is not dense enough to resist the pressure and momentum of the escaping gas and oil.
Top Kill, not working.
Originally Posted By: Liquid_Turbo
Top Kill, not working.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-oil-spill-top-kill-20100528,0,5782115.story
'Engineers have at least temporarily stopped the flow of oil and gas into the Gulf of Mexico from a gushing BP well, the federal government's top oil-spill commander, U.S. Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, said Thursday morning.'
Sounds like it's working to me. I believe they have to keep pumping drilling mud in there to be sure it doesn't blow back until they can get the cement truck lowered down to the bottom.
Top Kill, not working.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-oil-spill-top-kill-20100528,0,5782115.story
'Engineers have at least temporarily stopped the flow of oil and gas into the Gulf of Mexico from a gushing BP well, the federal government's top oil-spill commander, U.S. Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, said Thursday morning.'
Sounds like it's working to me. I believe they have to keep pumping drilling mud in there to be sure it doesn't blow back until they can get the cement truck lowered down to the bottom.
^
Nice. CNN reported differently, but the LAtimes article looks to be more updated..
Nice. CNN reported differently, but the LAtimes article looks to be more updated..
Originally Posted By: expat
Dumb question:
Why is there not a shutoff valve on the BOP?
There were multiple, but they broke.
Dumb question:
Why is there not a shutoff valve on the BOP?
There were multiple, but they broke.
Hay, I finally saw the rainbow to this hurricane.
With DDT no longer available, and the growing spread of West Nile virus in past years, all this oil on the water will reduce the mosquito population, and the spread of West Nile.
With DDT no longer available, and the growing spread of West Nile virus in past years, all this oil on the water will reduce the mosquito population, and the spread of West Nile.
Originally Posted By: JimPghPA
Hay, I finally saw the rainbow to this hurricane.
With DDT no longer available, and the growing spread of West Nile virus in past years, all this oil on the water will reduce the mosquito population, and the spread of West Nile.
True, also we don't have to argue about overfishing. T.K. according to BP didn't work. Odd CNN is reporting this, because yesterday (friday or thursday) they reported that it had. Glad everyone has decided to board the misinformation bus.
Hay, I finally saw the rainbow to this hurricane.
With DDT no longer available, and the growing spread of West Nile virus in past years, all this oil on the water will reduce the mosquito population, and the spread of West Nile.
True, also we don't have to argue about overfishing. T.K. according to BP didn't work. Odd CNN is reporting this, because yesterday (friday or thursday) they reported that it had. Glad everyone has decided to board the misinformation bus.
Last edited:
Looks like a failure.
- Status
