REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Spill baby, spill!

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 14:40
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 5117
PAGE 2 of 2

Monday, May 3, 2010 4:36 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:


I'd like to see more solar. There was a good National Geo article about that last summer. The technology is really improving, though I think we're still a long way away from making it affordable to the average folk. I cannot wait until I can coat the roof of my house in panels.

BTW - I know a wealthy couple who were doing all kinds of nuttiness to install geothermal power because they thought solar panels were ugly. In the middle of fucking deep forest, Vermont! Who's gonna see?



I heard some people are working on a photovoltaic PAINT. Can you imagine? And it won't make your house look like a frozen dinner!

Speaking of people and bizarre complaints, why is it people don't like how wind turbines look? They're elegant. People should be more concerned about ELF associated with the electromagnetic fields caused by the generators, though it's still a question whether low-level ELF associated with generators and high voltage have the same amount of health concern as high level, which is known to cause damage.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 3, 2010 5:29 PM

DREAMTROVE


Mal,

The power comes from your wall. The rate works out to so small that it's the equiv of 100s of miles to the gallon. Personally, I actually favor getting 100s of miles to the gallon instead. Which we could do.

The fuel conspiracy isn't even a conspiracy. The first story on this was from 1927 IIRC, so it's not as if this is chemtrails. It's because the industry execs are also oil execs, and the car companies make nothing by comparison, so they are run to make oil profits. The conspiracy appears to have been set up when car sales were minimal, I found some references to "oh, this would be a good idea" in 1919 from some oil execs, so, go figure. Think of autosales at the time, and they probably didn't even figure care companies being billion dollar corporations themselves.

Car mileage sinks every so often when they come up with a new gadget. GM openly bought out public transportation as well as small mod kit companies which promised 200mpg.

The efficiency of a typical car is about 6%, and the fuel is sub optimal. You could probably get about 500mpg from a regular car if you had a decent low heat high pressure fuel and low drag coefficients and less dead weight in the vehicle.

I don't think the subsurface oil will be a major issue. The diffuse density of the oil is trace at best, and oil itself is edible. The only problem is really the affect on surface tension. For some numbers, I think it's around 0.000002 ppm or 0.0000000002%. Remember, if it's just crude, you, or anyone else, can eat it. Let me know if you have data on ppm of the spill area. I'm guessing it's counting in parts per trillion, and is trace if at all. Add the final kicker that it would diffuse over the entire ocean in not too long a time, and that would reduce it to a simple undetectable.


Interesting points about work efficiency. Yes, it's pretty bad. here are a couple of others:

School bussing. Why? What's being traded in school is information...

More than anything else: Trucking. Why? well over 90% of this transport is going from a known origin to a known destination. Trains, guys.

But really, 5600 watts isn't a major problem, that's on a par with a washer/dryer or hot water heater. You could cut that in half by making a smaller car, something bug like.

Nothing is going to give your mouse cancer unless you have telomerase and reverse transcriptase, or more importantly, the genes which code to them, on a plasmid... ;) Actually, what happens to the mouse is that you break down his immune system, and then he dies from the cancer he already has.

Statistically, THC consumers have one of the highest rates of cancer, but it has nothing to do with the THC, which can harm your memory, but not your immune system. What's throwing the studies off is that they are done on humans, who may be habitual users of marijuana, but they are also causal users of other substances, some of which radically down regulate immunoreceptors. Really, it may seem incredible, but you can use mild drug A 10,000 times and strong drug B a dozen times and suffer more from B than from A.




Byte,

You got me on the hurricanes. Good point, provided this is greenhouse effect fallout. I'm not convinced yet, but it's possible. Yes, it will be destructive to humans. But marginally. If you want a more direct damage, the consumption of oil is damaging to humans at the point of consumption. Carbon monoxide build up, particularly in traffic, and the residual smog of areas like Los Angeles and Beijing, and then teh everyday exposure of those who go to gas stations and drive cars. Probably, still, car crashes are the major human fatality fallout.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 3, 2010 5:49 PM

OUT2THEBLACK


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
...At any rate, I strongly suspect seismic activity caused the rig disaster, and there's a possibility that activity was indirectly caused by lots of guys under water with bombs. Oh, another one, this stuff never gets talked about, but you can see the statistical abberations: N. Korean nuclear tests and earthquakes, also, Iran/Pakistan and earthquakes. Just saying there's a possible correlation between people setting off large amounts of explosive underground and seismic activity, which isn't much of a stretch.



Good to see you , D-T !

Interesting article :

'...Then, there's the question of the cause of the explosion. One source, of questionable reliability, TheEuropean Union Times suggests that the platform explosion was caused by a North Korean Mini-sub, launched on April 20th from a ship which departed Cuba on April 18th and then deviated far from it's scheduled course to Venezuela. The article speculates that theTransocean Corporation which owns and operated platform, has ties to South Korea through Hyuundai holdings in the company, so this was an attack by N. Korea on it's enemy, South Korea.'

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Gulf-of-Mexico-worst-Case-by-Rob-Kall
-100502-823.html

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 3, 2010 6:28 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:


I heard some people are working on a photovoltaic PAINT. Can you imagine? And it won't make your house look like a frozen dinner!



You'd be amazed at what's coming, and how quickly it might arrive. Yes, "solar" paint - you spray it on, plug into it, and you're off the grid. Or even giving power BACK to the utility company (yeah right!). Also, solar roofing shingles that will look like normal shingles - and be at least as durable - but will also connect into your home energy unit to provide power. And solar cells are being integrated into glass, along with LCDs, so your glass can be opaque, transparent, translucent, or tinted, all while helping to provide power to itself and the rest of the house.

And that's all around the corner for cars as well - well, maybe not so much the shingles... :)

As it is, the new Nissan Leaf which is on the market this fall for around $25,000 new, is all-electric (no piston engine at all), takes something like an 80% recharge in 20 minutes, carries a 200-mile range, and will never require you to fill up the tank. As for innovation, something I predicted quite a while back is standard equipment on the Leaf: programmable heating/ventilation/air conditioning (HVAC). What's that mean? It means there's an app for your iPhone or similar device (Blackberry, Droid, home PC, etc.) which lets you tell your car to turn on the A/C on hot days, so it's already cooled down 20 minutes before you get in, for instance. Or it can be heated up for you on cold mornings. And you never need to worry about someone stealing it while it's warming up or cooling down, because the key needn't be anywhere near it.

As HVAC systems move away from being belt-driven (A/C compressors) and engine-coolant-derived (heaters, which rely on the car's radiator fluid getting hot enough to start transferring heat to the heater core, and thus to the interior of the car), and into electric systems similar to most home units, there just is no need to have you IN the car before it starts warming up or cooling down. And as things progress, those operations will become powered by solar cells and small fans (think CPU fans, for example) that will power the cooling system and move air in and out of the cabin at several points, keeping the air fresh and clean.

Trust me, if I could afford it, I'd have my home and vehicles be rolling testbeds for all this kind of stuff, because I find it fascinating and amazing.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 3, 2010 6:40 PM

BYTEMITE


Ah, yes, car related ozone.

Also, you can eat oil, and when I mentioned biosurfactants, that works through bioattenuation, that is encouraging bacteria to break down the oil.

But oil does have some not so good toxic organic molecules in it, like napthalene and benzene. Benzene is often added during refining, but it can be found in the crude product. I really wouldn't recommend people eat it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 3, 2010 6:41 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by out2theblack:
Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
...At any rate, I strongly suspect seismic activity caused the rig disaster, and there's a possibility that activity was indirectly caused by lots of guys under water with bombs. Oh, another one, this stuff never gets talked about, but you can see the statistical abberations: N. Korean nuclear tests and earthquakes, also, Iran/Pakistan and earthquakes. Just saying there's a possible correlation between people setting off large amounts of explosive underground and seismic activity, which isn't much of a stretch.



Good to see you , D-T !

Interesting article :

'...Then, there's the question of the cause of the explosion. One source, of questionable reliability, TheEuropean Union Times suggests that the platform explosion was caused by a North Korean Mini-sub, launched on April 20th from a ship which departed Cuba on April 18th and then deviated far from it's scheduled course to Venezuela. The article speculates that theTransocean Corporation which owns and operated platform, has ties to South Korea through Hyuundai holdings in the company, so this was an attack by N. Korea on it's enemy, South Korea.'

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Gulf-of-Mexico-worst-Case-by-Rob-Kall
-100502-823.html





Crazy as that might seem, it may not be that far-fetched. Hyundai Heavy Industries did build the Deepwater Horizon, and while it wouldn't do North Korea any real GOOD to see it go down in flames and shame, it could certainly cause harm to Hyundai and South Korea, which is almost a bonus for the North.

At the moment, though, I'm with you on the questionable reliability and speculation angle of that story. But I couldn't dismiss it out of hand.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 12:59 AM

MAL4PREZ


Thanks for the great post, DT. Unfortunately, this is hella busy day and I probably won't get to replying until tomorrow. I surely will though, lots of interesting stuff.

Off to work...

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 2:34 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
A series of explosions and spills on offshore rigs had the Obama administration ALREADY primed to write new regulations for offshore rigs. It's clear that the oil companies, whose only motive IS profit, cannot be trusted to safely operate offshore rigs, nor can they be trusted to respond to disasters OR to clean up their mess.

They are simply following the successful business model: Make off with the profits, and leave the costs to everyone else. In this case, the costs include destroying the oceanic and coastal environment.


Your assertion that profit is a corporation's only motive is correct. Corporations are entities formed to channel investment into industry seeking profit in return (otherwise its a crappy investment and I'm taking my money elsewhere). However, I think the fact in both this recent spill and the Exxon case show you to be wrong that the quest for profit drove them to ignore safety concerns.

Oil spills like this cost companies billions upon billions in clean up costs, restitution, lawsuits, and lost revenue.

Since Exxon's spill oil companies have sought to minimize their risk and liability with safety measures in the hopes of protecting their profits.

If this were a small business then you would be correct, they could simply 'make off with the profits'. However BP is a large, multinational corporation with tens of billions of dollars invested in property and commerical enterprise here in the United States, simply put...they are to big to simply 'make off' and too spread out to hide.

They have already agreed to pay for clean up costs and lost revenue. They will pay in the form of lawsuits. They will pay with lost revune, diminished reputation, and lost market share. They will pay and pay and pay, just like Exxon did.

The more they pay the more other companies will seek to limit their exposure with new technology and improved safety measures...all aimed at one goal, protecting profit. Good thing that's their sole motive.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 3:02 AM

DREAMTROVE


Thanks Mal

Hero, you raise an interesting point. If I'm right, and deep sea drilling is an underlying cause of the recent region stability, then do corporations fall within the spirit of the law? Is the right to swing one's corporate arms reaching way beyond the next corporate nose?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 3:42 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
A series of explosions and spills on offshore rigs had the Obama administration ALREADY primed to write new regulations for offshore rigs. It's clear that the oil companies, whose only motive IS profit, cannot be trusted to safely operate offshore rigs, nor can they be trusted to respond to disasters OR to clean up their mess.

They are simply following the successful business model: Make off with the profits, and leave the costs to everyone else. In this case, the costs include destroying the oceanic and coastal environment.


Your assertion that profit is a corporation's only motive is correct. Corporations are entities formed to channel investment into industry seeking profit in return (otherwise its a crappy investment and I'm taking my money elsewhere). However, I think the fact in both this recent spill and the Exxon case show you to be wrong that the quest for profit drove them to ignore safety concerns.

Oil spills like this cost companies billions upon billions in clean up costs, restitution, lawsuits, and lost revenue.

Since Exxon's spill oil companies have sought to minimize their risk and liability with safety measures in the hopes of protecting their profits.

If this were a small business then you would be correct, they could simply 'make off with the profits'. However BP is a large, multinational corporation with tens of billions of dollars invested in property and commerical enterprise here in the United States, simply put...they are to big to simply 'make off' and too spread out to hide.

They have already agreed to pay for clean up costs and lost revenue. They will pay in the form of lawsuits. They will pay with lost revune, diminished reputation, and lost market share. They will pay and pay and pay, just like Exxon did.

The more they pay the more other companies will seek to limit their exposure with new technology and improved safety measures...all aimed at one goal, protecting profit. Good thing that's their sole motive.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.




Those oil companies have ALSO sought - through legislation - to limit their liability in the wake of such disasters. And they've succeeded. In the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez, laws were passed which limited the punitive damages to $75 million. Already estimates for this mess are topping $14 billion.



Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 5:16 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Those oil companies have ALSO sought - through legislation - to limit their liability in the wake of such disasters. And they've succeeded. In the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez, laws were passed which limited the punitive damages to $75 million. Already estimates for this mess are topping $14 billion.


Their liability is limited because of the nature of our economy. Oil drives the American economy. A spill such as this could drive a company into bankruptsy. In order to protect the industry and the economy as a whole it was felt at the time the law was passed that they needed to act to prevent an accident like this from destroying an entire corporation.

The reasoning behind the law is valid, but the law is out of date. The 1990 Oil Pollution Act makes them responsible for the cleanup costs, which could be billions, but caps their other liability at $75 mil. At the time the numbers made sense. The law needs updated to reflect the new value of the dollar and the relative value and money available to BP to meet its competing obligations to pay restitution and remain in business.

There is pending emergency legislation to raise the cap to $15 billion, which sounds about right.

It should be noted that BP has committed to pay full restitution in excess of the cap, but without a commitment to exactly 'how much', to whom, and when...all questions that its too soon to answer.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 5:29 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


In other words, as always, you put corporate interests well above the interests of the environment and small business owners who are adversely affected by the actions of the corporations.

I thought you were a "free market" guy? Shouldn't the "invisible hand" of the market LET the bad companies go out of business? Are you saying that you support regulation to limit their liability? I thought you were against regulations on corporations at all. Guess you're only against the ones that might have the corporations pay out for the damage they do...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 7:11 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


The $75 million cap is a drop in the bucket where they're concerned. Even that and the cost of rebuilding the well (if they're allowed to) is a drop in the bucket compared to their profits.

I heard about raising the cap; good move, but it won't be retroactive. As to BP saying they'll be responsible, even above the cap, I'm not holding my breath either that they will, or how much.

They already distributed a contract that, if people signed it, would give them $5,000 and keep them from suing for more. When caught, they said oops, it was just a boilerplate that went out by accident. But it had the DATE of the recent oil spill on it, so that's bullshit.

The head guy also said quite clearly, in essence "It wasn't our fault, but we'll fix it", and put the blame on the oil rig owners. Which of course is bullshit; they lease the rig, that puts it on their heads, and I'm still waiting to hear more about the Halliburton connection. Yes, perhaps the other instances of Halliburton and their cementing was caused by something else, but there have been several, and I find it hard to believe all were caused by "something else", or that the scientific explanation of how faulty cementing can cause an explosion is dismissable.

If you don't think that tactic is indicative of what they'll voluntarily pay toward cleanup, you're a dreamer.

We'll just have to see. It'll definitely get worse before it gets better, that we know.

Oh, and Mal4, those "cute" species are part of the ecosystem, and part of America's food source. We can't know how their destruction will effect things for decades to come. One thing is certain; loss of them WILL affect the environment. I would bet the fishing industry down there is pretty much wiped out, which fact won't be obvious for quite some time. Exxon Valdez completely wiped out the fishing industry, so unless they've got something up their sleeves we don't know about, this will too.

And I fully, FULLY, agree about trains. We've been too stupid on that point in the US, and it's about time we turned THAT around, if you ask me.


"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 8:28 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


"Well, at least they're consistent":
Quote:

Drill, baby, drill? You betcha! “At least they get points for consistency. House Republican leaders are once again sounding the drumbeat for passage of their sidelined pro-drilling energy reform package, even as state and federal officials scramble to stem a massive Gulf oil spill,” Roll Call reports.

“Environmental groups want language encouraging offshore drilling removed from climate legislation in light of the giant oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that poses a potentially historic hazard to fragile coastal ecosystems,” The Hill reports. “Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) are thought to have included language to encourage an expansion of offshore drilling in their climate bill to attract support from businesses and centrists in Congress.”

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/05/04/2293452.aspx



What does this say about the Republicans? ...


"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 5, 2010 11:01 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
In other words, as always, you put corporate interests well above the interests of the environment and small business owners who are adversely affected by the actions of the corporations.

I thought you were a "free market" guy? Shouldn't the "invisible hand" of the market LET the bad companies go out of business? Are you saying that you support regulation to limit their liability? I thought you were against regulations on corporations at all. Guess you're only against the ones that might have the corporations pay out for the damage they do...


I explained the reasoning behind the law and noted it was valid reasoning. I agree that liability should be limited, but I think that is the role of the Jury and the Courts, not the Congress.

Lets say there is no limit, somebody sues, the award is so large the company goes out of business and putting tens of thousands of folks out of work while at the same time not paying the settlement (because its a foriegn corporation allowing assets to be looted or sold off with proceeds going to creditors and investors who are ahead of the litigants on the food chain).

The there is the ripple effect caused by the immediate disruption of the oil market. Short term less oil coming in, prices go up. Long term less oil coming in because offshore drilling is either not happening or its costing much more for safety and insurence, prices go up. Longer term companies react in fear jacking up prices to increase cash flow to offset future accidents, etc....prices go up.

Frankly protecting the supply of oil at market prices to the entire country is more important then protecting the enviroment in the Gulf region. Its a tough choice and I know its hard to hear, but enviromental protection is a luxury...jobs, transportation, and industry for the entire nation must and should take precedence.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 5, 2010 11:10 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

protecting the supply of oil at market prices to the entire country is more important then protecting the enviroment in the Gulf region
To me, that's insane. We could have said "protecting logging is more important than trees"...protecting forests put a lot of people out of work, but if we hadn't, we'd have run out of trees anyway and THEN what would they do?

Same thing for oil. It'll be gone someday, no matter how much we squeeze out, but we still have to live here. What will we do then? To me, your attitude reflects a large part of the problem with energy today; we only think in the short term.

It's typical "I got mine, screw you". There's no more I can say without having to censor myself.


"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 5, 2010 12:10 PM

DREAMTROVE


Simple rule: you spill it, you clean it up. then you resell the oil, at a loss. Oh, btw, I know some folks here will enjoy this: The real culprit appears to be Halliburton, who build the seal which broke. They apparently circumvented safety measures to save time and money, resulting in disaster. I don't know how anyone would have known to expect that from HAL.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 12, 2010 1:51 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:


I explained the reasoning behind the law and noted it was valid reasoning. I agree that liability should be limited, but I think that is the role of the Jury and the Courts, not the Congress.



Sounds like a valid argument AGAINST tort reform. Thanks for agreeing with me.

Quote:


Lets say there is no limit, somebody sues, the award is so large the company goes out of business and putting tens of thousands of folks out of work while at the same time not paying the settlement (because its a foriegn corporation allowing assets to be looted or sold off with proceeds going to creditors and investors who are ahead of the litigants on the food chain).



So who pays for the cleanup and the damages? If a company is large enough to inflict so much damage, it seems maybe it should have to be insured and bonded to cover the damages. Or it shouldn't be allowed to exist. If it's too big to fail, or too big to clean up its mess, it shouldn't be allowed to exist.

And if paying for the cleanup drives such a company out of business, that's how the market is supposed to work, right?

And if you say you want the government to pitch in and pay for the cleanup, isn't that giving the company a BAILOUT?!

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 12, 2010 2:08 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

It is not a mystery that some constructs, such as a powerplant, a chemical plant, or an oil derrick pose a potential environmental hazard. This is known before the thing is constructed. I feel that before such a construct is put into place, the company constructing it should have a plan and a mechanism designed for dealing with an accidental contamination scenario. This should be in place and ready to go.

This is such a common-sense idea that when I see an accident like this, I can't fathom it. How could this oil be allowed to poison the environment for day after day after day? It boggles me that the designers did not have a workable plan in place before building the station.

I am a Trekkie, and there is a comic event that happens often in Trek, and all the fans laugh at its preposterousness. The preposterous event is as follows: A reactor malfunction occurs. Five types of safety backups fail, and the emergency antimatter flushing system also fails. The odds of the catastrophe are a billion to one, but it still happens every other season, at the demands of the plot.

It is comedy imbedded in drama.

The sad truth seems to be, however, that our industry does not have five types of safety backups that must fail before a catastrophe occurs. It seems they have just two modes: A) It works the way it's supposed to or B) We're all hosed.

The company which operates this oil platform should be fined into the ground for this catastrophe. Only when the costs of carelessness exceed the costs of care will any corporation bother with true engineering safety.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 12, 2010 2:27 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

The company which operates this oil platform should be fined into the ground for this catastrophe. Only when the costs of carelessness exceed the costs of care will any corporation bother with true engineering safety.



Well said, Anthony. Well said indeed.

I would expect "Hero" to counter that if the company is sued into oblivion, all those workers will be thrown out of work. I'd say that may be so, but that's the price THEY pay for closing their eyes to the dangers they ignore every day at work.

More info keeps coming out; seems these "blowout preventer" mechanisms have quite a tendency to fail - and nobody cares or thinks to do anything about it. Well, until it's far too late, of course.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 12, 2010 2:40 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I agree, Anthony. And yes, Halliburton is mixed up in all this mess, but of course they blame BP, who blames TransOcean, who blames Halliburton, and round and round and round we go, all fall down.

If a company is going to engage in an activity that might cost many, many others their jobs, seriously affect the food supply of America, destroy environments, etc., etc., they'd bloody well better be able to pay to clean it ALL up--otherwise, hell yeah they should go out of business! JMHO.

That goes for Wall Street firms and banks, too; there shouldn't ever be anything such as "too big to fail".

And they're still pushing it:





"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Elections; 2024
Wed, December 4, 2024 13:42 - 4886 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Wed, December 4, 2024 13:16 - 4813 posts
Is Elon Musk Nuts?
Wed, December 4, 2024 12:37 - 427 posts
Pardon all J6 Political Prisoners on Day One
Wed, December 4, 2024 12:31 - 7 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Wed, December 4, 2024 07:25 - 7538 posts
My Smartphone Was Ruining My Life. So I Quit. And you can, too.
Wed, December 4, 2024 06:10 - 3 posts
Thread of Trump Appointments / Other Changes of Scenery...
Tue, December 3, 2024 23:31 - 54 posts
Vox: Are progressive groups sinking Democrats' electoral chances?
Tue, December 3, 2024 21:37 - 1 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Tue, December 3, 2024 20:35 - 962 posts
Trump is a moron
Tue, December 3, 2024 20:16 - 13 posts
A thread for Democrats Only
Tue, December 3, 2024 11:39 - 6941 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Mon, December 2, 2024 21:22 - 302 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL