Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Ocean Endeavour: Feds NOT READY on Day 1
Author Message
WoodlandsOwl Offline
Up in the Woods
*

Posts: 11,813
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 115
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #1
Ocean Endeavour: Feds NOT READY on Day 1
That "long-legged mack daddy" lied.... or so it seems...

Despite plan, not a single fire boom on hand on Gulf Coast at time of oil spill

If U.S. officials had followed up on a 1994 response plan for a major Gulf oil spill, it is possible that the spill could have been kept under control and far from land.

The problem: The federal government did not have a single fire boom on hand.

The "In-Situ Burn" plan produced by federal agencies in 1994 calls for responding to a major oil spill in the Gulf with the immediate use of fire booms.

But in order to conduct a successful test burn eight days after the Deepwater Horizon well began releasing massive amounts of oil into the Gulf, officials had to purchase one from a company in Illinois.

When federal officials called, Elastec/American Marine, shipped the only boom it had in stock, Jeff Bohleber, chief financial officer for Elastec, said today.

At federal officials' behest, the company began calling customers in other countries and asking if the U.S. government could borrow their fire booms for a few days, he said.

A single fire boom being towed by two boats can burn up to 1,800 barrels of oil an hour, Bohleber said. That translates to 75,000 gallons an hour, raising the possibility that the spill could have been contained at the accident scene 100 miles from shore.

"They said this was the tool of last resort. No, this is absolutely the asset of first use. Get in there and start burning oil before the spill gets out of hand," Bohleber said. "If they had six or seven of these systems in place when this happened and got out there and started burning, it would have significantly lessened the amount of oil that got loose."

In the days after the rig sank, U.S Coast Guard Rear Admiral Mary Landry said the government had all the assets it needed. She did not discuss why officials waited more than a week to conduct a test burn. (Watch video footage of the test burn.)

At the time, former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration oil spill response coordinator Ron Gouguet -- who helped craft the 1994 plan -- told the Press-Register that officials had pre-approval for burning. "The whole reason the plan was created was so we could pull the trigger right away."

Gouguet speculated that burning could have captured 95 percent of the oil as it spilled from the well.

Bohleber said that his company was bringing several fire booms from South America, and he believed the National Response Center discovered that it had one in storage.

Each boom costs a few hundred thousand dollars, Bohleber said, declining to give a specific price.

Made of flame-retardant fabric, each boom has two pumps that push water through its 500-foot length. Two boats tow the U-shaped boom through an oil slick, gathering up about 75,000 gallons of oil at a time. That oil is dragged away from the larger spill, ignited and burns within an hour, he said.

The boom can be used as long as waves are below 3 feet, Bohleber said.

"Because of the complexity of the system and the obvious longer production time to build them, the emphasis is on obtaining and gathering the systems," he said.

Bohleber said his company has conducted numerous tests with the Coast Guard since 1993, and it is now training crews on the use of the boom so workers will be ready when they arrive.

"We're arranging for six to be shipped in. We keep running into delays. Hopefully, they will be here by Wednesday to be available for use on Thursday. Bear in mind, two days ago, we thought they would be here today." \

http://blog.al.com/live/2010/05/fire_boo...aines.html
05-03-2010 07:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #2
RE: Ocean Endeavour: Feds NOT READY on Day 1
If we had a cooperative attitude with government, oil companies, and special interests working together to develop resources rationally--like Norway, to give an example--things like this and acoustic triggers for BOPs and other safety devices would have been in place and available immediately. The inverted teacup dome that may provide a solution could be fabricated and available, too. This could have been a much less serious event.

But that's not the way we do things here--and so we get this as a result.

The answer is not to abandon offshore drilling, but to do it in a way that prevents preventable errors. And this was a preventable error.

Nobody was ready on day one. It costs money to be ready on day one. It costs a lot more money
NOT to be ready on day one.
05-03-2010 07:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,279
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1284
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #3
RE: Ocean Endeavour: Feds NOT READY on Day 1
This is a failure of MASSIVE proportions...

and while you "blame" the top... meaning Clinton, Bush and Obama... The fault lies with Congress. Every damn one of them
05-03-2010 08:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
smn1256 Offline
I miss Tripster
*

Posts: 28,878
Joined: Apr 2008
Reputation: 337
I Root For: Lower taxes
Location: North Mexico
Post: #4
RE: Ocean Endeavour: Feds NOT READY on Day 1
(05-03-2010 08:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  This is a failure of MASSIVE proportions...

and while you "blame" the top... meaning Clinton, Bush and Obama... The fault lies with Congress. Every damn one of them

Per Rahm Emanuel, never waste a good crisis. Bush got slammed for Katrina even though the mayor of NO and the state were dems. Obama has got to take the hit on this, the precedent was already set.
05-03-2010 08:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #5
RE: Ocean Endeavour: Feds NOT READY on Day 1
Actually it took so long to respond because we are ill-prepared to respond. Just like Katrina. And it's not just a Louisiana thing.

What we need to do is recognize that we need to drill. It's actually less risky to drill than to bring in tankers. But drilling is not without risks. Those risks can be mitigated. Have an acoustic trigger for the BOP (rig workers don't like them because sometimes they trip inadvertently, but that's just something they can put up with). Have equipment to burn off the oil ready to go in sufficient quantities. Mobilize immediately when there is a potential or actual problem. All this costs money, and that means gasoline will cost more at the pump. That's money well spent. The oil companies can pay for their part and recover it through higher prices. The government can pay for their part and recover it through gasoline taxes. This problem can be solved--but not the way we are approaching it now.
05-03-2010 09:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,279
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1284
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #6
RE: Ocean Endeavour: Feds NOT READY on Day 1
a few hundred thousand dollars each. We'll spend more than that washing oil off of grackels... 1800 barrels/hr... 43,000 bb/day EACH ONE.

this REALLY pisses me off
05-03-2010 09:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RobertN Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 35,485
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation: 95
I Root For: THE NIU Huskies
Location: Wayne's World
Post: #7
RE: Ocean Endeavour: Feds NOT READY on Day 1
From what I heard, BP was supposed to have enough equipment for a major spill and they were originally supposed to do the containment. I think BP may have been negligent in not informing the government that it was beyond their capacity in a reasonable time. Having said that, I do believe that we had the info from satellites that should have told the government it was out of control and should have moved in sooner.
05-04-2010 12:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NIU007 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 34,241
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 315
I Root For: NIU, MAC
Location: Naperville, IL
Post: #8
RE: Ocean Endeavour: Feds NOT READY on Day 1
You guys want laissez-faire capitalism but then when a company screws up, the government is supposed to instantly fix it? BP, not the government, should have had the equipment on hand in case of emergency. Did they just assume that an incident couldn't happen?
05-04-2010 11:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #9
RE: Ocean Endeavour: Feds NOT READY on Day 1
(05-04-2010 11:01 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  You guys want laissez-faire capitalism but then when a company screws up, the government is supposed to instantly fix it? BP, not the government, should have had the equipment on hand in case of emergency. Did they just assume that an incident couldn't happen?

Actually, there should be a mix.

Some things should be present at each platform/well. The acoustic triggers for BOPs are one example of that.

Some things should be present on a pool basis to support all operations in an area. Equipment to facilitate burning off oil spills would be an example. You need certain items on an area basis, but providing for each individual well is unnecessarily redundant and expensive.

One problem is that it's hard to get sensible planning out of what is an adversarial system. That's a big problem across the board for environmental issues. But then again, our environmental protection system is designed more to protect the jobs of environmental lawyers and consultants than to protect the environment.

In a cooperative model, like Norway, oil companies wouldn't have the same incentives to understate risks, and green interests wouldn't have the same incentives to overstate risks, as exist under our current system. It would be far more useful if we could approach the problem from the standpoint of we need 20 million barrels a day, now what is a realistic number for how much we can reduce that through conservation and alternatives, so then we need 19 million barrels a day, so where is the lowest risk and least expensive place to get those barrels, and what safeguards need to be in place to minimize those risks? But in an adversarial system, all stakeholders are necessarily more interested in serving their parochial interests than in getting the right answer, and that makes getting to the right answer more difficult.

Adversarial systems work very well to figure out who murdered the dead person. They do a much worse job of sorting out appropriate policies.
05-04-2010 11:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Brookes Owl Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,965
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 165
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:

The Parliament AwardsCrappiesDonators
Post: #10
RE: Ocean Endeavour: Feds NOT READY on Day 1
(05-04-2010 11:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  One problem is that it's hard to get sensible planning out of what is an adversarial system. That's a big problem across the board for environmental issues. But then again, our environmental protection system is designed more to protect the jobs of environmental lawyers and consultants than to protect the environment.

Preach on Brother! Hey, weren't you one of 'em?
05-04-2010 12:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NIU007 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 34,241
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 315
I Root For: NIU, MAC
Location: Naperville, IL
Post: #11
RE: Ocean Endeavour: Feds NOT READY on Day 1
(05-04-2010 11:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(05-04-2010 11:01 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  You guys want laissez-faire capitalism but then when a company screws up, the government is supposed to instantly fix it? BP, not the government, should have had the equipment on hand in case of emergency. Did they just assume that an incident couldn't happen?

Actually, there should be a mix.

Some things should be present at each platform/well. The acoustic triggers for BOPs are one example of that.

Some things should be present on a pool basis to support all operations in an area. Equipment to facilitate burning off oil spills would be an example. You need certain items on an area basis, but providing for each individual well is unnecessarily redundant and expensive.

One problem is that it's hard to get sensible planning out of what is an adversarial system. That's a big problem across the board for environmental issues. But then again, our environmental protection system is designed more to protect the jobs of environmental lawyers and consultants than to protect the environment.

In a cooperative model, like Norway, oil companies wouldn't have the same incentives to understate risks, and green interests wouldn't have the same incentives to overstate risks, as exist under our current system. It would be far more useful if we could approach the problem from the standpoint of we need 20 million barrels a day, now what is a realistic number for how much we can reduce that through conservation and alternatives, so then we need 19 million barrels a day, so where is the lowest risk and least expensive place to get those barrels, and what safeguards need to be in place to minimize those risks? But in an adversarial system, all stakeholders are necessarily more interested in serving their parochial interests than in getting the right answer, and that makes getting to the right answer more difficult.

Adversarial systems work very well to figure out who murdered the dead person. They do a much worse job of sorting out appropriate policies.

As long as the cost is borne by the company (or companies), I'm fine with that. The government shouldn't need to keep equipment on hand for that. If the oil companies need to form an association to cover expenses like that for their members when the cost is prohibitive for one company, fine. Otherwise, the cost of environmental cleanups (and prevention) is not included in the price of oil.
05-04-2010 03:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Ninerfan1 Offline
Habitual Line Stepper
*

Posts: 9,871
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 146
I Root For: Charlotte
Location:
Post: #12
RE: Ocean Endeavour: Feds NOT READY on Day 1
Obama failed to act because the gulf is filled with White Marlin. Had there been Black Marlin in the gulf he would have gotten engaged.
05-04-2010 03:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #13
RE: Ocean Endeavour: Feds NOT READY on Day 1
(05-04-2010 03:14 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  
(05-04-2010 11:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(05-04-2010 11:01 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  You guys want laissez-faire capitalism but then when a company screws up, the government is supposed to instantly fix it? BP, not the government, should have had the equipment on hand in case of emergency. Did they just assume that an incident couldn't happen?
Actually, there should be a mix.
Some things should be present at each platform/well. The acoustic triggers for BOPs are one example of that.
Some things should be present on a pool basis to support all operations in an area. Equipment to facilitate burning off oil spills would be an example. You need certain items on an area basis, but providing for each individual well is unnecessarily redundant and expensive.
One problem is that it's hard to get sensible planning out of what is an adversarial system. That's a big problem across the board for environmental issues. But then again, our environmental protection system is designed more to protect the jobs of environmental lawyers and consultants than to protect the environment.
In a cooperative model, like Norway, oil companies wouldn't have the same incentives to understate risks, and green interests wouldn't have the same incentives to overstate risks, as exist under our current system. It would be far more useful if we could approach the problem from the standpoint of we need 20 million barrels a day, now what is a realistic number for how much we can reduce that through conservation and alternatives, so then we need 19 million barrels a day, so where is the lowest risk and least expensive place to get those barrels, and what safeguards need to be in place to minimize those risks? But in an adversarial system, all stakeholders are necessarily more interested in serving their parochial interests than in getting the right answer, and that makes getting to the right answer more difficult.
Adversarial systems work very well to figure out who murdered the dead person. They do a much worse job of sorting out appropriate policies.
As long as the cost is borne by the company (or companies), I'm fine with that. The government shouldn't need to keep equipment on hand for that. If the oil companies need to form an association to cover expenses like that for their members when the cost is prohibitive for one company, fine. Otherwise, the cost of environmental cleanups (and prevention) is not included in the price of oil.

Forming an association would work as well. Either way the cost is never going to be borne by the companies. It will be passed through in the price of gasoline, diesel, lube oil, and other products. Given your last sentence, I assume you're fine with that. So am I. We're way underpaying for gasoline and diesel as it is; these costs should be included. But that requires a rational system, and nothing about energy in the US today is rational.
05-04-2010 03:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #14
RE: Ocean Endeavour: Feds NOT READY on Day 1
(05-04-2010 12:28 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  
(05-04-2010 11:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  One problem is that it's hard to get sensible planning out of what is an adversarial system. That's a big problem across the board for environmental issues. But then again, our environmental protection system is designed more to protect the jobs of environmental lawyers and consultants than to protect the environment.

Preach on Brother! Hey, weren't you one of 'em?

At various times, I was each of them. Consultant first, later attorney.

It really is a counterproductive system. But it's the one we have.
05-04-2010 03:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,279
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1284
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #15
RE: Ocean Endeavour: Feds NOT READY on Day 1
(05-04-2010 03:14 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  
(05-04-2010 11:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(05-04-2010 11:01 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  You guys want laissez-faire capitalism but then when a company screws up, the government is supposed to instantly fix it? BP, not the government, should have had the equipment on hand in case of emergency. Did they just assume that an incident couldn't happen?

Actually, there should be a mix.

Some things should be present at each platform/well. The acoustic triggers for BOPs are one example of that.

Some things should be present on a pool basis to support all operations in an area. Equipment to facilitate burning off oil spills would be an example. You need certain items on an area basis, but providing for each individual well is unnecessarily redundant and expensive.

One problem is that it's hard to get sensible planning out of what is an adversarial system. That's a big problem across the board for environmental issues. But then again, our environmental protection system is designed more to protect the jobs of environmental lawyers and consultants than to protect the environment.

In a cooperative model, like Norway, oil companies wouldn't have the same incentives to understate risks, and green interests wouldn't have the same incentives to overstate risks, as exist under our current system. It would be far more useful if we could approach the problem from the standpoint of we need 20 million barrels a day, now what is a realistic number for how much we can reduce that through conservation and alternatives, so then we need 19 million barrels a day, so where is the lowest risk and least expensive place to get those barrels, and what safeguards need to be in place to minimize those risks? But in an adversarial system, all stakeholders are necessarily more interested in serving their parochial interests than in getting the right answer, and that makes getting to the right answer more difficult.

Adversarial systems work very well to figure out who murdered the dead person. They do a much worse job of sorting out appropriate policies.

As long as the cost is borne by the company (or companies), I'm fine with that. The government shouldn't need to keep equipment on hand for that. If the oil companies need to form an association to cover expenses like that for their members when the cost is prohibitive for one company, fine. Otherwise, the cost of environmental cleanups (and prevention) is not included in the price of oil.


The government was told by its own task force that this was a potential problem and these could help...,. and they only cost a few hundred thousand each. a Million or two would have purchased enough of these to keep this, the Exxon Valdez and any other potential disaster from being a disaster. The government should have them just like we have military craft and ice breakers and power barges... or have emergency lease contracts with companies to have them... because the risk isn't to BP, it's to the US. If they want to charge some surcharge of $2mm + maintenenace costs (which would amount to about $0.000004/gal) to the oil leases, or my gas, no problem. Make BP pay for the USE of the equipment... it's transportation and manning... but HAVE the damn things your own task force told you you needed!!!

We spend $2byn/yr on investigating monkey mating rituals... we're talking about spending $2byn (or much less) on something that probably has a 10+yr expected life and would save our coastlines. 1 disaster over the life of the equipment and it would have paid for itself.
(This post was last modified: 05-04-2010 04:10 PM by Hambone10.)
05-04-2010 04:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Brookes Owl Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,965
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 165
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:

The Parliament AwardsCrappiesDonators
Post: #16
RE: Ocean Endeavour: Feds NOT READY on Day 1
(05-04-2010 03:48 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(05-04-2010 12:28 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  
(05-04-2010 11:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  One problem is that it's hard to get sensible planning out of what is an adversarial system. That's a big problem across the board for environmental issues. But then again, our environmental protection system is designed more to protect the jobs of environmental lawyers and consultants than to protect the environment.

Preach on Brother! Hey, weren't you one of 'em?

At various times, I was each of them. Consultant first, later attorney.

It really is a counterproductive system. But it's the one we have.

I'm in the middle of it myself. Hard to get too critical, as it's paying my bills. On the other hand, it's not the private sector consultants who are getting the ridiculous contracts. Just the opposite for attorneys, as far as I can tell.
05-04-2010 05:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SumOfAllFears Offline
Grim Reaper of Misguided Liberal Souls
*

Posts: 18,213
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation: 58
I Root For: America
Location:
Post: #17
RE: Ocean Endeavour: Feds NOT READY on Day 1
I guess you'll agree, lawyers are remain the biggest threat to common sense solutions.
05-05-2010 12:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Jugnaut Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,874
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 482
I Root For: UCF
Location: Florida
Post: #18
RE: Ocean Endeavour: Feds NOT READY on Day 1
(05-05-2010 12:06 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  I guess you'll agree, lawyers are remain the biggest threat to common sense solutions.

Lawyers will be the reason why accidents become less common. Suing make people behave better. Do you think there would be any safety devices if you couldn't be sued for not having one?
05-05-2010 07:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.