Author Topic: Deepwater Horizon  (Read 5638 times)

Offline Nerdsturm

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 590
    • View Profile
Re: Deepwater Horizon
« Reply #15 on: 15-05-2010, 05:05:17 »
People overstate this problem, or at least they shouldn't turn around and start opposing drilling over a single incident. Obviously this spill was very bad, but there has been offshore drilling for a long time, and this is the first notable accident I've ever heard of. You can't take a single accident as a sign that other rigs are at risk of causing spills.

Its like nuclear power, an accident would be terrible, but the 3-Mile-Island incident doesn't mean reactors in general are typically at any serious risk of an explosion. So long as it's regulated enough to keep out the type of misuse that caused the Chernobyl accident nuclear power is quite safe, even if there have a few accidents related to it.

I'm not saying regulators shouldn't figure out what the problem was(I've not heard anyone give a confident answer to what caused the explosion on the rig) and fix it on other rigs if necessary, but offshore drilling is still fine by me at this point.

Offline Zoologic

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4.141
  • In FH Since 0.67
    • View Profile
Re: Deepwater Horizon
« Reply #16 on: 15-05-2010, 06:05:51 »
Oddball you know the drilling company and their notorious safety culture in their US operations.

Just after that Texas oil refinery they operate got struck with disaster, now its their off-shore oil rig. For me, it's almost no surprise here.

Not to mention the "so-proclaim to be environmentally concerned" Australia. Their oil spills in Timor Sea, south of Indonesia greatly threatens our ocean. Yet it quickly snuff out from the spotlights, maybe because it was done be "so-environmentally concerned" Australia. This is sick... 2 major spills in less than a year. Somebody gonna improve the safety standards.

But let's take the spotlight back to here, another drilling company accidentally also tapped into seemingly endless well of oil sludge. The sludge mud literary wipes off nearly a dozens of villages and towns of East Java province map and 4 years on, it still continues to spill its gaseous mud, and polluting nearby rivers, producing cracks in further villages that sips out polluted water and methane gas (global-warming causing gas). The cause is still debatable whether the drilling company really "accidentally" drilled at the wrong place or it is caused by their negligence for the sake of saving cost.

Other than this, i agree with Nerdsturm's points here.

Offline Dukat

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4.041
    • View Profile
Re: Deepwater Horizon
« Reply #17 on: 23-05-2010, 23:05:21 »

I usually imagine my own sounds with it, like `tjunk, tupdieyupdiedee` aaa enemy spotted, ratatatataboom

Offline THeTA0123

  • The north remembers
  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 16.842
    • View Profile
Re: Deepwater Horizon
« Reply #18 on: 23-05-2010, 23:05:44 »
WHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
-i am fairly sure that if they took porn off the internet, there would only be one website left and it would be called bring back the porn "Perry cox, Scrubs.

Offline Admiral Donutz

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 901
  • Betatester
    • View Profile
Re: Deepwater Horizon
« Reply #19 on: 24-05-2010, 00:05:36 »
What did BP ever do wrong?

 (Stupid forumwon't parse the URL correctly so you'll have to copy/paste this in the adress bar)
Code: [Select]
http://dewerelddraaitdoor.vara.nl/Video-detail.628.0.html?&tx_ttnews[cat]=145&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=17103&tx_ttnews[month]=05&tx_ttnews[year]=2010&cHash=b1ec1e294e
 :P

Offline siben

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4.261
    • View Profile
Re: Deepwater Horizon
« Reply #20 on: 07-06-2010, 16:06:02 »
So, i am wondering, is anyone else keeping up with this? I just read a new article, and they say the leak is 4 000 000 liters of oil a day at the moment (according to BP) and when they cut off the piece of pipeline to have a better chance of recovering the oil the output increased, as expected, with 20% with the result that the extra flow of oil is about the same as the amount they can recover, so no change at all in the amount that is lost in the seawater. and to make it even better the ship can't keep up with the amounts of oil it is getting so it has to dump the exces back in the ocean (they open valves under water to get rid of the overpressure)

This is just getting ridiculous, this is the second time in only a few years a disaster happens in the US and nothing is being done about it, at least tell us the truth instead of the constant lies.

Offline DLFReporter

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 4.727
  • Betatesting FH2 makes me edgy...
    • View Profile
Re: Deepwater Horizon
« Reply #21 on: 07-06-2010, 16:06:19 »
People overstate this problem, or at least they shouldn't turn around and start opposing drilling over a single incident. Obviously this spill was very bad, but there has been offshore drilling for a long time, and this is the first notable accident I've ever heard of. You can't take a single accident as a sign that other rigs are at risk of causing spills.

In fact you can. The safety features are comparable.

There have been major spills all over the world in the past. Not always from Oil Rigs, I'll give you that, but they were and are still bad enough.

Exxon Valdez had finally lead to tankers getting a reinforced double hulls, which they didn't have prior to the accident.
Lets just hope that this disaster will have an effect on the way that deep sea drilling is managed.
Gravity is a habit that is hard to shake off

Offline Eat Uranium

  • Tea Drinker
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4.569
  • Today's news will contain [REDACTED]
    • View Profile
    • FH2 Music
Re: Deepwater Horizon
« Reply #22 on: 07-06-2010, 16:06:16 »
Taps might be a good place to start

Offline siben

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4.261
    • View Profile
Re: Deepwater Horizon
« Reply #23 on: 07-06-2010, 16:06:02 »
You can't take a single accident as a sign that other rigs are at risk of causing spills.

If you look at air crash investigation you will see that every crash makes aviation safer. A lot of resources are used to find and fix the cause of the crash.

Offline Dnarag1M

  • WoT Team
  • *
  • Posts: 1.068
  • Forgotten Hope Alliance
    • View Profile
    • mah website
Re: Deepwater Horizon
« Reply #24 on: 07-06-2010, 17:06:50 »
I dont understand why they dont just place 1000 KG of explosives on three or four sides of the valve, with a distance of say 10 meters (but this need serious calculating).

The pressure of the explosions will cause a major deformation in the exit hole/tube area and at worst minimize the diameter of the fissure, at best cause complete collapse.

I say just use excessive force to permanently seal that sucker up.

Offline siben

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4.261
    • View Profile
Re: Deepwater Horizon
« Reply #25 on: 07-06-2010, 17:06:35 »
I dont understand why they dont just place 1000 KG of explosives on three or four sides of the valve, with a distance of say 10 meters (but this need serious calculating).

The pressure of the explosions will cause a major deformation in the exit hole/tube area and at worst minimize the diameter of the fissure, at best cause complete collapse.

I say just use excessive force to permanently seal that sucker up.

What do you think 30 meters of loose rock will do what 1500m of water pressure can't? A 1000kg bomd is not even close to what you need for this, you want to seal the ground, melt it shut. And for that you need a massive bomb.

The Russians have successfully blocked gas wells in the past with explosives, nuclear explosives to be more precise. It worked 4 times, and failed once. But that was above ground, never under water and not with oil. And i doubt the use of nuclear weapons will be approved.

Tabloid-isch read for dutch speaking people about the subject.
http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/7179/Olieramp-Golf-van-Mexico/article/detail/1113563/2010/06/03/Een-kernbom-om-het-olielek-in-de-Golf-te-dichten-goed-idee-of-complete-waanzin.dhtml

Offline Nerdsturm

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 590
    • View Profile
Re: Deepwater Horizon
« Reply #26 on: 07-06-2010, 18:06:12 »
The problem with a bomb is if it fails to fix the problem, it will most likely make it a whole lot worse.


You can't take a single accident as a sign that other rigs are at risk of causing spills.

If you look at air crash investigation you will see that every crash makes aviation safer. A lot of resources are used to find and fix the cause of the crash.


Clearly that's not what I'm saying, in fact I specified that in the post you're quoting...
I'm not saying regulators shouldn't figure out what the problem was... and fix it on other rigs if necessary,

...I meant that you can't draw a pattern from a single point. Even if there was a chance of valve failing on every 1 in 10 million oil rigs you could still have a failure, however, in that case there would still not be any concern of a second failure since the probability of one would still be acceptably low. You would want to double check your analysis of the original part, but there would not necessarily be any reason to modify the design.

Offline siben

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4.261
    • View Profile
Re: Deepwater Horizon
« Reply #27 on: 07-06-2010, 18:06:38 »
The problem with a bomb is if it fails to fix the problem, it will most likely make it a whole lot worse.


You can't take a single accident as a sign that other rigs are at risk of causing spills.

If you look at air crash investigation you will see that every crash makes aviation safer. A lot of resources are used to find and fix the cause of the crash.


Clearly that's not what I'm saying, in fact I specified that in the post you're quoting...
I'm not saying regulators shouldn't figure out what the problem was... and fix it on other rigs if necessary,

...I meant that you can't draw a pattern from a single point. Even if there was a chance of valve failing on every 1 in 10 million oil rigs you could still have a failure, however, in that case there would still not be any concern of a second failure since the probability of one would still be acceptably low. You would want to double check your analysis of the original part, but there would not necessarily be any reason to modify the design.

Sorry, read you wrong, my fault. Should really get to bed, almost awake for 37 hours now.

Offline siben

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4.261
    • View Profile
Re: Deepwater Horizon
« Reply #28 on: 10-06-2010, 13:06:12 »
« Last Edit: 10-06-2010, 15:06:44 by siben »

Offline [130.Pz]S.Lainer

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.934
    • View Profile
    • 130th
Re: Deepwater Horizon
« Reply #29 on: 10-06-2010, 18:06:17 »
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jn_Jq2fUSnw

The video is meh but the youtube commentators make it all worthwhile.

Quote
OOOHHHH!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!
EVERYONE LOOK AT ME. I AM AN
ATTENTION WHORE SEA TURTLE
WASHING UP DEAD ON SHORE
BECAUSE I AM TOO FUCKING STUPID
TO SWIM AWAY FROM THE BLACK
CONSUMING HORRID SMELLING DEATH
VOID. ALL I DO IS FUCKING SWIM AND I CANT
EVEN DO IT EFFECTIVELY
ENOUGH TO SAVE MY LIFE.
I AM USELESS.
WAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!1111

fuck that
http://www.bfewaw.com/campaigns/waw24/promo/campaign/waw24banner1.png
The purpose of this deployment was to "annoy and defy the United States ... on her with Bofors 40 mm guns from a range of 650