Slashdot Mirror


How Bad Is the Gulf Coast Oil Spill?

Dasher42 writes "Claims are circulating on the Internet that the Coast Guard fears the Deepwater Horizon well has sprung two extra leaks, raising fears that all control over the release of oil at the site will be lost. The oil field, one of the largest ever discovered, could release 50,000 barrels a day into the ocean, with implications for marine life around the globe that are difficult to comprehend. So, considering that losing our oceanic life, with subsequent unraveling of our land-based ecosystems, is a far more possible apocalyptic scenario than a killer asteroid — what do we do about it?" Other readers have sent some interesting pictures of the spill. One set shows the Deepwater Horizon rig as it collapsed into the ocean. Others, from NASA, indicate that the spill's surface area now rivals that of Florida. The US government has indicated that it intends to require BP to foot the bill for the cleanup. And the Governator has just withdrawn support for drilling off the California coast.

30 of 913 comments (clear)

  1. Don't worry BP ... by macaulay805 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We will be footing the bill, not you. With higher gas prices that is.

    1. Re:Don't worry BP ... by AvitarX · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Better that the consumers of a product causing environmental destruction pay for it than everyone.

      It also makes the cost proportional to use.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    2. Re:Don't worry BP ... by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except they can't pass that cost on to the consumer, because they're still competing in a highly fungible market. Exxon isn't having this problem, Shell isn't having this problem - it's just BP. Which means that if BP raises its prices, people will buy gas from companies that don't have to deal with a multi-billion dollar clean-up.

      And if past Oil disasters are any indication, there are probably fines coming along as well. Along with bills related to government operations that had to deal with the spill.

      BP won't get off free here.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    3. Re:Don't worry BP ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh please, you act like we have a choice in whether or not plastic is in our lives. There is simply no choice with the way our economy is set up. Frankly, I do not demand petroleum products, but companies choose to wrap wrap their food or other products in it. I would be perfectly happy if it were covered in something else.

      Besides, plastic and polymers does NOT imply petroleum like you insinuate. It is perhaps easier to produce plastics by breaking down long hydrocarbon chains, but it is also possible to build them (or equivalent plastics) up from monomers not derived from petroleum.

      And how is calling and pushing for a shift to alternative fuels (algae, solar, wind) being complicit in petroleum use? Unfortunately this has been against a headwind of conservatives yelling "Drill, Baby Drill." Hopefully now everyone can see the huge environmental and economic problems that this drilling actually produces. There will always be people decrying any fuel source for some reason, but I think it should be obvious now that any disaster from a wind farm or solar power plant pales in comparison to an offshore oil disaster.

    4. Re:Don't worry BP ... by Stook · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's a mighty tall horse you're riding there...

      I don't think anyone can say they don't depend on oil for something in their life. Sure, there might be someone living in the mountains of Utah or something, but be realistic, we all need oil for something. I'll put my dependencies up against most anyone and bet I win. To say that our hands are just as dirty as BP though is a bit retarded.

      I'll take my share of the blame for demand, but as far as taking blame for the means, that's another story. It's not my fault if they opted to use the lowest bidder to increase profit margins. It's not my fault they decided to go way off-shore, into an unsafe location, rather than somewhere in the sand. It's not my fault that they had inefficient safety controls and it's not my fault that there are inadequate response measures in place.

      By your logic, we're also at fault for every vehicle recall that happens because the robot used by some manufacturer didn't tighten a bolt properly, all because we want a car. Just because I want something, doesn't mean I'm the cause for a breakdown in the process.

      BP messed up, and they need to own up to it, plain and simple.

    5. Re:Don't worry BP ... by SydShamino · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Good to see a Tu quoque fallacy still warrants a +5 Insightful here on the ol' Slashdots, though maybe it only works if you put a few random words in ALL CAPS.

      Of course your closing slippery slope fallacy just helps things along.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    6. Re:Don't worry BP ... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I know this is INCONVENIENT to the Anti-corporate, anti-petroleum, liberal crowd. But unless you live a life apart from petroleum based products, you're complicit in the oil spill, because without your demands for their product, BP would not be in the ocean drilling.

      It is inconvenient that modern society, including of course myself, requires so much assistance from petroleum products. But I deal with that fact, rather than take your implicit stance of "therefore being anti-corporate and anti-petroleum is stupid and wrong". I try to use less petroleum products. I drive a fuel-efficient car, I recycle plastic, and try to simply not use plastic where not necessary (e.g. bottled water).

      Yet because I live in modern society, and because I really, really like modern society and the things it brings -- for example, the ability for us to have this discussion -- I recognize that I am contributing to the problem. Being intelligent and responsible, this means I try to mitigate the problem as much as possible. Not wave my hands and say "well since I'm part of the problem, I can't legitimately claim to be part of the solution and ergo should not try". That's nonsense.

      So until you're completely removed from the benefits of petroleum based products (including many plastics), you're at least partially responsible for the problem.

      Indeed I am. And one of the ways I try to take responsibility for this fact is by voting for representatives who will regulate the oil companies to try to prevent this kind of ecological disaster, while pushing alternatives to oil for certain uses. The EPA et. al. are the mechanisms by which I try to have some agency in this situation. But many people, especially those financially invested, oppose these regulations vehemently. Some even argue that my stance is hypocritical because I argue against using massive amounts of oil yet use it myself, and therefore my position should be ignored and the status quo maintained.

      Are you really arguing that we're equally culpable?

      Of course, we can stop all off shore drilling completely and all drilling anywhere where we "care" about the "environment" but I think you'd be whining then about $100/gal gas prices and more of our money going to wacko religious nutjobs in the Middle East.

      Actually, you won't find me whining. Prices won't reach that high overnight, and as they rise people, even those who don't give a rats ass about the environment and will use any argument to justify not caring, will suddenly find themselves with the same motivation to reduce their oil usage. Just like what happened when gas hit $5/gal and SUV sales plummeted.

      We are switching off of oil eventually. The question is simply when, at what cost, under what terms (our own terms or fate's), and how many ecological disasters will occur as we try to delay the inevitable.

      In the meantime, you're right -- I'm responsible, you're responsible. So let's join forces and actually take the reigns of responsibility and work to prevent this from happening again!

      Oh but that wasn't your point now was it?

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    7. Re:Don't worry BP ... by SupremoMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't accept your argument that the better alternative to doing little good is doing nothing at all.

  2. Re:It's not really that bad by neogeographer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Then why are you posting anonymously? When Nixon signed all the current environmental laws in the 1970s, it was because pollution was so bad that it could not be denied as a figment of liberal media. And here comes another such event. Welcome to your worst nightmare. And mine.

  3. Oil Gusher by fyoder · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It really seems like an understatement to call this a 'spill', as though it were a limited quantity from an oil freighter or something. It's an underwater gusher. I knew it was a huge disaster when it was reported as such with the addendum of at least 30 days to fix. At least. How would they even fix something like that? Has anything like this been attempted before?

    --
    Loose lips lose spit.
    1. Re:Oil Gusher by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not on the seafloor I don't think. In Kuwait they used explosives, as I recall. That had its own special challenges as the Iraqis had lit the wells on fire, and the temperatures were tremendous. But it was still above water at normal atmospheric pressure for sea level. Doing any kind of complex operation 5,000 feet below the surface is damned tricky, and pretty much every plan has the disclaimer "We've never tried this before", which sort of translates into each plan being a trial balloon with no guarantee of any degree of success.

      It's pretty much a worst case scenario, but BP, and I suspect a whole lot of politicians, went out of their way to minimize the potential. But even if it is unlikely, the law of averages pretty much guarantees that the longer you do something, even if it has a relatively low risk, will eventually lead to a major disaster.

      I don't think anyone is quite sure why the explosion happened, but what's very clear is the fail safes failed. It may be a while before we know why, of course, but it does signal at least the possibility that insufficient precautions were put into play. It seems elementary to me that when you're designing such a drilling system, and realizing the vast pressure these oil deposits are under, that when operating in conditions that make fixing a gusher or blow out of some kind extremely difficult, you make damned good and sure your capping system is going to bloody well work.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  4. Re:Worse than nuclear fallout? by jdastrup · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Agreed. And unfortunate how most anti-nuclear arguments use Chernobyl as an example - we can build them so much safer today. Looks like the oil drilling technology hasn't come as far, while still capable of producing devastating effects for years to come.

  5. Alexander Higgins? by ZeBam.com · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why do we have to go through the slashdotted blog.alexanderhiggins.com to see images hosted at NASA? This is the dumbest thing so far this month.

    1. Re:Alexander Higgins? by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why do we have to go through the slashdotted blog.alexanderhiggins.com to see images hosted at NASA? This is the dumbest thing so far this month.

      Just wait and see what slashdot has in store for you during the rest of the month! Today is only the third day of the month - by the time the month is over that link won't look even remotely stupid.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  6. What to do about it? by PSandusky · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There are two ways of looking at what to do -- proximate and ultimate.

    In the proximate sense, one thing to do is volunteer time or supplies if you're in an affected area. I'm in Florida -- in my area, I know right now of Suncoast Seabird Sanctuary ( http://www.seabirdsanctuary.com/uploads/oil.pdf ) and Audubon Florida ( http://audubonoffloridanews.org/ ), which are each asking for volunteers, money, and/or supplies. Other organizations may be looking for help -- help if you can, spread the word even if you can't.

    In the ultimate sense, it's hard not to become reactionary to things like this. Clearly there's a need for some serious prevention, and however that comes about, it must. There are boycotts, letter writing campaigns, and the like, and while they may seem awfully pedestrian, the first step in each is something that's been needed for an exquisitely long time -- awareness. People don't tend to realize that the oceans are just downstream from everyone -- for example, just how many people do you think recognize the oil spill that dribbles into the Gulf every year from runoff into the Mississippi watershed? It's once people start to realize what's happening, what's important, and where changes need to happen that movement toward change occurs. Oil being the trigger word that it is these days, it's hard to say whether or not ocean health is foremost in people's minds. Building awareness -- even inland! -- is about getting it there.

    I don't know what the key is. Maybe it's kids asking whether the animals they love seeing at the aquarium are going to be lost because of the oil spill. Maybe it's fishermen who lose their livelihoods because their fisheries are either contaminated or outright destroyed. Maybe it's people who worked in tourism and sports industries that previously thrived on healthy beaches and coastal waters. Whatever that key is, some catalysis needs to happen soon, and it needs to start with people simply caring enough to understand and do something, wherever they are, however they can. Too much is at stake.

    --
    "What's the use in being grown up if you can't be childish sometimes?" --Fourth Doctor, "Robot"
  7. Re:Bad, but please don't overreact by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's not really over-reacting, things ARE pretty bad. I'm no marine biologist, but the last time I checked, most creatures have some variable level of tolerance when it comes to acidification and warming. That being said, we've still managed to kill a lot of creatures by affecting those changes. Ecosystems still have trouble recovering after a regular oil tanker spill.

    And I am not aware of any creature that was able to survive an oil spill without human aid. Now, normally aiding creatures is in the process of cleaning it up, but we haven't even hit that part yet, its still uncontained.

    How many creatures would normally migrate through the gulf but won't be able to this year? This is going to unbalance a lot more than just the gulf.

  8. Corporate Weaselspeak by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 4, Insightful

    An NPR interview this morning with a BP executive asked two simple questions:
    1. Are you responsible for the leak?
    2. Will you pay for the results of the leak?

    The response was along the lines of "We will cooperate with cleanup and containment efforts, and will pay any legitimate claims."
    I think this will be a long (decades?), dirty fight to hold BP accountable.

  9. Commodities... by RingDev · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If BP raises their prices, it opens the door for their competitors to under cut them.

    The price of oil will be set by the supply and demand of the other producers if BP raises it's price. The the other producers can't meet demand, the price will rise to BP's costs. If the can, then BP will be losing sales and income to them.

    -Rick

    --
    "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
  10. Re:It's not really that bad by DarkOx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think the supporters of offshore drilling, at least the intelligent ones, and I am not saying the "Drill Baby Drill" crowd was knew there would be serious accident eventually. Its just a common sense no matter what precautions you take if you engage in a fundamentally dangerous activity often enough eventually the odds will catch up with. Skiers break bones, drivers have accidents, nuclear reactors melt down or leak, coal mines collapse, drillers have spills, these things happen.

    We should do our best to learn what went wrong and our best to avoid it in the future but we must accept that this is a consequence of the life style we enjoy the rest of the time. Experience with other major spills shows us the environment will recover eventually. This is a tragedy and its going to impact some of us more than others. I bet though for every Gulf Coast fisherman or tour operator that gets put out of business there was AT LEAST one who was/is making a comfortable living in oil and gas. I think you also have to consider all the good in terms of quality of life cheap petroleum and energy in general has done our nation as whole and will no doubt continue to do. When you look at this in broad objective terms its hard for me to conclude it was not worth it. Maybe when all the consequences are known I will change my mind but for now lets be sensible and keep in mind the old saying "no pain no gain."

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  11. Re:Worse than nuclear fallout? by CityZen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Chernobyl could have been built much more safely than Chernobyl (was built). But it cost less to build it as they did.

    This particular oil rig could very likely have been built/operated more safely than it was. But who'll make BP do that?

    Similarly, oil pipelines can be very safe, but they have been operated very unsafely, with maintenance neglected until accidents happen. It turns out that it's cheaper that way, lawsuits and all.

    It's not a matter of what "we" can do. It's a matter of what government will actively regulate business to do. Business doesn't like regulation, and they often have more influence on lawmaking than "we" do. As long as no one pays much attention, they get their way.

  12. Maybe it's just what we need... by MpVpRb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    to finally convince people to support alternative energy.

  13. I think you overestimate the size of ships by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Insightful

    An individual tanker isn't all that large, at least in WW2. There is a reason we call modern tankers: super-tankers.

    It is like people who think CO2 emissions don't matter because volcanoes do it as well. Indeed they do, but have these people never heard of adding up. This spil comes on top of all the others. On top of the coral reefs already dying, on top of fish stocks already being over fished, on top of the plastic we have been dumping whole sale in to the ocean.

    Will this be the straw that killed the camels back? Hard to say, but if fishing is hurt then that means some areas need to pay more for their food then they do now and not everyone can afford that. Plus the replacement food will have to be grown somewhere else.

    And down the line, some fish migrate and others are dependent on long food chains. I don't know what grows in place X that is eaten in place Y that has an effect on populations in Z.

    This isn't about one tanker sinking with the oil inside. It is about tanker after tanker being emptied in one single spot with no way to end it so far except waiting for one of the biggest oil fields to run out. And that could be REALLY bad because according to the people who want to drill everywhere, oil doesn't run out.

    The apocalypse won't come in a flash of thunder, it will the eco-system slowly dying from being over-stressed. Less 2012, more YKK or Testament.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  14. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From what i understand it does happen. All the time.

    But theres a huge diffrence between a natural crack or fault covered with sediment and mud, often a pretty thick layer. And a nice large bore hole drilled right down to the oil.

    The 'natural' oil leaks take some time to filter up to the surface and many of the 'heavy' parts of the oil are trapped in the seabed and very little makes it to the ocean surface.

    And also in a natural leak you don't have an oil company pumping water or other waste down the hole to boost the pressure and bring the oil up.

  15. Re:...what do we do about it? by Odonian · · Score: 4, Insightful
    there is truth in your sarcasm, the earth will be just fine. It has endured worse. It has it's own systems to correct ecological imbalances, even ones like this. The problem is, for the earth, a few thousand years is considered instant healing.

    So no it's not the end of the world. But on our time scale, it could still be a disaster of unprecedented proportions that we will have to deal with through our lifetimes.

  16. What job? What calculations by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You seem to be thinking that the ocean needs to be saturated with oil for it to have an effect. Most of the ocean is already dead, always has been. The whole eco-system depends on a few rich spots to feed it. Why do you think so many sea live hold such epic migrations? Because they like it?

    How can a tiny bit of metal possibly kill a human being? Fine, let me stick a needle in your brain, see how long you last. Maybe a long time, maybe not long at all.

    Killing the eco-system doesn't have to be whole-sale slaughter. All you have to do is knock over one part of the food-chain. It doens't even have to mean the end of life in the ocean. The wrong algea start to grow out of control, and you have plenty of life, and also death at the same time.

    Will this be it? Well we better just bloody hope it isn't because else we are screwed. But the right wingers seem determined to keep trying to screw up until they finally really manage to screw us all.

    Gosh, off-shore drilling isn't safe. Irak doesn't have weapons of mass destruction. Banks do need goverment control. Are republicans even capable of saying "we were wrong"?

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  17. Re:This doesn't mean we should stop drilling. by SydShamino · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Do you really think more regulation of the oil industry was going to pass in 2004-2008?

    --
    It doesn't hurt to be nice.
  18. Re:Obama is LEFT wing?! by causality · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He's a corporatist. If you think he is left wing, you really have guzzled the Flavor-Aid.

    Both Left and Right are corporatist. They are merely two different brands of corporatism that use different approaches to achieve the same goal of statism. Pick the most "conservative" political candidate and pick the most "liberal" political candidate. Then do some research and look at their list of sponsors. See all the names they have in common? Why, it's almost as though the people who bankroll campaigns don't care who wins...

    The bickering about Left vs. Right is designed to distract attention away from what is actually happening. I wish I could recall and attribute the eloquent quote about our politics becoming more polar as our political parties become more homogeneous, for it's an accurate one. The distraction is all about divide and conquer. Like "bread and circus" or "thesis, antithesis, synthesis" it's an age-old tactic used by rulers and governments throughout history for the simple reason that it's effective. Here's why it works: the more time we waste blaming "the other party" for society's ills the less time we spend demanding more freedom in the form of minimal government.

    --
    It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  19. Re:It's not really that bad by causality · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah, it's gone up, but most of that has been due to autopilots put in place decades ago (mostly social security and medicare expanding faster than inflation). I don't see much actual support for new policies among politicians.

    What do you call the government-sponsored bailouts of various financial companies, or government expanding into the health-care insurance market? Or a few years prior to that, the federalization of airport security into the TSA, or the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, or the Patriot Act? If these are not (relatively) new policies I don't know what would qualify.

    --
    It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  20. Re:It's not really that bad by reboot246 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem is that there are "Progressives" in BOTH parties. It's not about left/right or liberal/conservative or even Republican/Democrat. Nixon, both Bushes, Carter and Obama were/are Progressives.

    Personally I believe that the government that governs best governs least.

  21. Re:It's not really that bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The huge mistake you make is in assuming that all forms of calamity can be warded off with proper planning. It's true that there's a heck of a lot that can be avoided with foresight and preparation. But a well-placed hurricane, bullet, love affair, or metastatic tumor can annihilate every one of those plans.

    I suspect you're the kind of personality that thrives on feeling like you're in control and have the moral high ground. And that's all very well and good up to a point, but:

    "The best laid schemes o' mice an' men
    Gang aft agley,
    An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain,
    For promis'd joy!"
    (Robert Burns)

    No matter how carefully you plan, it can all go to shit in an instant. And there's nothing you can do about it. EVER.

    So if your worldview depends on cognitive errors like the just-world fallacy, or blaming the victim...well, then you're almost guaranteed to spend your last days in a state of abject terror and despair. Good luck with that.