Slashdot Mirror


How the Biggest, Most Expensive Oil Spill In History Changed Almost Nothing

merbs writes: Tthe biggest oil spill in US history, despite incurring the largest environmental fine on the books—$18.7 billion, handed down this month—has done almost nothing to change the nation's relationship to oil. Five years after the spill, and, by BP's count, $54 billion in projected total expenses, there have been no serious legislative efforts to improve the oversight or regulation of the United States' still-expanding offshore oil operations. Public opinion of deepwater drilling barely budged during the ordeal; today, a majority of Americans favor doing even more of it.

27 of 195 comments (clear)

  1. Country run by oil barons does nothing!!! by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Country run by oil barons does nothing when there's an oil problem!?!

    Film at 11.

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:Country run by oil barons does nothing!!! by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Informative

      PS: Fracking is being given a totally free pass too!

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:Country run by oil barons does nothing!!! by tiberus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And investment in [,,,] clean-nuclear [...]

      Clean nuclear, doesn't nuclear fuel have a pesky rather long term disposal issue? Granted I'd never heard of using Thorium as a fuel before but, I don't get a warm fuzzy about the use of 'er' in cleaner and safer.

    3. Re:Country run by oil barons does nothing!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Since oil is environmentally harmful, removing it from the environment is exactly what we should do. So, I think we should continue to drill for oil, extract it from the environment, and then of course use it up so there is no risk of it re-entering the environment.

      Plus, I like cheap power.

    4. Re:Country run by oil barons does nothing!!! by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

      PS: Fracking is being given a totally free pass too!

      Frelling too, or are we talking about something else?

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    5. Re:Country run by oil barons does nothing!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Maybe he should have said almost clean. Generation IV nuclear reactors don't solve the waste problem but they dig into. They produce much less waste and can use waste from older reactors. The waste that is produced has a greatly reduced half-life as compared to current reactor waste. The big bonus is they have a really hard time melting down since they don't need a continuous water supply to cool. It's what we should have been investing in until renewables are advanced enough to take over.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor

    6. Re:Country run by oil barons does nothing!!! by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      It does, but it produces very little of that waste. Little enough that 'bury and forget' is a viable disposal method. You just need a deep enough hole. The problem seems to be that everyone wishes for that hole to be somewhere else.

    7. Re:Country run by oil barons does nothing!!! by Firethorn · · Score: 2

      In about 500 years it will be less radioactive than the ore from with it was originally mined. If you don't think that is "good enough", then please explain why.

      To get technical with it, in order for the waste to be less radioactive than the ore it was mined from, you'd need to be reprocessing and/or using breeder reactors to take out and burn all the long-life isotopes. This leaves you with *intensely* radioactive waste, but the thing with very radioactive materials is that it means that the material has a short half-life and thus doesn't last as long.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    8. Re:Country run by oil barons does nothing!!! by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      I've got to hand it to the oil cartels: Telling the USA they'll have to drive tiny little cars if they want to save the planet was a smart piece of advertising.

      It's not true though. You can knock a few liters off the engine in your SUV and get about the same power just by remapping the ECU. Rev the engine a bit instead, maybe add a turbo, you'll pull away from the lights just as well as before. Trying to produce big torque from a gasoline the engine running at 1500RPM is just a stupid waste of gasoline.

      PS: SUVs and pick-ups would actually feel _better_ with diesel engines - and you'd halve the fuel consumption.

      --
      No sig today...
    9. Re:Country run by oil barons does nothing!!! by Joce640k · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's what we should have been investing in until renewables are advanced enough to take over.

      But hey, we got the F35 instead. Winner!

      --
      No sig today...
    10. Re:Country run by oil barons does nothing!!! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      I'd rather reprocess.

      For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, obvious, and wrong. Reprocessing is an expensive, dirty process, that causes a lot more problems than it solves. It may make more sense in the future, when robotics and other technologies are more advanced.

    11. Re:Country run by oil barons does nothing!!! by whathappenedtomonday · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Just bury the waste. Well, if it is that easy, why does no country in the world have a permanent solution for their waste? If just burying it is good enough, why does nobody do it? Hint: it's hard to do it safely, given the half life periods involved, since we're talking about 10,000 to 1,000,000 years, and I'd rather not touch those 500 years you mention, because you pulled that number out of a smelly place. Also, the article is talking about the problems arising from handling crude oil. Looks like we can't even handle that safely enough. What makes you think we can handle nuclear waste safely for long periods of time? Just do x and y won't be a problem. I just love that approach. We might discuss nuclear if it weren't for such utter "rational" BS.

      --
      I hope I didn't brain my damage.
    12. Re:Country run by oil barons does nothing!!! by whathappenedtomonday · · Score: 2

      Politics.

      Countries like Russia and the likes probably don't care much about their population's irrational fears and would much rather present a solution, if only for the "Ha ha!" aspect of it. Instead, they dumped their waste in the seas, creating more risks and, eventually, costs. You reiterate your "just do x" mantra and ignore the fact that short term as well as long term storage is extremely complicated and very expensive if done properly. "Future tech y will solve all problems" is not helpful either. Keep ignoring the fact that we can't even handle crude safely enough not to pollute the environment repeatedly. Radioactivity is not primarily scary, it's a risk that must be dealt with accordingly, and your posts illustrate why this is unlikely to happen, because your "just don't spill it" approach cost "by BP's count, $54 billion in projected total expenses".

      --
      I hope I didn't brain my damage.
    13. Re:Country run by oil barons does nothing!!! by riverat1 · · Score: 2

      And investment in renewables and clean-nuclear is almost non-existent. Color me shocked!

      I'll be more interested in nuclear power when it shows it can compete economically with other forms of energy production including all life-cycle costs.

    14. Re:Country run by oil barons does nothing!!! by JabberWokky · · Score: 2

      Big words for a guy whose own figures are off by 8 years.

      I hate to say it, but not only are your figures are quite off, you have fallen into the specific trap of misguided thinking that both I and the comment I was responding to was making.

      The level of technology reflected in a design is determined by the date the thing was *built*, not when it finally failed. Going to the comment I was replying to, you have just implied that an antique Studebaker that crashed this year represents the cars of 2015, and thus all current cars are unsafe as they lack air bags, seat belts, and crumple zones (in the last few years of the company they added the new innovation of the roll bar to the Studebaker Avanti, but most lacked even that).

      The Hindenberg was built 79 years ago and crashed 78 years ago. It was built with technology of 79 years ago, not the technology of the following year when it crashed. There's a five year wonkiness in there involving bankruptcy and Nazi funding, but I went with the date of completion rather than the laying of the keel to match the other figure.

      Chernobyl's reactors were designed, built and then the first came online in 1977. As they were all designed at the same time and built in a short period of a few years, they presumably all reflected the technology of that year, 37 years ago. When the disaster happened, they were not the technology of 1986, any more than that hypothetical crashed Studebaker reflects this year's car safety standards, even if you do safety retrofitting: that gets you seatbelts, but not some really fundamental things like crumple zones, roll bars and countless other basic improvements made to personal vehicle technology.

      Which, if you'll read the comment I was responding to, was *exactly* the point being made, the one I was echoing, and the trap of thinking you fell into when reading my comment. That does indicate how pernicious an issue it is.

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
  2. It changed something all right by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nobody wants to eat anything that comes out of the gulf

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  3. Sure, I favor doing more of it by bondsbw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Public opinion of deepwater drilling barely budged during the ordeal; today, a majority of Americans favor doing even more of it.

    In light of all the rockets that have exploded and astronauts killed over the years, I favor doing even more space exploration.

    Just because something is unsafe, doesn't mean I want to stop doing it. Sometimes it's worth doing so long as it can be done more safely.

    --
    All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    1. Re:Sure, I favor doing more of it by nine-times · · Score: 2

      Sorry, but you're not quite right. I mean, to some extent language means whatever you understand it to mean, so whatever. But in the conventional meaning, "In consideration of" does imply a sort of causal link.

      The phrase "in consideration of" implies that the phrase is going to be followed by a conclusion from that consideration. If I say, "In consideration of X, I believe Y," then you're saying essentially the same thing as, "Thinking about X has lead me to conclude Y."

      "Thinking how space exploration kills astronauts has lead me to conclude that we should continue space exploration," isn't explicitly saying that you think killing astronauts is a good thing, but it's strongly implied.

    2. Re:Sure, I favor doing more of it by bondsbw · · Score: 2

      If I say, "In consideration of X, I believe Y," then you're saying essentially the same thing as, "Thinking about X has lead me to conclude Y."

      Or it isn't, because that's not what I said.

      Is the person who has trouble with language the one who utilizes accepted vocabulary, or the one who does not?

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
  4. Re:Business as usual under the US Gov't by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 4, Informative

    We've had plenty of significant events happen in the past couple decades. One and only one - 9/11 - changed how the government does anything.

    Yeah, and it only changed how the government did anything by making things worse. Now we're subjected to illegal searches, detainment, etc. by an incompetent bureaucracy that has stopped exactly 0 terrorist plots and misses over 95% of banned items in its screenings. Hopefully these aren't the kinds of changes you'd like to see with the oil industry as well.

    --
    Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
  5. Why change? by Pollux · · Score: 3

    The American lifestyle is no different. We need oil. We drive vehicles that burn gas. We need asphalt to pave our roads. We fly in airplanes that burn jet fuel. We depend on plastics to make everything that exists in our lives. In order to buy everything, we need it shipped from half-way around the world in freighters that burn diesel and in trains to get it across the United States. Practically everything that makes our modern lives modern depends on petrochemicals. If you want a more thorough list, go here.

    We won't give up on oil until we run out.

  6. Re:Wait for the government suckers. by ganjadude · · Score: 3, Insightful

    as opposed to pro government people who see something and say see??? of only we had more power we could have fixed it!!! (ignoring the horrible track record our government has at making things betteR)

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  7. Re:Contrary Opinion by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

    Worst oil spill in history. Nature sucked it up. Hard to find signs.

    It changed things, we don't have to be nearly as paranoid. The worst case scenario already happened and wasn't that bad.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  8. it's not just the oil barons by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Interesting

    After 20 years of Karl Rove and Fox News a sizable number of Americans are opposed to any regulation. Rand Paul (or maybe his dad) argued that instead of govt regs you let the folks who own the contaminated land Sue for damages. If it's international waters I guess you'd have to prove your land was contaminated...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  9. Are you sure something needed to change? by towermac · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Nothing can just be an accident, can it? Someone screwed you over somewhere...

    They are getting away with it, and again, Congress does nothing. (Well except the initial authorization to manage deep sea drilling, and those managers now require use of an improved version of the wellhead thing that broke) But other than that, nothing!

    Something must be done! Will no one think of the children?

  10. Re:Business as usual under the US Gov't by houghi · · Score: 2

    So vote with your wallet. Buy cars that are more fuel efficient instead of big and powerfull. Use less electricity by moving away from areas where you are forced to use an airco. Build houses that need less energy.

    While you are at it, stop the nuts in California (Talking about the Almonds). Start using public transport. Yes, it will cost more of your time, but demand will increase supply.

    Start drinking tap water. Buy less shit that you do not need and is basicaly made from plastic that is made from oil.

    Oh, and vote against lobbying. And no, even when Sanders wins and is able to do what he wants to do (and promises to do) this will NOT be solved with one election. Not even with 2 or 3. It is a LONG continues struggle.

    But it all mostly boils down to this: https://henrytapper.files.word...

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  11. The article is deeply flawed. by whit3 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The Deepwater Horizon accident caused loss of life, loss of expensive equipment, bad publicity, fines, and payment of significant damages. BP corporate interests were heavily impacted, and it's hard to imagine that any US regulatory change would focus more attention on safety and efficiency in future drilling.

    Hey, the US doesn't OWN all of 'offshore', or even Gulf of Mexico, you know! If BP wanted to do something silly again, they could dodge any and all regulation, by simple selection of a foreign drilling site.

    But, BP won't do something silly again. Not for a long time. BP will, for purely profit-seeking reasons, manage better in future. BP employees, for their own personal safety, will be more inclined to caution and prudence.

    The best thing the US government can do, is to insist on full disclosure of any and all safety-related information, that could be of use in future planning (including regulation) by any and all persons, anywhere in the world, The courts (not regulators, not legislators) did perform that function, I hope adequately. BP cooperated, responsibly (IMHO).

    The author of the article clearly wants restrictions on 'them', as a kind of punishment for a criime, even if it means some kind of ex-post-facto criminalization. He's missing the productive possibility of doing things better, because he wants to see someone's time wasted in a public pillory.