That's the funny thing..$5 million and they cheap out. That's F*CKING pocket change to them.

Why would you spend 5 million on a product that.
1. You are not legally required to have.
2. Will not serve any purpose unless you have a disaster.
3. Only protects against the failure of a device that is considered a failsafe mechanism

How would you justify this in a business case to your superiors?

jet, this is where people have to quit being bound to MONEY and start having morals again. it's not because it isn't legally required, but it is the right thing to do. it is an insurance plan to prevent massive catastrophy like we are seeing today. yes, this is a somewhat isolated incident, but everyone in the oil business knows the dangers, because there have been MANY many deaths due to the exploration, pumping and refining of oil. you put the $5 million blowout preventer in to save human lives (11 in this case, many more in past offshore accidents) and to save the economy and food supply of the families of your employees and those in their communities. $5 million is nothing to a company that made $10 BILLION in profit between 4th quarter 2009 and 1st quarter 2010. AND $5 million is nothing compared to the billions they will spend cleaning up this mess and the millions/billions lost by the fishing/shellfishing and tourism industries. start doing the right things, not just the cheap or easy things.

*EDIT: so i did a quick calc based on $10 billion in 6 months, BP makes roughly $2 million in profit per hour.

Sad part is this society will learn nothing from this, we will be dependant on fossil fuels untill we can't find anymore.
I know this country is capitolistic, but by giving these oil companies free reign shows a complete lack of any modern ideas of ethics. This sorta thing was bound to happen sometime, I don't beleive they knew how deep the well was or the kind of pressure it would put out. Now all BP wants is to make as much money as they can so they dont give a F*CK about stopping it. Now we (society) get the bill. And rightfully so, we put those people in the position they are in, if you have ever drove a car you have supported the oil companies. Society's lust for profit has caused severe damage to the world that will be felt and dealt with for many years to come.

Because of times like these. Like they said, it's pocket change to them. Spend 5 million to save 15 billion.

First, I want to say that I quit CSS to take time to respond to this thread. Now that that is said.

Fomenta's views:
1. Neither BP nor the Obama administration have an interest in stopping the oil leak. (Well BP does, but not in any way that will risk the future production capability of the rig)
2. Because the oil companies were forced to drill offshore, the leak is now 1 mile under the ocean. If they were allowed to drill domestically, the leak would be considerably easier to stop.
3. BP will not be responsible for paying for the damage caused by the oil leak.
4. The American people will end up paying for it.
5. Shredder is right.
6. Dirtbag is right.
7. Canaboid is a moron.
8. Gasoline Engines were the obvious choice for many reasons when first designed.
9. Gasoline Engines are still the way to go (sorry hippies) and will be for the considerable future.
10. If you disagree with any of the following:
a) The US has contributed more to the technological advancement of the world since its inception than any other country.
b) Drilling for oil in the US and by US companies is good.
c) Electric cars are not a feasible alternative for the mass market today and won't be for at least 25 years, but I'd say more like 50.
... then you are wrong.

If you think I am wrong, state your case, but be prepared for an essay.

fomenta, i'm curious as to why you think oil companies were forced to drill offshore. i'm not asking because i necessarily believe you are wrong, but i've never heard anyone (until this thread) say they were forced to drill offshore. i am of the belief they chose to drill offshore, because they knew there were larger oil pockets underground. i don't need an essay in response, just your reasoning and/or a reference.

You asked me the one I know least about -- but its my understanding that it would be preferable (for the oil companies) to drill in on-shore locations for a number of reasons, like:
-- Off-shore rigs require workers to live off-shore, on-shore rigs do not.
-- Off-shore oil drilling rigs are often much more expensive than on-shore facilities.
-- Off-shore drilling is generally harder and more dangerous. It requires a longer tube (I guess) and is subject to pressures from tides and currents that on-shore facilities are not.
-- Off-shore drilling requires transport to land, then transport once on land. On-shore drilling only requires the latter.

My understanding is that they'd prefer to drill on-land because its cheaper and more profitable, but ecological and political concerns have forced them off-shore.

That being said, oil companies won't drill anywhere where they don't think it's profitable. So when I say forced, they were forced in the sense that they were blocked from drilling at the preferable on-shore locations.

Well I wont completely deny that, but it doesn't take a genious to know that nothing is 100% failsafe(obviously, just look at what fail safe did for them,) and that things like this have happened in the past. So why not spend chump change to prevent something like this from happening again ? Better to be safe than sorry. If they're worried about money, look at how much money is floating around the gulf. I mean i'm not saying you're wrong or nothing, because doing that would just result in reading a paragraph about how i'm an idiot, and I need to get my facts straight before I come in here dicussing thing I have no knowledge of...So that's why i'm just pointing out the obvious, wich is that they fucked up and there are things they probably could have done to prevent it, but they didn't.

Nah I was just trolling with that -- but those pictures pissed me off cause a) they're most likely doctored, b) whats to say thats not some plant put there by whoever the other people are protesting against (it happens all. the. time.) and c) its been happening more recently that the "media" finds the person with the most outrageous sign or opinion and reports on that, marginalizing the other 99% of the people and their message

Oh ya they probably are doctored. Super was raging about america so I went to google typed in "GO AMERICA" and found the first 2 pictures I could that said go america on them. Had nothing to do with anything other than him and his patriotism haha. Just a joke. I was looking for this, but didn't run acrost it fast enough. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT0OqHr3wHQ

Fomenta, I understand your perspective, and your points are all correct. However, there is still far more drilling, including new wells and exploration, on land than offshore - a lot more than most people think. I worked on a drilling rig during the summer of 2001 while still in college, and the rig was drilling a new hole at a new location every 1 to 3 weeks. (Please don't think I'm trying to call you out here. I just want people to understand the truth.)

You're 100% right that nothing about offshore is cheap, and the oil companies wouldn't go offshore unless they knew it would be profitable. The oil reserves offshore are exponentially larger than those onshore. The oil companies also believe there may be even greater reserves in the deep sea, but it is too cost-prohibitive to go after at this point, especially when they can continue to drill on land and near shore and make good money.

Oh and jet, i don't mean to pile on here, but i was just thinking about it again. Do you wear your seat belt all the time or just right before you get in an accident?

No I respect that -- and I'm sure you know more about the issue than I do.

so did i kill this thread? sorry if i did :(

BP's latest attempt to seal the leak is failing. they won't admit it's failing yet, because they won't admit shit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/us/28spill.html?hp

also, new estimate on quantity of oil spilled.

"A government panel estimates the leaks may have spewed 542,000 barrels, or 22.8 million gallons, of crude into the sea, more than twice the amount spilled by the Exxon Valdez tanker in 1989." source that's an estimate of 22.8 million gallons over a 35 day period. that's a rate of 0.65 million gallons per day, but i still say this is a conservative estimate.

also, thanks to the wonderful dispersants they used, the oil is just spreading along the sea floor. the found an underwater oil plume 22 miles long...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100527/ap_ ... ew_plume_1

lol double post

no i've just been busy but i've been reading everyones posts.

I already knew the original estimates were bullshit, they didnt make any sense to me based on the amount spewing out per sec on the video.

I also said this was going to be absolutely horrific and probably the worst spill in American history ecologically wise anyway.

I'm wondering how this is getting turned around on Obama seeing as how the gov't was never set up to handle something like this and left situations like this in the hands of Big Oil. It's the gov't fault on the whole and even if Obama would step in what could the gov't do exactly that would be quick and efficient in handling a situation they've never handled before.

I'd start investing in BP if I had some money though.

i believe the gov't has more options and the power to end the leak and clean it up much faster than it is taking. obama is catching shit because he's vacationing and visiting duke during a national emergency. his focus should be on finding resolution, which means other less important things should be temporarily set aside. since BP is running the show, they are controlling what materials are being used to clean up the oil (which are 40 year old techniques and aren't working for shit) and they could have made more serious attempts to stop the leak much sooner. BP is attempting to "stop" the leak in a manner that will allow them to easily go back and get the well in working order, and their first "attempt" was to try to capture the oil, not stop the leak. they should be doing everything possible to stop the leak completely, even if it means they can never use the well and piping again. BP's attemps at stopping the leak so far have been like trying to use a garden hose on a forest fire. i'm telling you the entire gulf is going to be completely unfishable for at least 5-10 years.

Holy F*CK, I've missed alot of dialogue since I started this post. Lemme review and I'll post my essay, lol

Ok, my turn. As far as generating electricity that has a decidedly lesser impact on the environment, why not develop large photovoltaic arrays to produce this power? There is a lot of space in the American plains and southwest areas. Yes, it would cost money to produce them. Yes, producing them has an impact on the environment. Yes, we would have to improve solar panel efficiency. However, let's put some of our awesome American innovation skills to work and get moving on this. We will always need fossil fuels, but we could cut down our dependence on them by simply developing and installing several large arrays to power a large proportion of the USA. This wiki article has a lot of interesting infomation regarding this very thing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaics

Another idea is to develop wind power to fill in a lot of the gaps that solar power would leave, ie, places where the sun doesn't shine as often. Turbines are not as expensive to build as an array, and produce prodigious amounts of power. Another article:

http://www.otherpower.com/otherpower_wind.shtml

On the oil spill front, the top kill has failed. Now they are talking about diverting the oil, who knows how that will turn out. As I live in Florida, I am concerned about our wetlands, fishing and wildlife, as well as our beaches. The spill is now larger than most of New England.

http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.acti ... 4978267463

Semens is doing a LOT of that over here. In downtown Vancouver(were I live) they have about 500 of these windturbines ready to be shipped to eastern Washington. They are HUGE to. They have a port downtown that is massive and completely filled with parts for these things. I like to ride my bike in them :)

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1021/144 ... 1856_o.jpg Lots of them!

The main problem with PV arrays is that most of the PV technology is not efficient enough to recover the total cost of the PV system. We would need a major breakthrough in PV technology in order for the energy they can provide to greater than the cost to make the PV cells. You need much more than a few solar panels to safely manage the power.
Here's a project that I was a part of http://www.egr.msu.edu/classes/ece480/g ... index.html
We found that in order to build a solar powered system capable of powering a computer, 4 LCD displays, and 1 satellite internet connection it would take over $2000 worth of support equipment.
Basically here's the components with 2008 prices
Gel cell, 12V, 22Ah (UB12220) $50.00 6 $300
Outback Flexmax FM60-150 $500.00 1 $500
Kaneka G-EA060 $227.00 4 $908
PSE-24125A 1250 Watt 24/120v Inverter
$260.00 1 $260
Base Cost: $1,968

Now the Solar panels are rated for 25 years of output between 60 watts and 48 watts under ideal conditions. I get charged around $0.12 per KW/HR. Assume 10 hours of noon-time sun per day (unrealistic) and assume 365 sunny days per year. Even if our system never breaks down, it would take us 1968/.12/2.40 = 6833 days to recover the cost of the entire system. This is almost 19 years of time where no single component of the system can break. For this, we did not take into account mounting, transportation, and taxes. If you also factor in non-ideal conditions, you can see the recap time will easily exceed the 25 years the panels are designed for. The components picked are not the cheapest, but they are the most proven due to the inaccessibility of the system (it's sitting in the middle of a remote village in Tanzania).