TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › To put the BP oil spill in perspective
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

To put the BP oil spill in perspective

post #1 of 26
5/15/10 at 9:18am
Thread Starter 
Most of you probably don't remember the Bay of Campeche oil rig blowout, but here's a summary.

http://www.incidentnews.gov/famous

To understand this, you should note that this spill put out twice as much oil as the BP spill per day, and did it for almost 5 months.

The Bay of Campeche today is a great resort and fishing area. And it's still producing massive amounts of oil for Mexico and the U.S.
Reply
post #2 of 26
5/15/10 at 9:48am
I guess I don't remember that. But was it in such deep water? I don't know how or if they will be able to cap this thing.

I have an awful feeling that this is going to be bigger than we can imagine. I hope I am wrong. All those poor sea creatures and shore wildlife not to mention the shrimp fishermen.

How do you get along with no income? Of course, BP will prob have to come up with something in the way of reimbursement.

Did you see where Kevin Costner and his brother, who is a scientist, have some kind of device that "eats" the oil and they are in the gulf now trying to pitch it to BP.
Reply
post #3 of 26
5/15/10 at 10:47am
There was also far more oil dumped into the ocean as a result of Katrina damage...
But, that too wouldn't have happened if we hadnt' been drilling
Apparently Arnold Schwarzenegger changed his mind about offshore drilling when he saw what happened
Reply
post #4 of 26
5/15/10 at 1:30pm
I don't recall it, but will admit I didn't pay attention to things like that at that age. I did some googling to read more about it, and unfortunately couldn't find anything about it's affect in Mexico, only about how it impacted the Texas coast. San Padre got hit the worst (relatively low human population area), and some shrimpers complained that their fishing areas were inundated with fishermen who couldn't fish in their normal areas. There are papers about the environmental and economic impact to the U.S., but the executive summary version of those were over 500 pages long (not going to read through all of that).

Happened in June, 1979. I suspect that was long enough ago to have the environment heal by now.
http://www.incidentnews.gov/famous
http://www.incidentnews.gov/incident/6250
Quote:
The 2-mile-deep exploratory well, Ixtoc I, blew out on June 3, 1979 in the Bay of Campeche off Ciudad del Carmen, Mexico. By the time the well was brought under control in March, 1980, an estimated 140 million gallons of oil had spilled into the bay. The Ixtoc I spill is currently #2 on the all-time list of largest oil spills of all time.
Pictures of the areas where the oil made landfall:
http://www.oil-spill-info.com/Photo%...me%20Ixtoc.htm

The U.S. had lead time to lay booms to protect inlets along the Texas coast:
http://www.search.com/reference/Ixtoc_I
Quote:
Prevailing currents carried the oil towards the Texas coastline. The US government had two months to prepare booms to protect major inlets.
I think the big scare on this one is if the oil really takes hold in the Gulf Stream, goes around the tip of Florida and up the east coast. It's potential for hurting the U.S. economy is far greater than Ixtoc I, which probably explains why people don't remember it as well.

I'll be interested if anyone learned a lesson from that one and applies it to the BP spill. It took 9 months to cap off Ixtoc. Imagine if it takes 9 months to cap the BP spill.
Reply
post #5 of 26
5/15/10 at 4:07pm
From the very beginning of this fiasco, I wondered why demolitions weren't being considered as a "ground restructuring" device, and after reading of Russia's success with low-yield nuclear weapons doing this very thing with oil leaks, I grow more and more angry every day when I don't hear of it being considered, at least as a last-gasp measure.

It really irks me to think that we have the answer in our back pocket and will refuse to utilize it, because of the fear of political backlash.
Reply
post #6 of 26
5/15/10 at 4:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keycube View Post
From the very beginning of this fiasco, I wondered why demolitions weren't being considered as a "ground restructuring" device, and after reading of Russia's success with low-yield nuclear weapons doing this very thing with oil leaks, I grow more and more angry every day when I don't hear of it being considered, at least as a last-gasp measure.

It really irks me to think that we have the answer in our back pocket and will refuse to utilize it, because of the fear of political backlash.
I read something about that once upon a time, where they literally crushed the well shut with a nearby sub-surface nuke. I'd forgotten about it though.
Reply
post #7 of 26
5/16/10 at 12:17pm
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001451.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by infoplease.com
June 3, Gulf of Mexico: exploratory oil well Ixtoc 1 blew out, spilling an estimated 140 million gallons of crude oil into the open sea. Although it is one of the largest known oil spills, it had a low environmental impact.
Ixtoc was "spilling" 10,000 - 30,000 barrels a day and took from June 3, 1979 to March 23, 1980 to cap. The well was 160 feet deep: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ixtoc_I. This Gulf problem is at a seabed floor of 5,000 feet with drilling at 30,000 feet.

Though the official line has been the BP spill is 1,000 barrels a day (and that was raised to 5,000/day), an article dated Friday says the BP "spill" could be as much as 25,000 barrels a day (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/oil-leak-d...ry?id=10642498) - but this has been an estimate as early as May 3: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB4000...mod=djemITPE_h

Like Ixtoc, this is not a "spill" in the conventional sense - it is not a tanker or storage facility with a finite amount of oil in it.

As to the low-yield nuke, the Soviets used this method five times between 1966 and 1979 (for oil spills/leaks/fires) - my understanding is all of them were land-based problems. The first one they did drill to a depth of 6km - but again, this was under ground, not under water. If you have to dig that deep anyway, why not just drill the relief well?
Reply
post #8 of 26
5/17/10 at 2:20pm
Platt's is saying it could be 70,000/barrels a day: http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/bp-wins-a-battle-but-still-losing-war-to-quell-gulf-oil-catastrophe-486936.html;_ylt=Agc9dVIP.Tm62Y1kKR77Lt27YWsA;_ylu=X3oDMTE2ajRtNDgxBHBvcwMxMgRzZ WMDdG9wU3RvcmllcwRzbGsDYnB3aW5zYmF0dGxl?tickers=bp,^dji,^gspc,hal,rig,USO,XLE&se c=topStories&pos=9&asset=&ccode=
Reply
post #9 of 26
5/17/10 at 2:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ut0pia View Post
There was also far more oil dumped into the ocean as a result of Katrina damage...
But, that too wouldn't have happened if we hadnt' been drilling
Apparently Arnold Schwarzenegger changed his mind about offshore drilling when he saw what happened
And because the Titanic sunk, we shouldn't trust oceanliners?
Reply
post #10 of 26
5/17/10 at 2:53pm
Thread Starter 
To quote an old saying (allegedly posted in Lloyd's of London):

A ship is safe in the harbor...but that is not what ships are for.
Reply
post #11 of 26
5/17/10 at 10:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty's Mom View Post
And because the Titanic sunk, we shouldn't trust oceanliners?
No, back then they had the proverbial "common sense" and did things differently. BP had already had smaller mishaps but, like the coal mines, were allowed to just "pooh-pooh" them away with legalese.
Reply
post #12 of 26
5/19/10 at 2:33pm
Actually, while BP has taken responsibility for the spill, they don't own the rig that was drilling. The horizon deep water drilling platform was leased by BP but is run and owned by Transocean Offshore (the largest rig operator in the world - RIG is its ticker).
Reply
post #13 of 26
5/21/10 at 7:57pm
Hi folks.....

I haven't been here in quite some time. Considering I live in Louisiana and work in the oil & gas industry, this is a story I'm watching.

My worry is what will happen if this line is not stopped and the oil is not cleaned up once hurricane season rolls around. It IS right around the corner. It starts June 1st. Now granted, things usually don't get rolling until later in hurricane season....but I just wonder what will happen when a storm moves into or develops in the GOM...........
Reply
post #14 of 26
5/24/10 at 10:39pm
I heard tonight that BP is saying they won't have the freaking leak plugged until AUGUST. Could that be true?
Reply
post #15 of 26
5/25/10 at 5:55am
Thread Starter 
Go back to the original post in this thread. It was something like 6 months before they had that one plugged and it stopped putting tarballs on Texas beaches.
Reply
post #16 of 26
5/25/10 at 8:54am
I heard that the Governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindall, wants the Feds to help them construct some sort of a barrier on the shore or close to it to prevent the oil from coming ashore.
Reply
post #17 of 26
5/30/10 at 10:10am
Actually, Mike, it took a 8 months to plug the lead at the Bay of Campeche - and that was in 160 feet of water. This is 5,000 feet deep. It could take YEARS, though the technology today is theoretically better than in 1979/1980.
Reply
post #18 of 26
5/30/10 at 10:39am
Thread Starter 
While you almost never see it mentioned, the drilling rig actually belonged to a company that belonged to then-governor Bill Clements' company.
Reply
post #19 of 26
6/2/10 at 1:30pm
Ok, this actually made me sad and angry:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHmhxpQEGPo

That is a video from Rachel Maddow, where she talks about the oil spill today, and intersperses it with news footage from 1979. Rather sad.
Reply
post #20 of 26
6/2/10 at 2:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I heard that the Governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindall, wants the Feds to help them construct some sort of a barrier on the shore or close to it to prevent the oil from coming ashore.
Yes, and the feds (read Obama and Holder) are saying that their environmentalists don't agree with this action, probably because it might disturb the sand crabs and clams. Isn't this like saying that you shouldn't get a flu shot before an expected epidemic because the shot might hit a vein and you could bleed to death?

Really, if Jindal (R) and Carville (D) can agree that a sand berm is needed, but the sand is on federal land, well dang, give Louisiana what it wants! Sparing a sand crab vs. thousands of acres of marsh land, egret and pelican nests and other wild life threatened by this, well it's a no brainer.
Reply
post #21 of 26
6/2/10 at 4:35pm
Someone's priorites are really screwed up and I don't think it is Carville's and Jindall's.

Such is why many feel that environmentalists are just plain whacked.
Reply
post #22 of 26
6/2/10 at 5:32pm
So now Obama is talking about raising taxes on gasoline and oil products. Now how does that solve this problem? The liberals and Obama supporters should be very angry about this because the people who will be hurt the most are the minimum wage workers that need their cars to drive to work - the working poor. Way to go Obama, might as well piss off your remaining supporters.
Reply
post #23 of 26
6/4/10 at 10:26am
Apparently BP has one lousy oil spill response plan for the Gulf of Mexico - they're concerned about walruses.
Quote:
Walruses? The cold-water mammals hang out in the Arctic and have not been in the area since the ice ages. I know climate sceptics keep telling us that the world is getting cooler, but this is ridiculous.
...
Their inclusion, says the US pressure group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, suggests that parts of the vital document were in fact "cribbed from previous Arctic exploratory planning". For good measure, it adds, a link to a "primary equipment provider for BP in the Gulf of Mexico Region for rapid deployment of spill response resources on a 24-hour, 7 days a week basis" turned out to be to "a Japanese home shopping site".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ear...sea-birds.html
Reply
post #24 of 26
6/4/10 at 6:38pm
I keep seeing film clips of the Pelicans drenched in oil and unable to move and no one, NO ONE is even there trying to help them.

Where are the people that bathe them in Dawn dish soap, like they did after the Exxon Valdez? There were, literally, hoardes of people bathing ducks, etc. THEN, now in the Gulf I see no one helping those animals.

Please tell me there are people helping the animals and I'm just not seeing it.
Does anybody know?
Reply
post #25 of 26
6/4/10 at 7:20pm
The answer to your question might be here:
http://www.examiner.com/x-33986-Poli...ct-from-public
Reply
post #26 of 26
6/4/10 at 7:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
Most of you probably don't remember the Bay of Campeche oil rig blowout, but here's a summary.

http://www.incidentnews.gov/famous

To understand this, you should note that this spill put out twice as much oil as the BP spill per day, and did it for almost 5 months.

The Bay of Campeche today is a great resort and fishing area. And it's still producing massive amounts of oil for Mexico and the U.S.
How does that disaster and it's recovery make this one okay? Just because some day the environment might recover? I don't understand your logic.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › To put the BP oil spill in perspective