What Impact Do You Think the Gulf Oil Spill Will Have?

Сообщение от Dragoonman

It's Bush's fault.

LOL!

Him and his father caused the oil spill. Just because they were in office.

XD

Сообщение от Heckler

Him and his father caused the oil spill. Just because they were in office.

There's definitely a discussion to be had about the direct role that $%^& Cheney played in the deregulation of the industry, and how that may or may not have been a conflict of interest with the oil field services company for which he was CEO from 1995 to 2000, Halliburton (yes, the same Halliburton who is partially responsible for this explosion, and who got mega rich with Government contracts in both Iraq wars).

So I don't know how serious Fayne actually was, and I don't know enough about it to say that a serious claim could be made -- but that line of reasoning has to do with much more than just 'being in office.' Off the cuff, I would think blaming it on Bush Jr. or Sr. is about as silly (and helpful) as blaming it on Obama.

Сообщение от Squishalot

Here we go, US$20 billion being set aside.

Are there still any concerns about BP's ability to pay?

The net average cost of oil exploration, drilling, refinement, and use in general, when all factors are considered (including environmental and health costs). If we spend 5 dollars on 1000 wells to prevent a 6000 dollar problem in one well, then we've saved money. If we spend any finite amount of money to prevent an unfixable problem from occurring, we've saved... something.

I'm not sure that it's a 1-in-1000 problem. There are a *lot* of oil wells across the globe.

Nor am I sure that the relief well(s) in such a facility would only cost US$17M (being 5/6000 of US$20B).

Сообщение от Heckler

Here we go, US$20 billion being set aside.

Are there still any concerns about BP's ability to pay?

Nor am I sure that the relief well(s) in such a facility would only cost US$17M (being 5/6000 of US$20B).

I'm not sure either (my numbers were just to express my point, I wasn't trying to make any sort of statistical analysis) -- but my second point remains firm: if the problems that are caused are unfixable, then you can't really put a price limit on prevention. If it's too expensive to prevent an unfixable problem, it's too expensive to do the project at all (in my opinion).

And frankly, yes, I'm still concerned about their ability to pay. I think we all agree that they will not carry 100% of the cost burden of the cleanup, regardless of whether they could afford it or not. Their liability will be capped, or they will stretch it out in court until someone else takes care of it; just like Exxon.

Сообщение от Squishalot

I'm not sure either (my numbers were just to express my point, I wasn't trying to make any sort of statistical analysis) -- but my second point remains firm: if the problems that are caused are unfixable, then you can't really put a price limit on prevention. If it's too expensive to prevent an unfixable problem, it's too expensive to do the project at all (in my opinion).

Technically, you wouldn't do anything at all then, because you wouldn't be able to guarantee with 100% confidence that you could prevent an unfixable problem, therefore implying that the unfixable cost would outweigh the benefit on any project, off-shore drilling or otherwise. Where do you draw the line?

And frankly, yes, I'm still concerned about their ability to pay. I think we all agree that they will not carry 100% of the cost burden of the cleanup, regardless of whether they could afford it or not. Their liability will be capped, or they will stretch it out in court until someone else takes care of it; just like Exxon.

Then you're not concerned about their ability, you're concerned about the Government's ability to make them pay. That's a very different thing. That's something that governments can start to look at - removing any caps on liabilities.

Сообщение от Heckler

Fair enough. I don't know where you draw the line. But I know that all nuclear disasters and this are over it. (edit: to me, what's important is to recognize that such a line does indeed exist). As far as ability vs. government ability -- to me this is the same thing, because all that matters to me is the end result. If BP were as benevolent as some are making them out to be, the government wouldn't need to force anything.

Сообщение от Squishalot

Noone's making BP out to be benevolent any more than they're required to be by the letter of the law (as far as I'm aware?). I certainly don't think they are. They'll pay what they're legally responsible for (which is still a *lot* of money), and ensure that they won't have to pay a penny more, unless they pull funding from their marketing budget.

Such a line does exist, but governments obviously think that we're at that line at present. The number of environmental approvals required to progress on projects like these are mindboggling - you've got entire teams of people for each major resource project just dealing with compliance. And after the approval process is complete, you can say, "this is the risk tolerance of the government", as far as the risk of unfixable events occuring is concerned.

It's not that people think the line doesn't exist, it's just that you think that line should be further out, that we should be more risk averse than we are. Not meaning to pick a fight, but that's a very subjective thing, and no matter what the government does, it's going to be slammed on the issue by someone who's more or less risk averse than they are.

Сообщение от 438256

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Сообщение от Heckler

Again, I don't disagree. I just hate the fact that people can see this happen, and act like nothing needs to change, like this was just an 'accident' and everything is A-OK for the future. This is unprecedented.

This whole incident is proof that whatever the government thought about 'that line' before this happened was wrong. That's my point, this 'accident' should be the impetus for change, and the powers-that-be are arguing that everything is fine. It kills me. I realize that changes on the order that I'm advocating are on the extreme edge (though not so extreme as some, who say we should call off drilling in general, deepwater or otherwise) -- but surely something needs to change.

I don't understand how anyone wouldn't agree with that, at least in some regard.

Сообщение от Squishalot

This whole incident is proof that whatever the government thought about 'that line' before this happened was wrong.

I'll show you why I disagree with that.

If you set the line at a 99.99999999% confidence level that an unfixable problem won't occur, and a problem occurs, your argument suggests that the level of confidence isn't good enough, and that they should be more risk averse. Take that attitude and nobody would ever get a home loan or credit card.

I agree that the incident should be the impetus for renewing discussions on the appropriate level of risk aversion, but not necessarily an impetus for change. Because the incident isn't proof that the level is wrong.

Сообщение от Heckler

Okay, then I'll stop simply repeating my argument. The principal difference is the level of carnage that is a consequence of this problem (clearly more severe than a home loan default). (Also, you can look at this situation and see where regulations were lacking and where they weren't followed -- it's not like everything went perfectly, and the problem still occured). But that's fine, if you think that something like this happening every 30 or so years is acceptable (or 50, or 100, or even just once), then so be it. As I've told HSR, I'm not here to change anyones mind.

I'll just hope that everyone is right -- that eventually everything will go back to normal. That the leak will be stopped soon. That the gulf coast won't be ruined forever. That no species will go extinct. That the ecosystem won't be permanently damaged. That the economies will fully recover. etc. etc. etc.

And I'll just hope that the broke-ass system that led up to this problem holds up for a long time before it lets it happen again (all on its own mind you, not because of a change -- that would be ridiculous).

I guess when you're trying to satisfy this planet's thirst for oil, you can't help but leave a few bruises on Mother Earth's face, right? Wanna make an omelet, gotta break some Oceans. I wonder how far $20B would go toward green energy advancement... oh well, I guess we won't know, at least not with this $20B.

Сообщение от Squishalot

Yes, the home loan argument was a poor analogy, but it's an example of what happens if you keep tightening your risk aversion every time something goes wrong - you end up with zero risk, and zero productivity.

For the umpth time, I'm not saying that it's acceptable. I'm saying that the level of risk aversion is not 'by definition' wrong either, that's all. There's no place for absolute statements on subjective issues in this (or anything, really), and I'd like to think that you'd appreciate that fact, but I respect your right to an opinion otherwise.

Again - it's not that I don't think change is warranted. I'm saying that change 'just because this happened, oh noes, the poor sea kittens!' (see? I can argue with hyperbole too!) isn't warranted, and that any change should be subject to scrutiny and implemented on a well-thought out basis, not just for the pie-in-the-sky goal of 'preventing all future accidents like this from happening'.

Сообщение от Heckler

I think the issue is, that you think I'm making an absolute argument concerning any risky behavior. I'm being as subjective as I can, I'm trying to limit any absolute statements specifically to deepwater drilling, and specifically to this incident and its consequences. And so far, all I've advocated is that if a 2 relief well requirement is a silver bullet (which it's not, sadly), then it should be required for all 14,000 deepwater rigs worldwide (or at least any that the US Gov't has control over). What I've defined as 'wrong' may or may not be the policy, it might also be the enforcement of the policy, or the influence of the industry in its own regulation -- I'm only saying absolutely that something is wrong, because I refuse to accept that this should have ever happened.

If this triples gas prices, then so be it -- that means that's how much oil should cost when the only place to get it is a mile under the ocean. We can either lie to ourselves about the actual cost, or we can bite the bullet and pay it, and possibly provide the needed motivation to stop this crazy oil addiction.

Сообщение от Dragoonman

Jesus, imagine if a hurricane occurs... it will kill so many animals, and people as well!

All said poisons will be thrown onto land... This is very bad.

And btw, Why did BP think that walruses lived in the gulf! I mean wtf?

Сообщение от Squishalot

This whole incident is proof that whatever the government thought about 'that line' before this happened was wrong.

This is the statement that I'm referring to. Am I wrong to assume that you have an absolute view that the government's view on 'that line' is wrong in an absolute sense?

I've got no qualms with new rules and regulations being implemented to prevent further big accidents from happening, even if it does triple the price of gas, provided that said rules and regulations are implemented after sufficient discussion and consultation, and not as a knee jerk reaction to the current incident like most calls for change have been.

Edit: Just saw your edit. Fair enough.

Worth noting that over 14,000 deepwater rigs worldwide, plus those that have finished, it's certainly not a '1-in-1000' event. Just saying, now that you've put a number on the table.

Сообщение от Heckler

Worth noting that over 14,000 deepwater rigs worldwide, plus those that have finished, it's certainly not a '1-in-1000' event. Just saying, now that you've put a number on the table.
lol, I never said it was 1 in a 1000, that was just a hypothetical to show what I meant because I didn't think I explained it well enough with words.

~~I'll edit this if I decide I have something else to say, I'm tabbed out of WoW atm ;)~~

I appreciate what you're saying about knee-jerk reactions, I'm not saying we should knee-jerk these requirements (although I have no problem with knee-jerking a moratorium while the discussions are held, just in case the discussions eventually decide that we're on the brink of disaster -- both to err on the side of safety, and to provide a motivation to the parties involved to actually perform a good-faith analysis of the problems quickly and properly).

If anything, I'm making sure that my views are known and represented in the coming discussion and consultation. My worry, however, is that the discussion will never take place, because the 5 most profitable corporations in human history are all oil companies who've spent 30 years loosening their own restrictions by buying votes. Money goes a long way in making laws here in good ole' Amurica (ref. Sen. Lisa Murkowski repeatedly single-handedly blocking a vote to lift the $75M liability cap -- I wonder who bought that action).

Anyways, I think I've laid out my thoughts as clearly as I can. For the record, I agree with this statement:

I've got no qualms with new rules and regulations being implemented to prevent further big accidents from happening, even if it does triple the price of gas, provided that said rules and regulations are implemented after sufficient discussion and consultation, and not as a knee jerk reaction to the current incident like most calls for change have been.

Сообщение от Heckler

Edits made above. Thanks for the discussion, I'm headed to sleep =)

Сообщение от Squishalot

Fair enough. Catch you later.

Сообщение от 570226

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Сообщение от Squishalot

Imagine eating a fish doused in this. Not healthy, and it could poison a lotta animals who make their home unda da sea. A basic view by a basic person.

Mmmmm, deep fried fish...

Ok, no, seriously. It's hyperbole. As soon as you produce a somewhat more detailed explanation of how many fish and marine life will actually be affected, and the likelihood of it actually ending up on your plate, that'll be different.

What Impact Do You Think the Gulf Oil Spill Will Have?

Ответить