Coverage of the Gulf Oil Spill

  • Posted: 09 May 2010 02:45 PM #16

    Eric Landstrom - 09 May 2010 05:09 PM
    irieblue - 09 May 2010 05:03 AM

    two words.. NAT GAS.

    Nat gas is a no-brainer. But first, let us use up all of the oil.

    You are probably joking, but let’s remember that are lots of uses for oil besides burning it as a power source….

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 09 May 2010 11:40 PM #17

    lulli - 09 May 2010 05:45 PM
    Eric Landstrom - 09 May 2010 05:09 PM
    irieblue - 09 May 2010 05:03 AM

    two words.. NAT GAS.

    Nat gas is a no-brainer. But first, let us use up all of the oil.

    You are probably joking, but let’s remember that are lots of uses for oil besides burning it as a power source….

    I don’t think he is joking at all. Oil is used in many things some of them being plastics and shingles. Oil as a power source is extremely economical. The ability to move 4000 lbs 20+ miles at 70 mph with only 1 gallon is hard to beat. Technology evolves, the engines that are in vehicles now emit significantly less emissions than cars did just 20 years ago. I can remember Los Angeles used to be smog filled and toxic. It is only going to get better.

    Eric, using up all the oil is going to take a long time. With the recent finds in South Dakota and the ones in the Gulf, oil will be plentiful for years to come. One thing “libs” try to say is that the total available oil will run out at such time. This is a big planet with lots of oil yet to be discovered. The SD find is so big that they are not even sure how long it will last.

    Nat gas will happen one day, just not under this administration. My guess is Bio-diesel will emerge in the next couple of years. One thing is certain, Ethanol was a bad idea and should be outlawed. The fools that think burning food is a good energy policy need to be flogged.

    Signature

    Adversity does not just build character, it reveals it.

         
  • Posted: 10 May 2010 04:56 AM #18

    You can’t flog someone over a few hundred billion, they meant well. It is intentions that matter to some not results. When will we get it? It’s not about the money.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 10 May 2010 07:40 AM #19

    You people started an energy thread just to draw me out for post 888, huh? Energy is used for many purposes, the big ones that dominate any discussion are transportation, electricity, and home heating. The need for heating should be an indicator about the priority to be placed on solar, but more on that in a minute.

    Transportation is interesting. The energy density of diesel is slightly higher than petrol which is slightly higher than ethanol (or blends, which naturally cut the per-gallon efficiency). Biodiesel will be how we maintain energy density to keep aircraft in the sky, if conventional sources disappear. The current evidence points to geologic processes that produce oil at depth, not conversion of biomass from prehistoric deposits. Oil will probably be around for a long time. Personal transportation using oil will be replaced when the energy density of batteries (for the weight) surpasses petrol (for the price). The technology is almost there. Advances around cobalt are promising. Large scale transportation of goods should move back to rail. Preferably maglev powered by large-scale nuclear base load.

    Electricity on the grid should come from a blended strategy. The nice thing about an electrical grid is multiple sources can be brought into phase - as long as they can be made clean and stable. Clean sources do no fluctuate from minute to minute and hour to hour. Stable sources are there when you need them - flip the switch and you have electricity. In order, the preferred clean and stable sources are nuclear, hydro, natural gas, coal, oil, biomass, solar and wind. All available large scale hydro sites are already being used for that purpose (with some recent promising work in microhydro sites). Wind on a grid sends the poor engineers into fits trying to balance how dirty it makes the power. Solar is not much better, given clouds and the sad fact that it stops when the sun goes down. Notice that hydrogen is not on the list. Hydrogen is not a fuel source, but rather a derivative storage mechanism that uses more energy than it releases to convert. In designing an electricity policy one needs to cover the base load with a clean and stable source, then augment with other sources as demand picks up.

    Home heating with oil is just a BTU vs cost equation. If you need 400 gallons of oil to heat your house each winter, or 4 chords of wood, and the wood is cheaper, you should probably use wood. It takes 10 acres to sustainably heat one house in New England. If you live somewhere that has less than 10 acres, don’t own a chainsaw and wood splitter, and are FORCED to maintain low emissions, wood is probably not for you. If I could install a pebble bed reactor in my backyard I would do it tomorrow and heat with electricity. I would actually power my entire neighborhood for 30 years with zero emissions. The BTUs would be really cheap. Houses can be built so well insulated that even solar can heat them. Notice that I said *even* solar. If you invest that much for insulation so you can heat with solar, a small electric space heater can keep your house warm, for a lot less than the cost of a solar array, plus the space heater. And the space heater will keep you warm at night, when solar is not available.

    Sorry about the book. I just hate that non-engineers always end up in politics and think they can legislate physics. Besides making themselves look foolish to those with a high school education, they always end up delaying work towards something that the math supports and is therefore sustainable.

    Signature

    Use your powers for good.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 10 May 2010 11:27 AM #20

    Rez, you got me thinking about another product that is expensive now, but over time should drop in price and replace existing insulation. (Expanding spray foam) We walk a tight line right now with home valuations, but building better/efficient homes would actually save people money. Something as simple as wrapping a house lowers the airflow dramatically. Also, I do not understand why tankless water heaters are not standard in every new home construction. The building needs for the north and south are different, but one thing is the same, all homes need to be insulated.

    Signature

    Adversity does not just build character, it reveals it.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 10 May 2010 11:58 AM #21

    The media, BP, and the gov’t are taking off the gloves in a full court press to pin the blame all on TransOcean.  After promising to pay for everything, now BP is saying ‘this was not our accident’  Yes if BP is quick enough with enough money into the right palms.  But No if you consider the well reasoned points this guy had to say.  I mean, when you read the fine print it makes you wonder if the market doesn’t have RIG all wrong.  Disclosure: long RIG
    Edit:  considering what the market is doing to RIG today (monday, down 3) it looks like BP is succeeding in shifting the blame

    [ Edited: 10 May 2010 12:21 PM by zulu ]      
  • Avatar

    Posted: 10 May 2010 12:46 PM #22

    So, who’s accident is it?

    Hosting provided by FotoTime

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 10 May 2010 01:00 PM #23

    zulu - 10 May 2010 03:46 PM

    So, who’s accident is it?

    Hosting provided by FotoTime

    Totally ABSOLUTELY 100% liabity on BP, not RIG.

    The owner of the well is PRIMA FACIE on the hook for all environmental damage. Period.

    RIG was fully insured for the actual platform, that has actually been paid now by the insurance companies. RIG was hired to do EMERGENCY REMEDIATION work, I would imagine at higher than normal day rates.

    The shills got someone to front page a FUD article on RIG today, RIG is the BEST OF The BEST in deep water offshore drilling. My guess is BP is calling in a few “favors” to muddy the waters, and cast aspersions on others to try and mitigate their COMPLETE LIABILITY here, for the well, for ALL the subcontractors, and ALL of the risks associated therewith.

    The REAL culprit here, the firm that CAUSED the event, was HALLIBURTON, who was responsible for “cementing the well walls” and that is what failed allowing for oil/gas to blow out the sides of the well, that failure was followed by CAMERON INT’s blowout preventer, that failed as well.

    This was RIGS best platform, and oddly, that very day, there were representatives of RIG and BP on the platform that very day, of the explosion, to give them an award for SEVEN YEARS of safe operation, a company record.

    [ Edited: 10 May 2010 01:05 PM by TanToday ]

    Signature

    “Even in the worst of times, someone turns a profit. . ” —#162 Ferengi: Rules of Acquisition

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 10 May 2010 01:29 PM #24

    I think it is safe to say that we know ONE place blame can never fall, and that is on Halliburton.  That’s been a teflon baby from way back.  In fact, even thinking bad thoughts about that company could jam you up something awful!  smile

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 10 May 2010 01:44 PM #25

    Looks like they made Ben Casselman the point man in WSJ’s assault this weekend on TransOcean.  Judging from the length of the assault, ol’ Ben was up all weekend raking muck!  Edit: I’m guessing this new low in journalism may well correspond with a low in RIG

    [ Edited: 10 May 2010 01:46 PM by zulu ]      
  • Avatar

    Posted: 10 May 2010 02:41 PM #26

    AP is the only news organization authorized to cover and interview BP officials.  WSJ is now the official muckraker and official obfuscator and attention shifter for BP.  So that just leaves McClatchy spread the facts.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 10 May 2010 04:59 PM #27

    Has RIG ‘hit bottom’??

    Hosting provided by FotoTime

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 10 May 2010 05:35 PM #28

    zulu - 10 May 2010 04:29 PM

    I think it is safe to say that we know ONE place blame can never fall, and that is on Halliburton.  That’s been a teflon baby from way back.  In fact, even thinking bad thoughts about that company could jam you up something awful!  smile

    Indeed.

    Notice how ALL the articles never even mention HALLIBURTON? They just say “another contractor” when they even bother to mention WHO caused the horrid disaster.

    That is the tip off as to why I KNOW this was a FUD hit story.

    Signature

    “Even in the worst of times, someone turns a profit. . ” —#162 Ferengi: Rules of Acquisition

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 11 May 2010 02:01 AM #29

    Oil Spill Hearings Begin Tuesday - ‘Nitrogen Cement’ and ‘Failure to Place Cement Plug’ Testimony Likely
    Halliburton, the contractor for the cementing job on the Deepwater Horizon well that blew on April 20, used a type of nitrogen-charged cement to close off the bottom of the well, 13,000 feet below the sea bed. The nitrogen gas was blended into regular cement to make a substance that was puffier and lighter than the cement generally used in oil drilling.

    Experts said this type of cement can form a stronger bond in certain types of rock, but is also more difficult to use than standard cement, requiring great care in mixing and application.

    A supervisor on the rig has said he had not seen nitrogen cement used before in the deepest part of a well, and investigators are examining whether it contributed to the catastrophic explosion that killed 11 workers and caused a continuing oil leak estimated to exceed 200,000 gallons a day.

    http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6453

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 11 May 2010 10:42 AM #30

    Today’s headline at Market Watch:  Who caused this ? and who pays?
    “Those are the main topics on the agenda as senators hold a hearing featuring executives from BP and its partner oil companies that supplied or serviced the ill-fated Deepwater Horizon oil rig.”

    I could not find the word HALLIBURTON anywhere in the article?  Can you?

    Edit: In watching C-SPAN today it looks like Halliburton sent a slick attorney to the hearings, who appeared unable to conceal HAL’s relative guilt.  RIG’s leader looked like a straight shooter by comparison.  IMO

    [ Edited: 11 May 2010 01:08 PM by zulu ]