The latest oil spill shows..

[Smokey]

...that we need an alternative energy plan, pronto. If we are not destroying earth by exhaust fumes, we are definitely destroying it by spilling oil in marine life.

Blackened seas:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1274/4606413353_5ce8f97793.jpg

[thekid]

I am sure this thread will tilt in a political direction at some point but those issues aside I think what this episode highlights is our hubris regarding technology. It is clear that no one even considered the possiblity of those cut-off valves not working and so no back up plan was ever developed.

[Smokey]

I am sure this thread will tilt in a political direction at some point but those issues aside I think what this episode highlights is our hubris regarding technology.

I really don't see any reason for this issue to be political in any way.

Some might argue that oil companies need a lesson by paying and cleaning this disaster as would be payback time from all the profit they made. But the counter argument would be....can we teach them a lesson without DESTROYING THE EARTH.

[ForeverAutumn]

..can we teach them a lesson without DESTROYING THE EARTH.

Unfortunately, I think we may be too late for that.

That picture sickens me.

[audio amateur]

What's the current news about it? Have they sorted something out?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

What's the current news about it? Have they sorted something out?

They really have not. It is a shame that things have come to this, but I say this is good for us.

I was discussing this very topic with another audio engineer while at work. My perspective on this is that we deserve exactly what we got. Because the American public has chosen to drive inefficient cars, we have to look for oil in some very dangerous places, including Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Nigera. We got into bed with people who are not out for our best interest, and we have funded terrorism against us with our own money all so we could drive our SUV and trucks(even when we didn't really need it). We have alternatives, but we deem them too hard to implement so here we are, up to our kisters in oil, fouling up our oceans, and sending us into war.

We need to move away from oil as our primary fuel, and turn to electricity, wind, and any other alternative we can discover. We need to put the full force of our resources to get this accomplished ASAP!!

America(it's people) have nobody to blame for this but themselves.

[ForeverAutumn]

I really don't see any reason for this issue to be political in any way.

They really have not. It is a shame that things have come to this, but I say this is good for us.

I was discussing this very topic with another audio engineer while at work. My perspective on this is that we deserve exactly what we got. Because the American public has chosen to drive inefficient cars, we have to look for oil in some very dangerous places, including Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Nigera. We got into bed with people who are not out for our best interest, and we have funded terrorism against us with our own money all so we could drive our SUV and trucks(even when we didn't really need it). We have alternatives, but we deem them too hard to implement so here we are, up to our kisters in oil, fouling up our oceans, and sending us into war.

Now do you see?

[Feanor]

I really don't see any reason for this issue to be political in any way.

Some might argue that oil companies need a lesson by paying and cleaning this disaster as would be payback time from all the profit they made. But the counter argument would be....can we teach them a lesson without DESTROYING THE EARTH.
Everything is ultimately political, Smokey, at least when it comes to doing something about it.

As I understand, some US administrations have been pretty quick to grant environment exemptions to oil companies. This has got to stop. The present goverment has got to see that BP picks up every last dime of the cost of the spill for everybody affected; this will tend to make the oil companies take possible future costs of the this sort into consideration before they drill.

Also -- more generally -- the full cost of energy including future environmental damage and global warming needs to be reflected at the pump. After all, it is between the purveyers and users of energy to pay the true cost. A stiff carbon tax is in order and the sooner (and higher) the better to straighten the populace out about energy use..

[Hyfi]

I really don't see any reason for this issue to be political in any way.

Some might argue that oil companies need a lesson by paying and cleaning this disaster as would be payback time from all the profit they made. But the counter argument would be....can we teach them a lesson without DESTROYING THE EARTH.

Or...without the price of gas going thru the roof to cover the cost of the cleanup and allowing them not to really spend any of their profits.

This is the ugly side of capitalism, where the greedy just don't care about the consequences. It's my understanding that for a half a million, they could have had a failsafe in place from the start but they followed regulations, not personal responsibility. Now it will cost way more than that and it will NEVER be cleaned up 100%.

One has to wonder if it was a terrorist act. I haven't heard anything as to what the explosion cause was or may have been.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Now do you see?

I really didn't mean for that to be political, I meant for it to be totally non-political. Americans from all political affiliations drives an inefficient car, no one side is free from blame on this one. It is strictly from an individual based perspective.

[luvtolisten]

Before it becomes a National Disaster, I think the government should shut BP down until it's fixed. The same way they shut down the coal mines.

Issuing BP a fine is a farce. They will merely pass it along to you and I, thru gas prices.

[Feanor]

Before it becomes a National Disaster, I think the government should shut BP down until it's fixed. The same way they shut down the coal mines.

Issuing BP a fine is a farce. They will merely pass it along to you and I, thru gas prices.
The clean ought to be paid by BP out of past profits, of course. But nobody ought to complain if gasoline prices go up: they will only be bearing the truer cost of oil-based energy. Presently pump prices don't reflect the full cost including the environment and global weather consequences; until they do, consumers will not be sufficiently motivated to find and use less energy from more responsible sources.

[luvtolisten]

The clean ought to be paid by BP out of past profits, of course. But nobody ought to complain if gasoline prices go up: they will only be bearing the truer cost of oil-based energy. Presently pump prices don't reflect the full cost including the environment and global weather consequences; until they do, consumers will not be sufficiently motivated to find and use less energy from more responsible sources.

Sadly, what you say is all too true.

[Smokey]

Now do you see?

I do now :)

But Sir TT does have a point. We might only have ourselves to blame with driving inefficient cars, trucks and SUVs (now I am getting political :D). I used to work for Falcon Jets company which mean most of their employees are male and mst drive a big trucks or SUVs that could barley fit into parking spot. One have to ask if they need such a gas guzzler to get to work.


Also -- more generally -- the full cost of energy including future environmental damage and global warming needs to be reflected at the pump. After all, it is between the purveyers and users of energy to pay the true cost. A stiff carbon tax is in order and the sooner (and higher) the better to straighten the populace out about energy use.

Rather than more taxes at pump, I think there should be an incentive program where more efficient cars one drive, the less taxes one have to pay at the pump. And ever more incentives if riding public trasportation to work.

[thekid]

Everything is ultimately political, Smokey, at least when it comes to doing something about it

That was the point of my original comment. For us to significantly wean ourselves off oil it will require political action. Look how the expansion of healthcare lit the anti-government fuse in so many people. Add in the segment of the population who doesn't even see our current energy situation as a real problem (remember last Fall's chants of "Drill Baby Drill") and you can see solutions being drawn along political lines.

If any good should come out of this current crisis it is that we need to get serious about alternative sources of fuel. As has been mentioned the true cost of an oil based energy policy is much higher than the $3.00 a gallon price we pay at the pump. Unfortunately to see that problem and solve it requires long term thinking and long term solutions. The pessimist in me does not see our political leaders or a majority of the public capable of either.

[audio amateur]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20100526/twl-bp-launches-top-kill-to-stop-us-oil-2802f3e.html

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I do now :)

But Sir TT does have a point. We might only have ourselves to blame with driving inefficient cars, trucks and SUVs (now I am getting political :D). I used to work for Falcon Jets company which mean most of their employees are male and mst drive a big trucks or SUVs that could barley fit into parking spot. One have to ask if they need such a gas guzzler to get to work.


Can someone clue me in on how pointing out the choice of cars we drive as being political? Have I missed something?

[GMichael]

I don’t know how to fix our current problems, but clearly, something needs to be done. It seems to me that when the oil lines were put in, it would have made sense to have valves at the entrance as well as every few miles the thwart such a disaster. BP should be made to pick up the tab as it was their mistake. They have had huge profits.
As far as alternate sources of energy, I’m all for it. What’s it take? (sorry, politics ahead) Politicians taking campaign funds from oil companies seems like a big roadblock there. Will a public outcry for alternate sources help?
As far as raising the cost at the pump, not sure how that helps. The people who drive those monster SUV’s don’t give a rats-ass about the cost. They can afford it. It’s the rest of us who will feel the crunch. (maybe that will add to the public outcry?)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I don’t know how to fix our current problems, but clearly, something needs to be done. It seems to me that when the oil lines were put in, it would have made sense to have valves at the entrance as well as every few miles the thwart such a disaster. BP should be made to pick up the tab as it was their mistake. They have had huge profits.
As far as alternate sources of energy, I’m all for it. What’s it take? (sorry, politics ahead) Politicians taking campaign funds from oil companies seems like a big roadblock there. Will a public outcry for alternate sources help?
As far as raising the cost at the pump, not sure how that helps. The people who drive those monster SUV’s don’t give a rats-ass about the cost. They can afford it. It’s the rest of us who will feel the crunch. (maybe that will add to the public outcry?)

I don't know Mike type individual carbon unit, but when the prices of gas spike near $4.00, people drove less, hence why the price eventually went down. Personally I think the next logical step to transcend away from oil comes in the form of hybrid cars, of which the American public has yet to embrace on a large scale. I have two hybrids(with a third on the way), and I have watched my monthly gas bills go way down after purchasing them. They next step after that would be all electric cars. You would need to build a large infrastructure of charging stations, and upgrade our country's electrical grid(something that is badly needed anyway) which will promote more jobs.

Another step would be to remove every house from the electrical grid, and use localized power generation instead. This is far more efficient than utilizing the power grid to transport energy to the home. This would involve solar, wind and hydrogen power combined in a small box that interacts with the solar panels and a small windmill like device to harness the wind. This technology exists NOW, but with no push to get it to the market, it just languishes in space right now thanks to the squelching of the oil and energy companies.

Our problem is that we have inefficient energy concerns working to fight against more efficient ways of generating energy just to protect its profits. This kind of attitude is the real danger to this country.

[3LB]

Suggesting Americans drive smaller, more efficient automobiles, or carpooling, or using public transportation where possible, shouldn't be 'politically charged' notions, but conspicuous consumption is the mantra of certain political pundants. But the desire to obtain and project status isn't religated to any one political party. I tell my friends who drive Ford F250 and F350 pickups every day to work, the only reason some guys aren't driving school bus sized pickups is because manufacturors don't make them...yet. Women are just bad with SUVs. We've seen a rise in cars which feature high output V8 engines, with only a high output V6 option. Every manufacturor that sells in the US touts their cars' horsepower over fuel economy. If manufacturors can develope 4 cylinder engines that are cracking the 200hp barrier w/o a turbo, then why not develope engines for hyper gas economy. Remember the 50mpg Chevy Sprint, in 1988?

Our oil, natural resource, and food consumption in this country shouldn't be a political issue but a moral one, though there are those political pundants who claim franchise on those too.

[GMichael]

I don't know Mike type individual carbon unit, but when the prices of gas spike near $4.00, people drove less, hence why the price eventually went down. Personally I think the next logical step to transcend away from oil comes in the form of hybrid cars, of which the American public has yet to embrace on a large scale. I have two hybrids(with a third on the way), and I have watched my monthly gas bills go way down after purchasing them. They next step after that would be all electric cars. You would need to build a large infrastructure of charging stations, and upgrade our country's electrical grid(something that is badly needed anyway) which will promote more jobs.

Another step would be to remove every house from the electrical grid, and use localized power generation instead. This is far more efficient than utilizing the power grid to transport energy to the home. This would involve solar, wind and hydrogen power combined in a small box that interacts with the solar panels and a small windmill like device to harness the wind. This technology exists NOW, but with no push to get it to the market, it just languishes in space right now thanks to the squelching of the oil and energy companies.

Our problem is that we have inefficient energy concerns working to fight against more efficient ways of generating energy just to protect its profits. This kind of attitude is the real danger to this country.

I’m silicone based. (just saying)
I think we all agree that something must be done and alternative energy is the answer. How to get that to come about gets a little fuzzy. Many good ideas here for sure. Now, how do we get capitalism to work for us, and get this done? Somehow, we have to make it more profitable to save the planet. And long term goals don't work. It has to pay off now or they'll never go for it.

[thekid]

Can someone clue me in on how pointing out the choice of cars we drive as being political? Have I missed something?

Idon't think what is being said that the type of car you drive is a political stement though for some it probably is. But having the government decide what type of car we drive which is what would need to happen makes your car choice a political issue.

Anything that people won't do willingly can only be enforced legally which means laws have to be passed which means it becomes by default a political issue. Fuel efficient cars have been widely available for over 25 years yet they do not dominate the car market so the market has "voted" what type of car people want to drive.

[dean_martin]

Haven't heard much of this in the national media yet, but the local media here on the Gulf Coast are reporting that a team of University of South Florida scientists have discovered a plume of oil just beneath the surface approximately 6 miles wide and 22 miles long stretching from the well-head towards Mobile Bay. They suspect that the large amounts of dispersants have kept or settled the oil below the surface. This news has spawned rumors of a plan to "hide" or cover up the enormity of the problem.

Fishing, shrimping and tourist industries are taking a huge hit at the worst possible time. If you saw Forest Gump you know he became a shrimper in Bayou la Batre which is a real community on the Alabama coast that depends on shrimping for its survival. The gulf coast's white sand beaches actually begin in Gulf Shores and Orange Beach, AL a/k/a the Red Neck Riveara which depend on vacationers starting Memorial Day Weekend. Hotels, condos and rentals are booked months in advance and cancellations are piling up daily.

BP has openly committed to paying claims but the word is getting out from shrimpers, hotel owners, seafood wholesalers, etc. that the proof requirements are impossible to meet.

I'm not qualified to say much about the wetlands of Louisiana, but I'm sure large amounts of oil can't be good for them.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Idon't think what is being said that the type of car you drive is a political stement though for some it probably is. But having the government decide what type of car we drive which is what would need to happen makes your car choice a political issue.

So we are clear on this, and don't get things twisted. I am not advocating that the government decide anything, I am mandating that the "American people" become more responsible and aware of the environment around them, and choose to drive more efficient cars, and be smart and embrace every means of efficient alternative fuels(and not necessarily corn) which in turn will save the environment, and cut us lose from having to make compromises to foreign states(Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Iraq, and Iran..and Venezuela for that matter). This is not political, it is personal. Taking personal responsibility for the plight of your own country does not have to be political.


Anything that people won't do willingly can only be enforced legally which means laws have to be passed which means it becomes by default a political issue. Fuel efficient cars have been widely available for over 25 years yet they do not dominate the car market so the market has "voted" what type of car people want to drive.

And now you have the biggest mess in energy history, wars that have been fought unnecessarily, massive transfers of wealth(and the complaints and economic harm it has brought) and a whole so addicted to a product, that it threatens its own national security.

Maybe it is time to take a pause and really rethink that vote.

[thekid]

Sir T-

I agree with all of your points. My main point is that the majority of people despite the overwhelming evidence that we need to change our energy policies and practicies have not and will not unless compelled to. That will mean someone has to have the forthought to develop a meaningful energy policy, the ability to convey it the masses and the political will to execute it.

[Feanor]

So we are clear on this, and don't get things twisted. I am not advocating that the government decide anything, I am mandating that the "American people" become more responsible and aware of the environment around them, and choose to drive more efficient cars, and be smart and embrace every means of efficient alternative fuels(and not necessarily corn) which in turn will save the environment, and cut us lose from having to make compromises to foreign states(Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Iraq, and Iran..and Venezuela for that matter). This is not political, it is personal. Taking personal responsibility for the plight of your own country does not have to be political.
....
Yes, it does. Obviously: because there will always be significant minority who place greed and self-interest above the common good. Remeber that we aren't just talking individual people; we are talking corporate interests, many of them global rather than national, that are driven exclusively by their next quarter earnings-per-share and nothing else. These interests must be compelled to do the right thing for the community by government.

What is wrong with government? First let's acknowledge in a democracy the goverment is the primary agent of the people. No private interest is so charged. If people don't like the government, they should vote for change rather than just condemn their government. The problem might that our political reps don't really represent us but instead corporate and funders.

To counter that, citizens need to critically indentify where their real interests lie and ignore to politicians clap-trap designed to appeal to their fears and prejudices. Is this asking too much? If you will, a major aspect of personal responsibility is electing political representives who represent the real, long term, interests of ourselves and communities.

[GMichael]

Yes, it does. Obviously: because there will always be significant minority who place greed and self-interest above the common good. Remeber that we aren't just talking individual people; we are talking corporate interests, many of them global rather than national, that are driven exclusively by their next quarter earnings-per-share and nothing else. These interests must be compelled to do the right thing for the community by government.

What is wrong with government? First let's acknowledge in a democracy the goverment is the primary agent of the people. No private interest is so charged. If people don't like the government, they should vote for change rather than just condemn their government. The problem might that our political reps don't really represent us but instead corporate and funders.

To counter that, citizens need to critically indentify where their real interests lie and ignore to politicians clap-trap designed to appeal to their fears and prejudices. Is this asking too much? If you will, a major aspect of personal responsibility is electing political representives who represent the real, long term, interests of ourselves and communities.

When will these political representives start running for office? I'll vote for them.

[Feanor]

When will these political representives start running for office? I'll vote for them.
Tough question. But I suggest start by selecting the "least bad" candidate and vote for him or her. Also I suggest participating in political activities supporting this candidate.

The "Tea Party" is a good thing from the perspective of participation -- trouble is their social & economic conservativatism is exactly what the US middle & working classes do not need to adapt to the changing world -- instead it plays into the agenda of the super rich and gobal corporations.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Yes, it does. Obviously: because there will always be significant minority who place greed and self-interest above the common good. Remeber that we aren't just talking individual people; we are talking corporate interests, many of them global rather than national, that are driven exclusively by their next quarter earnings-per-share and nothing else. These interests must be compelled to do the right thing for the community by government.

What is wrong with government? First let's acknowledge in a democracy the goverment is the primary agent of the people. No private interest is so charged. If people don't like the government, they should vote for change rather than just condemn their government. The problem might that our political reps don't really represent us but instead corporate and funders.

To counter that, citizens need to critically indentify where their real interests lie and ignore to politicians clap-trap designed to appeal to their fears and prejudices. Is this asking too much? If you will, a major aspect of personal responsibility is electing political representives who represent the real, long term, interests of ourselves and communities.

Okay mister, you hijacked my comments in bold, and turned it into something that I didn't intend for it to be.

When I made that last comment, I was strictly talking about the cars we drive, and if we just changed from inefficient ones, to more efficient ones, that is not a political decision, it is a person responsibility decision designed to benefit the country in a NON political way.

In spite of the fact that advertisers have dangled fast big engine inefficient luxury cars before my face, I have not fallen for it. I have one luxury car now, and it is a hybrid. I have another sub compact car, and it is a hybrid. I plan on trading that sub compact car for another sub compact sports car, and it will be a hybrid as well. If the Volt turns out to be a good performer, I may even look into it as well, even if I do not have a taste(or stomach) for American cars.

[dean_martin]

I've never been to the west coast. My brother went to UCLA, but I couldn't go to his graduation. My wife went to San Francisco before we knew each other. One of these days it's gonna be my turn to go to the West Coast. I said all that because what I say next may be mistaken for regional bias. I've never seen traffic as heavy as I've seen in pics and video from the Los Angeles area. However, when you go to your beaches you do not have to look at drilling and production platforms so close to shore that you can wade out and touch them. We have to put up with that when we go to our Alabama beaches. I believe it's the same way in Louisiana and Mississippi. I'm not sure about the Texas coast, but you cannot see these drilling and production rigs from the Florida coast. I don't have a point or conclusion yet but somethin' ain't right.

In my environmental law class over 12 years ago I did a video presentation demonstrating the aesthetic impact on our coast from these drilling operations. Most of the comments from the audience were critical because of the money the state gets from those operations so close to shore in state waters.

Now, my stepson is on Dauphin Island. He's going through classes at the Dauphin Island Sea Lab that are offered only during the summer for his marine biology program. Oil began to come up on the Dauphin Island shores yesterday - a day earlier than predicted. There is talk of evacuating the island. That means my stepson will have to go to school an extra summer to take the sea lab classes to graduate assuming that people can return to the island next summer. His degree may be on hold indefinetly or his course of study will be severely impacted because he won't get the hands-on instruction that those before him received.

Tonight, the FOX perspective was finally explained in a way that I could understand it. (I don't watch FOX so it may have been explained before tonight.) The FOX pitch is that it's the Greenies' fault because we've pushed oil companies so far off shore that they can only drill in deep water instead of in shallow water where a problem like the one we have now can be dealt with with ease. What a crock of sh*t!

This problem is overwhelming. The gulf coast has been part of my family history since I was 6 years old when I lived in Mobile and spent family weekends on Dauphin Island. We celebrated my son's birthday on the Fort Morgan Peninsula from age 8 to 20. I haven't felt this kind of hopelessness since watching the footage from New Orleans after Katrina. The only consolation is the loss of life should not be comparable.

[Hyfi]

Haven't heard much of this in the national media yet, but the local media here on the Gulf Coast are reporting that a team of University of South Florida scientists have discovered a plume of oil just beneath the surface approximately 6 miles wide and 22 miles long stretching from the well-head towards Mobile Bay. They suspect that the large amounts of dispersants have kept or settled the oil below the surface. This news has spawned rumors of a plan to "hide" or cover up the enormity of the problem.

Fishing, shrimping and tourist industries are taking a huge hit at the worst possible time. If you saw Forest Gump you know he became a shrimper in Bayou la Batre which is a real community on the Alabama coast that depends on shrimping for its survival. The gulf coast's white sand beaches actually begin in Gulf Shores and Orange Beach, AL a/k/a the Red Neck Riveara which depend on vacationers starting Memorial Day Weekend. Hotels, condos and rentals are booked months in advance and cancellations are piling up daily.

BP has openly committed to paying claims but the word is getting out from shrimpers, hotel owners, seafood wholesalers, etc. that the proof requirements are impossible to meet.

I'm not qualified to say much about the wetlands of Louisiana, but I'm sure large amounts of oil can't be good for them.

I heard an in depth talk about this last week on NPRs Science Friday. They talked about the fact that if we can't see it, it might not be there. The dispersants are doing exactly what they wanted them to do, BP that is. The downside to these plumes is that they will cause the oil to actually drop and ruin things we can't see as opposed to washing up on shore and ruining things we can see.

The other interesting thing they noted is that there was very similar spill off the coast of Mexico a few years back that spewed even more oil. The used the dispersants to keep it out of sight which in turn kept it out of the media. Almost nobody outside of where it happened ever even heard about it.

I wish we didn't have to depend on oil but I am not opposed to drilling if all precautions are taken and a fool proof way of stopping the flow no matter what is in place. It's a real shame the tree huggers are stopping on land drilling which is forcing more off shore drilling.

Norway's whole economy revolves around off shore drilling and they seem to know how to do it right. Not too questionable as to why they have the Norwegians helping out.

[dean_martin]

Hey, HyFi. I appreciate your comments on the use of dispersants, their effects, and the Mexico incident. It looks like there is some evidence that dispersants may be used to hide the size of the problem. Whether that was BP's intent is not clear at this time.

In my experience, "tree huggers" have had little or no influence on drilling on land. My firm negotiates leases on behalf of landowners with oil & gas companies for drilling for oil and natural gas. We negotiated leases for landowners in a large area last year. The test well was successful and now it is in production. Among the landowners are my mom, extended family members and other long-time clients of ours. My family stands to benefit directly depending on where the oil co. decides to drill next. My hands aren't clean when it comes to promoting drilling and getting the best deals I can for my clients. However, this background obviously allows me to conclude that "tree huggers" are not stopping on land drilling. I believe their efforts are focused on drilling on Federal lands such as wild life reserves and national parks. In my experience, their efforts have not stopped oil companies from drilling on privately owned lands. Furthermore, the oil companies go where the oil is. There is no doubt that the well that is leaking in the Gulf is tapped into a large oil reservoir. The oil companies would be there even if they were allowed to drill on Federal lands.

[thekid]

Dean

+1 on your comments.

I have had alot of people tell me recently about these conspiracies that usually involve either
A. The government sitting on/hiding etc huge oceans of oil for various reasons ranging from controlling the cost of gas so they can get higher taxes to a method of forcing people to develop/use alternative sources of energy or

B. Environmentalists and Communists joining forces to prevent anymore oil drilling in order to overthrow pro-capitalist democratic governments.

These conspiracies all tend to ignore the pro-oil political forces and that the market forces that encourage oil companies to find more oil whever it is located.