- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Blowout Prevention Act of 2010
Posted on 6/29/10 at 8:36 am
Posted on 6/29/10 at 8:36 am
BPA 2010
It never fails that our esteemed idiots in congress and the senate know of no other recourse than more government agencies, inspectors, and laws. Instead of making the existing agencies like the BLM and the MMS more streamlined and accountable they come up with more things like the above. Who is to say they don't try to pass this on all onshore wells also.
It never fails that our esteemed idiots in congress and the senate know of no other recourse than more government agencies, inspectors, and laws. Instead of making the existing agencies like the BLM and the MMS more streamlined and accountable they come up with more things like the above. Who is to say they don't try to pass this on all onshore wells also.
3
Posted on 6/29/10 at 9:11 am to TigerDog83
They have still yet to learn the concept that the government is a cost center, not a profit generator.
Posted on 6/29/10 at 10:20 pm to TigerDog83
I read the first 15 pages and the main ideas are:
1) don't drill until you can prove that you have the ability to turn off the flow at will - sounds reasonable
2) use a BOP that is designed, tested and certified for the well type and conditions you are drilling in - sounds reasonable
3) an independent 3rd party must certify appropriateness and tests on a regular basis - sounds reasonable
4) develop a response plan that will actually work in real life - sounds reasonable
What's the big deal? If this had been in place we wouldn't have thousands of people suffering as we do now.
1) don't drill until you can prove that you have the ability to turn off the flow at will - sounds reasonable
2) use a BOP that is designed, tested and certified for the well type and conditions you are drilling in - sounds reasonable
3) an independent 3rd party must certify appropriateness and tests on a regular basis - sounds reasonable
4) develop a response plan that will actually work in real life - sounds reasonable
What's the big deal? If this had been in place we wouldn't have thousands of people suffering as we do now.
Posted on 6/29/10 at 10:37 pm to LSU80 USF08
Got to agree. This seems painfully obvious.
Posted on 6/30/10 at 8:30 am to TigerDog83
The legislation is too late, but much needed.
This post was edited on 6/30/10 at 8:31 am
Posted on 6/30/10 at 8:35 am to Things and stuff
I'm sure none of yall would gripe if costs happened to rise due to higher costs to drill?
Posted on 6/30/10 at 9:25 am to TJG210
The issue is what gets defined as a "high risk well." Is it going to be the independent drilling an infill gas well onshore to 6,500 feet or is it going to be strictly deepwater wells? If the legislation was geared specifically towards deepwater wells that would be reasonable, but there is a chance that the federal government could control onshore permitting through this same legislation. Onshore wells are very unlikely to cause widespread environmental impacts unlike wells drilled in the deepwater GOM. People drilling wells onshore on private lands in fields producing since the early 1900's could be forced to submit to waiting on federal governmental approval. This could impact the US natural gas markets which are currently our best source of lowering dependence on foreign oil. The legislation reads that it could easily include onshore wells at this point.
This post was edited on 6/30/10 at 10:33 am
Posted on 6/30/10 at 10:29 am to TigerDog83
Doesn't the U.S. have some of the more lax requirements in the world?
Canada, for example, requires a relief well be drilled simultaneously for all deep water.. or so I've been told.
The best solution is indeed tougher regulation sometimes. Hard to do when the govt. is getting $$ from the offenders.
Canada, for example, requires a relief well be drilled simultaneously for all deep water.. or so I've been told.
The best solution is indeed tougher regulation sometimes. Hard to do when the govt. is getting $$ from the offenders.
This post was edited on 6/30/10 at 10:30 am
Posted on 6/30/10 at 10:52 am to TejasHorn
quote:
Canada, for example, requires a relief well be drilled simultaneously for all deep water.. or so I've been told.
no, that is not the case. wells are being drilled right now off of newfoundland and nova scotia w/ no simultaneous relief operations going on.
there is one particular region in the extreme artic where a second rig would have to be nearby in order to quickly begin relief operations. this is due to the extreme environment and the distance from other operations.
Posted on 6/30/10 at 7:37 pm to TJG210
quote:
I'm sure none of yall would gripe if costs happened to rise due to higher costs to drill?
Join the real world. Everything has a 'cost'. It just depends on where your priorities lie. Pay for the FDA or have more people die from tainted food and fraudulent drugs. Pay for the EPA or have more people poisoned by the water from their taps. Without proper oversight, corporations will do whatever they can to increase their bottom line. That is all they exist for.
Posted on 6/30/10 at 7:50 pm to oilfieldtiger
You are 100% correct.
Posted on 6/30/10 at 8:46 pm to TigerDog83
quote:
The issue is what gets defined as a "high risk well."
Go to the end of the document. A high risk well is any well within 200 nautical miles of the US coast. That pretty much means every well in the GOM is a high risk well. What a crock of SHITE!!
Costs to drill will rise dramatically. Price of oil will rise to record numbers is less than a year.
Can someone please explain to me why a gallon of ketchup costs more than a gallon of gasoline.
Posted on 7/1/10 at 6:42 pm to Mr. Curious
quote:
Can someone please explain to me why a gallon of ketchup costs more than a gallon of gasoline.
Ketchup goes better with french fries?
Posted on 7/3/10 at 1:23 pm to LSU80 USF08
All of that is reasonable on the surface, but it all depends on how it is implemented.
For example, the first restriction of the first provision can be applied in such an extreme as to be unreasonable
For example, the first restriction of the first provision can be applied in such an extreme as to be unreasonable
Posted on 7/3/10 at 1:25 pm to TejasHorn
quote:
Doesn't the U.S. have some of the more lax requirements in the world?
Not really.
That line came from a misconception published in the NYTs the first days of the accident centered on the use of acoustic shut off equipment.
Posted on 7/3/10 at 1:26 pm to LSU80 USF08
quote:
Without proper oversight, corporations will do whatever they can to increase their bottom line.
Because BP is a shining example of the benefits that comes with cutting corners to increase their bottom line....
Posted on 7/4/10 at 11:30 am to Volvagia
quote:
Without proper oversight, corporations will do whatever they can to increase their bottom line.
Because BP is a shining example of the benefits that comes with cutting corners to increase their bottom line....
No, BP is more like the joy of playing with fireworks until your fingers are laying 'over there'.
Posted on 7/4/10 at 2:47 pm to LSU80 USF08
quote:
No, BP is more like the joy of playing with fireworks until your fingers are laying 'over there'.
Considering that BP is responsible for the damage of those fingers being missing, the two statements are not contradictory.
Page 1 of 1
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News