Is BP Oil Spill Becoming Obama's Katrina?

28-05-2010 05:49PM #1

"The hurricane that drowned New Orleans and cast George W. Bush as out of touch swept across the Gulf Coast nearly five years ago. Now, as oil laps ashore in the very same region, local officials are asking: Is there another government-Gulf Coast disconnect? Is BP's oil spill becoming this president's Katrina?"

Source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-05-27-Spill-poll_N.htm

I watched Obama field questions by the press about this oil spill on the telly last night. Obama claimed that they were working on a solution since day one, but it seemed a bit dodgy that one of the most technologically advanced nations on Earth could not stop the massive flow of one offshore oil well from poisoning the Gulf? Five weeks and still no fix?

The death count from Katrina was higher, but will natural history someday proclaim this to be one of the greatest environmental disasters of modern times?

The GW Bush administration was clearly incompetent when responding to Katrina. Is the Obama administration just as incompetent when responding to this Gulf oil spill?

Overheal · 28-05-2010 05:53PM

I want to talk about this in depth actually but i dont have the time right this hour

Short opener response is Im begining to think Bush did less wrong about Katrina than the media played it up.

More @ 11 :pac:

ei.sdraob · 28-05-2010 05:58PM

didnt they stop the leak? there was something on news yesterday about topkill being a success

Permabear · 28-05-2010 06:03PM

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 28-05-2010 06:04PM

This post has been deleted.

28-05-2010 06:04PM

ei.sdraob wrote: »

didnt they stop the leak? there was something on news yesterday about topkill being a success

"More than 24 hours after BP began a crucial "top kill" effort to plug the deep-sea well with heavy drilling mud, company executives said the procedure was going as planned but they were not ready to declare success."

Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-oil-spill-20100528,0,1234921.story

If this does work, why 5 weeks? A bit slow out of the holster for those wild west Americans?

flutered · 28-05-2010 06:07PM

the difference between both is bush had no one to lay the blame on, obamah has a sitting duck bp. also many people are employed in the clean up, (new orleans had no one to employ (tresuary loss)

freyners · 28-05-2010 06:07PM

ei.sdraob wrote: »

didnt they stop the leak? there was something on news yesterday about topkill being a success

according to this article its going well but not there not exactly certain yet
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-oil-spill-20100528,0,1234921.story
[edit] beaten to it [/edit]

28-05-2010 06:12PM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

"The most important thing to remember about the drowning of New Orleans is that it wasn't a natural disaster. It was a man-made disaster, created by lousy engineering, misplaced priorities and pork-barrel politics. Katrina was not the Category 5 killer the Big Easy had always feared; it was a Category 3 storm that missed New Orleans, where it was at worst a weak 2."

Source: http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1646611_1646683_1648904,00.html

Amerika · 28-05-2010 06:13PM

No way! From DAY ONE, the Obama administration was on top of things. Maybe not DAY ONE, but no more than a day or two after DAY ONE I remember Obama was sending down a team of lawyers and a SWAT team to take care of the problem. Geeezzzz, what more could anyone (especially the ingrates from Louisiana) want, as from DAY ONE they obviously had everything under control. To think otherwise is to not understand the situation since DAY ONE. And how do we know this? Because Obama and his staff have told us so… since DAY ONE!
http://www.postonpolitics.com/2010/05/politicocom-from-day-one-replaces-immediately-as-obama-administration-talking-point-on-oil-spill/

Permabear · 28-05-2010 06:24PM

This post has been deleted.

28-05-2010 06:31PM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

"Many of the same coastal scientists and engineers who sounded alarms about the vulnerability of New Orleans long before Katrina are warning that the Army Corps is poised to repeat its mistakes—and extend them along the entire Louisiana coast. If you liked Katrina, they say, you'll love what's coming next."

Source: http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1646611_1646683_1648904,00.html

GW Bush didn't listen, is Obama?

Amerika · 28-05-2010 06:33PM

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

"The most important thing to remember about the drowning of New Orleans is that it wasn't a natural disaster. It was a man-made disaster, created by lousy engineering, misplaced priorities and pork-barrel politics.

Man made disaster, but not necessarily created soley by lousy engineering, misplaced priorities and pork-barrel politics, but rather aided by lunatic environmental lobbyists and the Far Left forcing oil companies farther and deeper into the ocean in order to drill, when there exists a plethora of oil on land and in shallow water (which is not allowed to be touched) where it can be contained far more easily in the event of an accident.

Source: Common Sense

Amerika · 28-05-2010 06:39PM

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

"Many of the same coastal scientists and engineers who sounded alarms about the vulnerability of New Orleans long before Katrina are warning that the Army Corps is poised to repeat its mistakes—and extend them along the entire Louisiana coast. If you liked Katrina, they say, you'll love what's coming next."

OMG! And what did LA do with all the Federal money allocated to them to correct the levee problem before Katrina?
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/katrina_federal_money_for_louisiana_went_to_pork_not_levees

28-05-2010 06:54PM

Amerika wrote: »

Man made disaster, but not necessarily created soley by lousy engineering, misplaced priorities and pork-barrel politics, but rather aided by lunatic environmental lobbyists and the Far Left forcing oil companies farther and deeper into the ocean in order to drill, when there exists a plethora of oil on land and in shallow water (which is not allowed to be touched) where it can be contained far more easily in the event of an accident.

BP was not innocent. They increased their profits by not installing many of the recommended safety equipment required by other nations. Nor are the GW Bush or Obama administrations innocent in terms of regulatory oversight during the past decade.

Wall Street Journal... "Industry critics cite the lack of the remote control as a sign U.S. drilling policy has been too lax. "What we see, going back two decades, is an oil industry that has had way too much sway with federal regulations," said Dan McLaughlin, a spokesman for Democratic Florida Sen. Bill Nelson. "We are seeing our worst nightmare coming true."

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704423504575212031417936798.html

Of course, we all accept the fact that the oil corporations and oil lobbies donated to former oilman GW Bush, John McCain, and Obama's campaigns strictly out of selfless patriotism and the American way? And if you believe that they did not expect something in return for their campaign donations (e.g., lack of regulation or oversight), I have a flying pig to sell you; just specify if you want it with or without lipstick.

Amerika · 28-05-2010 07:00PM

I don’t disagree with much of what you said Blue Lagoon, but the environmentalists and Far Left also are to blame for the problem of deep water drilling and the inherent dangers if faces. Face it, we all need oil.

28-05-2010 07:16PM

Amerika wrote: »

I don’t disagree with much of what you said Blue Lagoon, but the environmentalists and Far Left also are to blame for the problem of deep water drilling and the inherent dangers if faces. Face it, we all need oil.

Fair enough. But does the US need as much oil as it consumes? I read somewhere that the US is the world's largest consumer of oil?

I laugh when some US politician uses the term "alternative" energy for powering vehicles in the US. Then I see GMC SUVs powered only by hydrogen zipping about our neighborhood for the past year, one owned by the US Postal Service, the other by Irvine Valley College. Out of curiosity I have stopped that US Postal driver and asked him about his pure hydrogen SUV (which only exhausts water), and he tells me that he drives it all day, 6 days a week, has had no maintenance problems in a year, and fills it once every two weeks by connecting it to a cylinder of hydrogen. He said he wished he could buy one.

No. The US does not need to consume as much of the world's oil as it does; rather the US oil corporations want us to continue to be dependent upon foreign and domestic oil to ensure profits that have been at an historic high in recent years.

How about if the Tea Party challenges the obscene profits of US oil corporations, US dependence on foreign and domestic oil, and demand campaign finance reform that would exclude oil and other corporations from buying politicians like GW Bush, McCain, and Obama?

Amerika · 28-05-2010 07:35PM

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

But does the US need as much oil as it consumes? I read somewhere that the US is the world's largest consumer of oil?

No of course not. Not when we have coal, natural gas, and the potential for building thousands of nuclear power plants.

But seriously, how much energy does it take to make that hydrogen? Is it not true it takes more energy to refine hydrogen than you get from combustion; and the byproduct is water vapor, another green house gas.

I am all for getting off fossil fuels. I would even (God help me) be for a government mandate on oil, gas and coal companies to either pay a tax which a non-partisan group funnels to alternate energy development companies (with the US taxpayer reaping the benefits of profits if the companies create feasible alternate energy methods), or a lesser amount they would be required to spend on their own R&D into alternative energy (but then they can keep the profits). But the key is “feasible, economical, and workable” alternate energy.

Overheal · 28-05-2010 07:39PM

Sadly the Capitalist model doesn't work for this type of innovation. Theres not enough bottom-line profit in making hydrogen vehicles. And if they really require such little maintenance, thats another blow for thousands of small-time mechanics across the board.

Theres too much collusion in the Auto and Oil Industry to make any of it happen.

Red Hand · 28-05-2010 07:53PM

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

"Many of the same coastal scientists and engineers who sounded alarms about the vulnerability of New Orleans long before Katrina are warning that the Army Corps is poised to repeat its mistakes—and extend them along the entire Louisiana coast. If you liked Katrina, they say, you'll love what's coming next."

Source: http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1646611_1646683_1648904,00.html

GW Bush didn't listen, is Obama?

Amerika wrote: »

Man made disaster, but not necessarily created soley by lousy engineering, misplaced priorities and pork-barrel politics, but rather aided by lunatic environmental lobbyists and the Far Left forcing oil companies farther and deeper into the ocean in order to drill, when there exists a plethora of oil on land and in shallow water (which is not allowed to be touched) where it can be contained far more easily in the event of an accident.

Source: Common Sense

I have underlined this sentence.

Source: Jeremiah 16:1

28-05-2010 08:01PM

Amerika wrote: »

But seriously, how much energy does it take to make that hydrogen? Is it not true it takes more energy to refine hydrogen than you get from combustion; and the byproduct is water vapor, another green house gas.

I am all for getting off fossil fuels.

Well, I do not know the science, but I was talking with a mid-level official from the UAE a couple weeks past in a locale coffeehouse. He is pursing his Ph.D. in the States, paid for by his government. He is into manufacturing in Abu Dhabi and showed me a presentation on his laptop that demonstrates how his country will produce all its electric energy by pure hydrogen electric generating plants by 2030. What's really ironic is that the first plant to be built was designed by US engineers. It extracts hydrogen (from air in some kind of confinement... don't know the science) and burns it to drive turbines to produce electric energy. The contract has already been awarded to a major So Korean construction corporation to build the first electric generating station, ground breaking will occur this year, with several more plants to follow.

What is even more ironic is that UAE is one of the major oil producing nations in the world, and is said to have at least a 100 years of oil reserves at current production rates. Yet, they are completely leaving oil dependence for hydrogen energy production by 2030, including cars and trucks that will be hydrogen electric.

The problem in the US is the power and influence of the oil, gas, and coal lobbies, and related corporations. They buy politicians with campaign donations, who in turn propose fossil fuel energy solutions rather than the so called "alternatives" like clean burning hydrogen (that's all about us in the air we breathe and the water we drink).

Anonymous1987 · 28-05-2010 08:35PM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

From a political point of view, people, particularly those most vulnerable and disadvantaged were hardest hit with Katrina with the consequences are still felt in families even today. In the oil spill case, its bad sure, but in terms of perception the environment holds much lower importance to the average person as his/her livelihood does or so I would think.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I agree, this is highly specialist technology even if the government wanted to help there is not a whole lot it can do.

Manic Moran · 28-05-2010 11:09PM

I read somewhere that the US is the world's largest consumer of oil?

I believe last year we were overtaken by China.

We could do with more nuclear reactors, but the paperwork and cost before even breaking ground is ridiculous. The first nuclear reactors in 30 years have just been given the go-ahead in Georgia.

NTM

29-05-2010 02:18AM

Anonymous1987 wrote: »

In the oil spill case, its bad sure, but in terms of perception the environment holds much lower importance to the average person as his/her livelihood does or so I would think.

“There are finfish, crabs, oysters and shrimp in the Gulf of Mexico near the area of the oil spill,” said Roy Crabtree, NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Administrator. “The Gulf is such an important biologic and economic area in terms of seafood production and recreational fishing.”

"According to NOAA, there are 3.2 million recreational fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico region who took 24 million fishing trips in 2008. Commercial fishermen in the Gulf harvested more than 1 billion pounds of finfish and shellfish in 2008."

Source: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100502_fisheries.html

26 May 2010... Birmingham, AL: "While a number of lawsuits have been launched on behalf of those killed or injured in the April 20 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon, the greater legal liability appears to center on how far the oil slick spreads and the lives and livelihoods it touches. The impact of the BP oil spill on property values, tourism and business is incalculable."

Source: http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/14222/bp-oil-spill-gulf-of-mexico-british-petroleum-4.html

28 May 2010... Los Angeles Times: "Half of California's registered voters oppose new oil drilling off the state's coast, according to a new Los Angeles Times/USC poll."

"That marks a reversal from recent years, when voters increasingly favored new drilling amidst sharp rises in the cost of gasoline."

"About 50% of those surveyed opposed new drilling, while 43% supported it, according to the poll, which was conducted May 19-26."

Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/la-callpoll28-m,0,3790394.story

Red Hand · 29-05-2010 02:28AM

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

It extracts hydrogen (from air in some kind of confinement... don't know the science) and burns it to drive turbines to produce electric energy. The contract has already been awarded to a major So Korean construction corporation to build the first electric generating station, ground breaking will occur this year, with several more plants to follow.

Hmmm...that sounds a little vague to moi. To extract hydrogen from air seems very very expensive. To extract hydrogen in my mind, you would need to compress atmospheric air, freeze it and then slowly bring it up to a temperature whwere hydrogen sublimes off (once gases of lower temperatures have sublimed off) Remeber that air is made up of miniscule amounts of H2.

The other possibility is a sort of centrifuge where gases of a certain density are whipped to the outside, and gases of a lower density are kept on the inside...likewise with membrane filration technigues used in manufacturing the first atomic weapons, whereby the heavier elements are kept through repeated filreation and the ligther ones left through....coukld be something like this, though again would be very expensive.

Now, if you were to use electrolysis to split H2O molecules using electrictity, then yes, this woukd be a possisbily but then again, where do you get the engery to split the molecules into oxyen and hydrogen? Air turibines generating green electciryty? Then you will need fields upon fields of turbines to generate the necessary power.

Energy is not created nor destroyed but changed from one form to another. This is the Holy Rule. You cannot extract hydrogen from air using confinement unless you are using alot of energy to do so...and hwere do you get this energy is what I ask?

29-05-2010 03:26AM

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

Hmmm...that sounds a little vague to moi.

Well, in the earlier post I stated that I did not know the science, as you obviously do with your chemistry background. Further, I got my information from a Ph.D. student from UAE Abu Dhabi in a coffeehouse, not exactly a rigourous source? My bad for not double checking sources!

In any case, I just searched the web and found that the hydrogen electricity power plant for Abu Dhabi building plans are real, but the science (as well as the UK collaboration) is very different from what the Ph.D. student told me.

4 March 2010 - "The UK/UAE Hydrogen Power Abu Dhabi joint venture will not be able to launch a construction deal for the world’s biggest hydrogen power plant until the second quarter of the year as it has been unable to complete offtake and financing agreements, sources close to the scheme told MEED."

Rather than breaking down air in a chamber, "The power plant will break down natural gas supplied by Adnoc into hydrogen and carbon dioxide."

"The hydrogen will be used to generate 400 MW of power. Masdar wants to sell this to Adwea. The company also plans to sell the carbon dioxide back to Adnoc for injection into its oilfields, as part of a wider carbon capture and storage scheme."

Source: http://www.powergenworldwide.com/index/display/articledisplay/8145132072/articles/powergenworldwide/gas-generation/new-projects/2010/03/abu-dhabi_hydrogen.html

I still don't know the science as you do, and the collaboration was with the UK and not the USA, but the fact still remains that Abu Dhabi of the UAE is building the world's largest hydrogen electric generating plant. So why can't the so called technological giant USA cut back on its foreign and domestic oil dependence and adopt 21st Century hydrogen tech, not 100 years old oil tech?

Red Hand · 29-05-2010 03:37AM

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Rather than breaking down air in a chamber, "The power plant will break down natural gas supplied by Adnoc into hydrogen and carbon dioxide."

"The hydrogen will be used to generate 400 MW of power. Masdar wants to sell this to Adwea. The company also plans to sell the carbon dioxide back to Adnoc for injection into its oilfields, as part of a wider carbon capture and storage scheme."

Source: http://www.powergenworldwide.com/index/display/articledisplay/8145132072/articles/powergenworldwide/gas-generation/new-projects/2010/03/abu-dhabi_hydrogen.html

I still don't know the science as you do, and the collaboration was with the UK and not the USA, but the fact still remains that Abu Dhabi of the UAE is building the world's largest hydrogen electric generating plant. So why can't the so called technological giant USA cut back on its foreign and domestic oil dependence and adopt 21st Century hydrogen tech, not 100 years old oil tech?

So it is effectively generating hydrogen by breaking down natural gas....which is in turn a product that comes from oil fields? So, you will still need to drill to get gas (and oil) so as to produce hydrogen? CO2 is still produced as a by product which they say they will will inject back into the oilfield?

So you are needing to drill to get to gas (and oil), break down the natural gas to hydrogen, and then inject the CO2 back into the oil field as a waste material. How stable is CO2 when injected back into the oil/gas well?

This is not that green. This county UAE would be lost without it's oil wells and it's gas wells. You still need oil and gas to generate hydrogen.

29-05-2010 04:18AM

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

This is not that green. This county UAE would be lost without it's oil wells and it's gas wells. You still need oil and gas to generate hydrogen.

Since living the last 4 years in the USA, I am always hit by a preponderance of arguments that focus on why the USA cannot leave its foreign and domestic oil dependence, rather than how it can leave (or not be so reliant on 100 years old oil tech). Alternatives are not taken seriously, or if someone challenges Big Oil, they are marginalized as tree huggers, etc.

Other alternative energy critics have held that the USA with its 300 million population cannot easily shift from oil dependence like UAE with only 4 million people. Well, Brazil has half the USA population with about 150 million people, and it's been reported back in 2005 that an ethanol-oil mixed fuel has resulted in:

"Brazil’s reliance on oil imports has plummeted from 85 percent of its energy consumption in 1978 to 10 percent in 2002, according to that country’s National Petroleum Agency. And this year, it will be nearly zero, Brazilian officials say."

Source: http://www.energybulletin.net/node/5021

So rather than "Drill baby drill" more oil wells offshore USA, increasing the dependence on 100 year old oil tech, as well as increasing the likelihood of more air, sea, and beach contamination (and spoiled coastlines like off of Long Beach with their bloody awful looking oil islands and oil rigs), why not take alternatives seriously? This will not be the last oil spill.

Further, I would guess that the Gulf oil spill that took over 5 weeks to solve (or more, if the current fix does not hold), will serve to erode Obama's support among Independents, and many Dems adversely affected in the south.

jank · 29-05-2010 04:26AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_by_revenue

Have a look at the top ten and you get your answers on why we consume so much oil.
Again as with wall st this should be a tea party issue. Waiting though for that protest!

29-05-2010 04:41AM

jank wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_by_revenue

Have a look at the top ten and you get your answers on why we consume so much oil.
Again as with wall st this should be a tea party issue. Waiting though for that protest!

The Tea Party will not protest Big Oil? I wonder why?

Anonymous1987 · 29-05-2010 11:00AM

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

The impact of the BP oil spill on property values, tourism and business is incalculable."

Fair enough, I haven't been too engaged with the story so I was just making a passing (clearly incorrect) observation.

Is BP Oil Spill Becoming Obama's Katrina?

Comments