Does oil production demand "Nuclear Engineering Standards"?

Certainly higher engineering standards and greater regulation are necessary. For example, Brazil and Norway both require acoustic remote shut-off switches for the oil rigs off their shores. Deepwater Horizon did not have one. How does Brazil have more stringent regulations on offshore oil rigs than the US?

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN03213884201005...

The major problem which led to this disaster was that the US government has allowed these rigs to be operated under a 'trust us, they're safe' standard. Far too much of the safety of these rigs was left in the hands of the operators. The foxes were running the henhouses. People say 'there haven't been many spills'. That argument works great until there is a major spill which was preventable, but which occurred due to the lack of oversight and the oil companies forgoing important tests in order to save a few bucks. At that point you finally discover the risks of allowing them to operate under such lax regulation.

"Federal regulators responsible for oversight of drilling in the Gulf of Mexico allowed industry officials several years ago to fill in their own inspection reports in pencil — and then turned them over to the regulators, who traced over them in pen before submitting the reports to the agency, according to an inspector general’s report to be released this week."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/us/25mms.html?hp

It's actually a lot like global warming. People say 'oh the planet isn't warming that fast and the climate isn't changing that much'. Only when something disastrous happens and it's too late to stop it do people realize what a mistake they've made.

It's hard to say how much the cost of oil would be impacted by stronger regulation and more stringent engineering standards. If BP had actually tested the strength of the cement well linings like they were supposed to, they would have found the problem and averted the disaster.

http://climateprogress.org/2010/05/20/nwf-bp-cover...

So really the biggest problem was the lack of oversight and accountability. The other big problem was the lack of a mitigation plan in the event of a major disaster such as this one. The solution to both problems could have been implemented at relatively low cost. BP just got greedy, and we're paying the price for allowing them to get away with way too much. It's a lot like the Exxon Valdez spill, in which BP also played a central role.

“They were not prepared to respond at all,” Parker said, referring to Alyeska [Alaska oil industry consortium in which BP owned a controlling interest]. “They did not have a trained team … The equipment was buried under several feet of snow.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/25/bp-exxon-...

Well if you look at the basic stats there have been about 3 major oil spills from rigs in the gulf in the past 20 years. But there are over 4000 rigs in the gulf. There must be something right with the standards to have such a low number of accidents. But what is starting to come out seems to point to those standards not being followed for some reason.

What is even more of a concern is why wasn't a good plan in place to handle a oil spill. It seems like they are making it ups as they go.

The petroleum producing companies are very profitable indeed. Any demand for them to improve their production/extraction safety and engineering standards etc. to that on a par with nuclear facilities is unlikely to have a significant effect on that profitability in the medium term onwards..

Accidents do of course happen at nuclear facilities too despite what we are lead to believe are numeorus exacting safeguards. From a sceptics point of view it could be argued that unless the place blows up Chernobyl style or close to it with Three Mile Island, a nuclear accident involving discharge of "invisible" radioactive gas or water is much easier to keep quiet about.

So as much as you over engineer things from a safety perspective to contain whatever it is you are doing, accidents can still happen.

huh! in 2009 BP alone made £8.75 billion profit. Thats more than the GDP of 60 countries on earth! Just that one company... and that was 45% down on the year before! Improving standards is not going to put the industry on the financial brink for one minute. It's plain and simple and doesn't need a war and peace thesis, they can afford it!

How would improved engineering safety standards with a view to preventing oil spillage have any effect on climate change? It is the burning and consumption of fossil fuels that is the principle issue there.

The recent spill in the Gulf hasn't raised enough environmental conern.

Imagine living in a town where 90+% of everything you buy was manufactured, grown, and or produced within that same town, county, or state rather than shipped accross oceans and countries. People walked, took a trolley, bus, or rode a bicycle to get to where they were going.

A town without 5 or 10 huge companies that are interconnected with a dozen more running everything from banks, sports franchises, media, fast food, and the like. It would be serviced by hundreds of small independent enterprises.

With this in place, we could walk 2 blocks to a mile in order to arrive at work. Only one person would need to be the bread winner in the household. We'd shop in the downtown business district and a plethora of corner stores. For entertainment, we could walk to the local sports arena, and catch our hometown team playing against the next town over's team, eat in a local restaurant, or catch a movie in a theater that's in the down town district rather than cinema 20 at the local mall that we have to drive 10 miles through heavy traffic to get to. Rather than sitting on a computer, watching TV, and dozens of other impersonal forms of entertainment, we would gather with our co-workers, their families, their friends, and ours for a night of conversation and fun.

Rather than living where the land is inhospitable the likes of the within 25 miles of the Gulf coast, east coast, tornado alley, Kalifornia with it's wild fires, mud slides, and earthquakes, we'd live where the climate is more friendly. If it wasn't for airconditioning, how many people would live in hot and or humid states? Man made dikes that irrigate and or keep Mother Nature at bay consume huge amounts of energy maintain, and when these systems fail, it's even more costly to rebuild entire cities that have been devestated by flooding and or drought.

There's a simple solution to green living. All we have to do is return to a simple way of life, but Americans will never do that because they've been brainwashed into their current wasteful style of living by huge powerful corperations that stand to gain phenomenal profits.

A 1920s lifestyle combined with our current technology would make life simple, enjoyable, and significantly green in comparison to our present lifestyle. That's the answer to Nuclear Engineering Standards for oil companies.

help "run" a nuclear power plant basiclly help watch over the control room operations. it starts out at about $80'000 year but be prepared to be bored as hell.