Another Oil Platform Explodes

For all the people who think we need LESS regulation on oil drilling: Congrats!

NEW ORLEANS â?? An offshore oil platform exploded in the Gulf of Mexico on Thursday morning, injuring one worker, the United States Coast Guard said.
The New York Times

The production platform, which was operated by the Houston-based Mariner Energy, was positioned in relatively shallow waters â?? 340 feet deep â?? and to the west of where a drilling rig leased by BP blew up and sank this spring, killing 11 people and touching off an environmental calamity.

All 13 members of the work crew on board Thursday were accounted for, the Coast Guard said, though the injured workerâ??s condition was not immediately known. The crew were pulled from the water by a civilian boat that had been in the area, the Crystal Clear, and taken to a nearby rig, Coast Guard officials said.

Rescuers, who arrived about an hour after receiving reports of the explosion, took the crew to Terrebone General Medical Center in Houma, La.

It was unclear whether the platform was in danger of foundering, or whether the explosion had set off any oil leaks.

Government officials said the Mariner platform had not been involved in any recent oil and gas production, and that it had been undergoing maintenance work. The platform was not affected by the Obama administrationâ??s recent ban on deepwater oil drilling, imposed in the wake of the BP spill.

The Coast Guard received two calls of an oil rig in flames at 9:19 a.m. central time on Thursday, prompting officials to scramble seven helicopters to reach the site of the explosion, located 80 miles south of Vermilion Bay in Louisiana.

Rescuers reached the scene at 10:30 a.m., and by 11 a.m., there were seven Coast Guard helicopters on the scene, five from New Orleans and two from Houston, and five Cutters.

Mariner Energy, which describes itself as one of the largest independent oil and gas companies in the Gulf, has 195 active drilling leases.

A spokesman for Mariner Energy, whose stock slid on Wall Street following news of the blast, told CNN that the platform was not engaged in any active drilling.

Robert Gibbs, the White House spokesman, said that President Obama was in a national security meeting in the White House Situation Room when news of the explosion began to circulate, and he was not certain whether the president had been informed.

â??We obviously have response assets ready for deployment should we receive reports of pollution in the water,â?? Mr. Gibbs said, during a regular televised briefing.

He noted that the experience gained from the BP oil spill could prove useful in dealing with the latest incident, but said that he did not know who the highest ranking official near the scene might be.

Source: An Oil Platform Burns, Blanketing the Gulf With Angst - The New York Times

Yes because clearly regulation would have prevented it just like it prevented 500 million eggs from being recalled… wait what?!

[quote]John S. wrote:
Yes because clearly regulation would have prevented it just like it prevented 500 million eggs from being recalled… wait what?![/quote]

Mistakes happen, but more regulation would help prevent these types of things.

More checks, more safety standards, etc are the best defense against these types of things.

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
Yes because clearly regulation would have prevented it just like it prevented 500 million eggs from being recalled… wait what?![/quote]

Mistakes happen, but more regulation would help prevent these types of things.

More checks, more safety standards, etc are the best defense against these types of things.[/quote]

Who sets the standards, who does the checks?

This was 340 feet off shore, this will be a standard cap for them.

Big buisnesses do not have to comply with regulations, the egg incedent should prove this. I didn’t make a thread about the 500 million contaminated eggs that got through bashing regulation, so why make a thread calling for more regulation on a minor blow out?(340 feet is very easy to cap)

We can play this game all day long, but its very stupid and doesn’t prove anything, for everything you can call for a regulation I can pick something where regulations fail, and fail hard.

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
For all the people who think we need LESS regulation on oil drilling: Congrats!
[/quote]

Why? Were regulations lessened? AND did the removed regulations cause this?

What? They haven’t been lessened? Then your assertion is retarded.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
For all the people who think we need LESS regulation on oil drilling: Congrats!
[/quote]

Why? Were regulations lessened? AND did the removed regulations cause this?

What? They haven’t been lessened? Then your assertion is retarded.[/quote]

Well thats another way of saying what I was trying to say.

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
For all the people who think we need LESS regulation on oil drilling: Congrats!
[/quote]

Why? Were regulations lessened? AND did the removed regulations cause this?

What? They haven’t been lessened? Then your assertion is retarded.[/quote]

Well thats another way of saying what I was trying to say.[/quote]

Sometimes I have a way with words…

Now, I don’t know that it’s a good way, but its a way.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
For all the people who think we need LESS regulation on oil drilling: Congrats!
[/quote]

Why? Were regulations lessened? AND did the removed regulations cause this?

What? They haven’t been lessened? Then your assertion is retarded.[/quote]

Is anyone starting to suspect foul play?


As far as I understand it, the Feddy Gubbamint is largely responsible for what happened in the first disaster.

  1. After the Valdez oil spill, Republican controlled Congress passed a law limiting the liability of oil companies in return for more regulatory authority. That limit ($75M) was rediculously low then - and certainly is now. It’s practially a rounding error for these companies. What does that mean? It means that Boards are not focused on risk to the degree they would be if they were fully liable - which is why they should be fully liable.

  2. Then: BP applied to drill in 500 ft. of water - this is a very common and safe practice. For reasons I don’t understand, the regulatory authority denied the application and directed them instead to another area that would mean drilling in 5000 ft (which is more dangerous and we have little to no experience in disaster recovery at that depth) - BP went for it (see #1 above).

  3. It is unclear why, but environmental and regulatory requirements were relaxed for this particular platform. A $500m piece of equipment that would have prevented the disaster was not fitted onto the rig. Perhaps it was in return for agreeing to drill further out?

  4. Once the disaster happened, offers came from all over the world to assist; from companies and countries who have a great deal of experience in dealing with this. However, the Obama administration would not suspend the Jones Act, which meant that international workers were not allowed in these waters. (See Obama’s union ties.)

  5. Concerned governments and citizens who wanted to protect the coast were organizing a massive effort to protect their wetlands/waterways, etc. After all, it’s theirs and they know it best. The Obama adminstration, however, denied them the power to do so.

What would all the left wing gabament is the answer people do it it was discovered some left wing nut sabotaged these rigs?

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
What would all the left wing gabament is the answer people do it it was discovered some left wing nut sabotaged these rigs?[/quote]

They would hold discovery channel hostage?

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
What would all the left wing gabament is the answer people do it it was discovered some left wing nut sabotaged these rigs?[/quote]

They would hold discovery channel hostage?[/quote]

lol…can you imagine if it turned out as DD supposes?