Does anyone else feel like people are being too hard on BP?

[charrison]

I've heard via the news that BP has tried to keep coverage of damage to shorelines and animals to a minimum.

I don't think that's proper if its true.

I dont know how they would do that. Far to many citizens with cameras to stop that.

 

[Darwin333]

I dont know how they would do that. Far to many citizens with cameras to stop that.

It is true. They have been stopping boats with reporters from going places to film the damage. The CG gave them permission but BP stopped them anyway. Who is in charge again?

Of course there is the possibility that BP prevented them from entering certain sites due to safety reasons but you would think that the CG would have been on the same page as them or an even crazier idea, the CG determines what areas are shut down (at BPs request).

Another feel good story. When Obama flew in to see the oiled marshes the first time a busload of workers with brand new white boots showed up on one of the beaches he was going to flyover and started cleaning up. They got back on the bus shortly after he left.

Like I have been saying, the cleanup and containment has been a complete clusterfuck.

 

[charrison]

It is true. They have been stopping boats with reporters from going places to film the damage. The CG gave them permission but BP stopped them anyway. Who is in charge again?

If the spill is affecting the beaches as bad as claimed, I find unbelievable that there is no footage of it from media or citizens.

Another feel good story. When Obama flew in to see the oiled marshes the first time a busload of workers with brand new white boots showed up on one of the beaches he was going to flyover and started cleaning up. They got back on the bus shortly after he left.

I never saw any proof of this happening as you describe. I have however seen footage of bp employees/contractors cleaning a beach. Those people were instructed not to talk to media.

Like I have been saying, the cleanup and containment has been a complete clusterfuck.

I agree, it could have gone much better.

 

[Darwin333]

I dont think they pose the exact same risk as this thing left unchecked would pump oil for 30 years! A oil tanker would not do that. Plus we have new safety regulations for tankers from the 89 exxon spill. Is it something to look into? Absolutely. The entire regulatory system in this country from apples to oil to coal to gold to nuclear to banking to housing needs a looking at. It's all a big shitty fucking mess. But really only nuclear and oil could ever dream of fucking shit up this bad.

First of all it is absurd to think the well would ever be left unchecked and would continue to leak oil for 30 years. Thats like saying every supertanker that enters the Gulf could sink and spill its entire cargo.

Supertankers can carry over 2 million barrels of oil and every last one of them that comes to the US is offloaded in the gulf. So 2 million barrels of oil being dumped into the gulf is not worthy of the same moratorium and study as oil drilling is? I don't have time to look up the numbers but I bet statistically the actual risk from tankers is greater than that of most oil wells. That risk is perfectly acceptable to you because if we did use the same method of ensuring tanker safety and regulations are adequate as we are for drilling it would hurt YOUR economy. Your ok with the risk that a vessel loaded with 2 million barrels of oil (or more, some carry over 3 million barrels) in Saudi Arabia might have a worst case scenario accident in the Gulf if that is what it takes to keep your go-go juice flowing, right? I bet the cleanup plans in place for worst case scenarios on those supertankers are even worse than BPs. Shouldn't we shut them down until they have a good plan, as well as prepositioned assets, in place and ready to go should the worst possible case scenario happen (perhaps 2 of them colliding, sinking and spilling their entire cargo)?

Actually, you are in favor of INCREASING this risk because we will require even more of those tankers if current policy isn't changed and oil exploration/production in the Gulf is basically put out of business for upwards of a decade. Since you want to increase the risk to OUR shores I think it only prudent that we at least take 6-9 months and make sure that its safe. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

 

[Mark R]

I think the problem is that although the evidence shows that BP made multiple mistakes, there were other factors that contributed (e.g. the BOP didn't function as intended, and that it had been modified by the sub-contractor).

What is also interesting is that from discussions with oilmen and looking at some of the testimony given at the inquiry, is that a number of the so-called 'negligent' omissions, were actually approved by the MMS and were standard practice at many other oil companies. (e.g. using only pressure tests following cementing instead of a full inspection). In other words, the whole practice of deep water oil drilling has the potential for catastrophic accident, and it was just BP's bad luck that it happened to them, rather than someone else. The evidence certainly seems to suggest that this is the case - and if it is the case, then destroying BP is not going to help solve the problem. Indeed, it may simply mean that other oil companies simply leave the US and go elsewhere (with the damage to tax revenues and balance of payments).

I don't want to prejudge the outcome, and it is clear that a full and detailed enquiry is made, and that BP needs to pay the full cost of restoration/compensation to the damaged areas and a suitably large fine. However, it looks to me as if the administration is out for blood - and is desperately looking to burn BP as a witch. Not only that, but fear of aggressive punishment means that future events are more difficult to investigate, as it strongly encourages cover-ups and destruction of evidence.

Having studied issues of safety and human factors, I'm concerned that this approach may not help. It's been well recognised in aerospace, the nuclear industry and increasingly in medicine that hanging people out to dry when they make a mistake is counter productive - it makes it look as if something is happening, so discourages proper investigation, but it doesn't stop the mistake happening again. What is needed is a detailed examination of drilling and well management procedures, and a change in the regulations to ensure that the procedures are 'safe by design' - instead of relying in a human to make the correct decision (e.g. monitor the mud flows to check that control of the well isn't being lost), and ensuring that a BOP is fail-safe (the evidence to Congress, suggests that it's well known that BOPs aren't fail-safe, as they can't seal if drilling tools are still in place in the well - which they almost certainly will be in a catastrophic emergency).

 

[Darwin333]

If the spill is affecting the beaches as bad as claimed, I find unbelievable that there is no footage of it from media or citizens.

Its not the beaches that are our biggest concern, its the marshes. There is plenty of footage of it out there and its not like BP can keep a lid on it forever its just the point that the Coast Guard gives the boat permission to enter an area, BP tells them they can't and BP wins.

I never saw any proof of this happening as you describe. I have however seen footage of bp employees/contractors cleaning a beach. Those people were instructed not to talk to media.

They got there hours before Obama showed up and left hours after. They waited for the media to leave obviously but the parish president and local police officers and even some local media have all confirmed that it did in fact happen just like that. Plus the little fact that almost no progress in cleaning that particular area was made by BP that day or even the week following (I'll be in the area on Wednesday so I will see if any progress has been made at all).

I agree, it could have gone much better.

The real frustrating part is, from our perspective it is still not getting much better (at least quickly).

 

[charrison]

Having studied issues of safety and human factors, I'm concerned that this approach may not help. It's been well recognised in aerospace, the nuclear industry and increasingly in medicine that hanging people out to dry when they make a mistake is counter productive - it makes it look as if something is happening, so discourages proper investigation, but it doesn't stop the mistake happening again. What is needed is a detailed examination of drilling and well management procedures, and a change in the regulations to ensure that the procedures are 'safe by design' - instead of relying in a human to make the correct decision (e.g. monitor the mud flows to check that control of the well isn't being lost), and ensuring that a BOP is fail-safe (the evidence to Congress, suggests that it's well known that BOPs aren't fail-safe, as they can't seal if drilling tools are still in place in the well - which they almost certainly will be in a catastrophic emergency).

I will agree there needs to be a full investigation to find out what went wrong and fix what went wrong. However, given the last time things went this wrong was 30 years ago, so I am not so sure regulation and practices are in a terrible state. While, I think 100% failsafe is a good goal, I think we also need to realize that can be extremely difficult to achieve. I think industry also needs better planning for containment when such an event occurs.

 

[Nemesis 1]

BP is responsiable for this mess . They rake in the profits . This event should put BP out of business. If they pay for ALL the damages done to ecology. But that won't happen we tax payers will pay . Bp is just another name in the Rothschild empire. The Rothschilds are the true untouchables of the world . Put me in a locked room with them and the world would end up better for it.

Lets see its june 6 and the leak won't be stopped till earliest august . Thats enough time to destroy the atlantic oceans ecology. This is not just the gulf coast thats effected here but the entire atlantic sea board Wait until the oil spill invades the coast of normandy. Than I cry will go out such as the world has never heard.

 

[RedCOMET]

I think the problem is that although the evidence shows that BP made multiple mistakes, there were other factors that contributed (e.g. the BOP didn't function as intended, and that it had been modified by the sub-contractor).

What is also interesting is that from discussions with oilmen and looking at some of the testimony given at the inquiry, is that a number of the so-called 'negligent' omissions, were actually approved by the MMS and were standard practice at many other oil companies. (e.g. using only pressure tests following cementing instead of a full inspection). In other words, the whole practice of deep water oil drilling has the potential for catastrophic accident, and it was just BP's bad luck that it happened to them, rather than someone else. The evidence certainly seems to suggest that this is the case - and if it is the case, then destroying BP is not going to help solve the problem. Indeed, it may simply mean that other oil companies simply leave the US and go elsewhere (with the damage to tax revenues and balance of payments).

I don't want to prejudge the outcome, and it is clear that a full and detailed enquiry is made, and that BP needs to pay the full cost of restoration/compensation to the damaged areas and a suitably large fine. However, it looks to me as if the administration is out for blood - and is desperately looking to burn BP as a witch. Not only that, but fear of aggressive punishment means that future events are more difficult to investigate, as it strongly encourages cover-ups and destruction of evidence.

Having studied issues of safety and human factors, I'm concerned that this approach may not help. It's been well recognised in aerospace, the nuclear industry and increasingly in medicine that hanging people out to dry when they make a mistake is counter productive - it makes it look as if something is happening, so discourages proper investigation, but it doesn't stop the mistake happening again. What is needed is a detailed examination of drilling and well management procedures, and a change in the regulations to ensure that the procedures are 'safe by design' - instead of relying in a human to make the correct decision (e.g. monitor the mud flows to check that control of the well isn't being lost), and ensuring that a BOP is fail-safe (the evidence to Congress, suggests that it's well known that BOPs aren't fail-safe, as they can't seal if drilling tools are still in place in the well - which they almost certainly will be in a catastrophic emergency).

There were multiple mistakes that have led to this disaster. BP as the responsible party by law is responsible to ensure clean up.


THE BOP stack should not have failed. I have mentioned before it is really the only line of defense when it comes to combating a kick and subsequent blowout. And what most people don't get, is that a kick/ blowout can occur anywhere in the well while it is being drilled. I was on a rig that had gas kick in a salt dome.

After the review of relevant testimony by those on the rigs and the BOP stack is pulled to surface, we'll all get a better picture of what went down that night, and what happened to the BOP since it was splashed.

 

[sportage]

I believe everyone that drives a car that uses gas has equal blame to share, with BP.
When Bush was in, and gas was $5 a gal, we wanted congress to take action. To do something. BP and the other companies were caught between a rock and a hard place (as the saying goes). Yes they or the US gov could have put in place high tech safe guards to avoid this type of thing happening...but... would we have been willing to pay the price at the pump. Well, you all know the answer to that if you are honest with yourself.
I still place 99% of the blame on everyone who chanted with a smirk on their face at that republican convention "drill baby drill". The people that are silent now. That is everyone except nut case Sarah.

PS..And when I see Governor Bobby Jindal crying and ranting on TV I want to slap him silly.
He knows dam well he supported McCain and the chanting back then.
WHAT A PATHETIC LOSER HE IS !!!!

 

[nageov3t]

I believe everyone that drives a car that uses gas has equal blame to share, with BP.
When Bush was in, and gas was $5 a gal, we wanted congress to take action. To do something. BP and the other companies were caught between a rock and a hard place (as the saying goes). Yes they or the US gov could have put in place high tech safe guards to avoid this type of thing happening...but... would we have been willing to pay the price at the pump. Well, you all know the answer to that if you are honest with yourself.
I still place 99% of the blame on everyone who chanted with a smirk on their face at that republican convention "drill baby drill". The people that are silent now. That is everyone except nut case Sarah.

PS..And when I see Governor Bobby Jindal crying and ranting on TV I want to slap him silly.
He knows dam well he supported McCain and the chanting back then.
WHAT A PATHETIC LOSER HE IS !!!!

holding this up as an example of why all offshore drilling should be stopped is retarded.

 

[Darwin333]

PS..And when I see Governor Bobby Jindal crying and ranting on TV I want to slap him silly.
He knows dam well he supported McCain and the chanting back then.
WHAT A PATHETIC LOSER HE IS !!!!

What is he crying about and why do you want to slap him silly?

 

[werepossum]

I know that working in the nuclear industry probably gives me a bias to the matter... but we really don't need oil anymore.

There is no technical reason to keep using it. Granted it would take years (perhaps decades to do it without collapsing the economy) to ween off of it but there is no real reason we can't start doing this today. Best to start while we can safely and effectively get off of the stuff than to be forced by lack of supply or some such.

Obviously there are practical reasons as we can't simply spend tax dollars on a new Tesla for everyone... but if I were able to wave a magic money wand around and replace all of our oil/coal with nuclear and all of the cars with electric no one in the public would notice but for the very few that have to travel more than 300 miles in a day in a sedan.. (the range and speed of refill of electric is still not on par with fossil fuels, but it is getting there)

I must add that to blame environmentalists is also insane... Those of us who hate drilling for oil in wild life reserves hate it equally as much in the gulf.. We don't want it to be moved out to see, we want new well tapping stopped, period.

Note that I don't like nuclear as a long term power supply as it is too centralized and our ability to safely deal with the by products has a terrible track record (it is all usable fuel we store away in places like Colorado, but for economic and political reasons we just throw it in a whole where it will be nearly impossible to access regardless of our technological advancement... this is something we desperately need to get better at before we start building more reactors.). But it can be done well, and is the best centralized augmentation to the grid we have at the moment. I'm glad to see the move towards growing alternative decentralized means here in Canada but it still isn't where it needs to be for future energy independence and sustainability.

Perhaps you aren't aware that the USA doesn't have nearly enough active enrichment plants, nor nearly sufficient mining and processing capability,to even begin to switch to nuclear energy in the short term even if electric cars were currently practical? Even if we could concentrate the water for cooling, we're currently dependent on decommissioned warheads (ours and purchased Russian warheads) and purchased enriched uranium for even such nuclear capacity as we have. Until we have a safe and efficient breeder reactor or a hugely expanded nuclear industry at all levels, we have a LONG way to go before oil becomes a non-dominant energy source. Coal is our closest competitor, but here in Tennessee, with raped mountains and still cleaning up after a 2008 slag slide, we have no illusions about coal being any cleaner than oil.

Did I say the moratorium wasn't going to hurt our economy? No I didn't. So then I ask you why you are calling me a moron?

Hell this entire oil spill is going to hurt our economy. .. Everyone can see this. His point was to stop the tankers along with drilling and that would be a nuke to our economy. Thats what I was saying. Dense ass mofo. ^_^

If you're willing to take the economic hit for shutting down offshore drilling due to the risk of leakage, you should also be willing to take the economic hit for shutting tankers, which pose a roughly equal risk of leakage. That was Darwin's point and it is perfectly valid, which is why I called you a moron for pretending the two are not analogous.

What is he crying about and why do you want to slap him silly?

Duh, for not being a left wing loon. I suppose if one subscribes to the Magic Cupboard Theory of Economics it's not too much of a stretch to imagine energy coming out too. Someday we'll all drive cars powered entirely by proper tire inflation; the Messiah hath decreed it.

 

[JSt0rm]

Show me this information stating tankers are just as damaging as this leak.

 

[charrison]

Show me this information stating tankers are just as damaging as this leak.

Remember the exxon valdez?

It was a rare event that did significant damage. Did we shut down tankers coming into the US while the problem was addressed? no we did not, but the we did largely fixed the problem,but it is still possible for a massive oil spill from such super tankers.

 

[ebaycj]

Yes, in some ways I DO believe certain people -- especially our current political hacks are demonizing BP when they and everyone else knows they need their expertise to fix this problem. Seriously, who launches a "criminal" investigation of a company, then allows said company to continue with the repair effort? Does that make any fvcking sense? As soon as you mention "criminal" which carries with it the possibility the company's very survival is at stake legally, now you've distracted them when we need them focusing 100% on fixing this disaster and nothing else. This is all political theatre as far as I'm concerned from this administration. They don't know their ass from their elbow.

I believe BP is doing as well as Exxon, Shell, Total, Chevron, or any other major would have done in terms of their efforts to fix this thing. Someone in this thread mentioned over-engineering the rigs with multiple redundancies. Remember there are only 2 or 3 companies that manufacture deepwater drilling rigs...Transocean and Diamond Offshore are the only ones I can remember at this time. BP leases these rigs. And yes, there were redundancies...the battery to the sheer rams was tested and found to EXCEED the amps/volts needed for operation, but it didn't activate. And the gas bubble or whatever caused the explosion blew through at least 4 seals along the way that could have stopped it. Under engineered? Maybe. Not likely though...more like sometimes shit happens. Are accidents not allowed to happen nor people suffer in the 21st century?

And that's the point...this is NOT a perfect world, and accidents will happen. It's a tragic shame -- as much for the wildlife that will die as it is for the industry's hopes of expanding offshore drilling. This probably set us back 20 years. But...we NEED this oil. We have more illegals...err, people coming to our country every day and being born that will eventually want cars, air conditioning, and to open businesses. And we're still in a recession. When/if we ever come out of it, energy usage will rise at least 10+%. Where the fvck is that going to come from? Russia? Venezuela?? No thanks. Let's drill smarter, but by all means keep drilling. There is no cost effective alternative energy that will replace fossil fuels in the foreseeable future, so all you green eco-kooks can go pound salt right up your asses. Because I'm not about to give up my 22 mpg SUV to drive a Stupid...err, 2 seater Smart car.

BP will pay their share as they should...but they shouldn't be driven out of business by our govt demonizing them, nor have leeches and ambulance chasing scumbag lawyers on their ass for 20+ years afterward either. No company deserves that.

Accidents of this magnitude should not happen, ever, outside of a natural disaster (i.e. Cat 5 hurricane directly strikes rig / F5 tornado hits nuclear plant / 8 richter earthquake centered under nuclear plant, etc...)

Also, if BP's liabilities for this disaster are less than their assets are worth, they certainly should go out of business. Also, if BP did 20 years worth of damage, they certainly should have lawyers on their ass for 20+ years. That's a risk of participating in a very risky business.

Where's the parrot call for "personal responsibility" from the right when it comes to "legal persons" (who happen to be corporations)? Of course it is non-existent.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Remember the exxon valdez?

It was a rare event that did significant damage. Did we shut down tankers coming into the US while the problem was addressed? no we did not, but the we did largely fixed the problem,but it is still possible for a massive oil spill from such super tankers.

You know, there's a bit of a difference between one drunken captain running his tanker with a finite amount of oil into the ground versus having several systemic failures leading to a catastrophically ongoing spill that will take more than three months to stop completely.

And to address the main topic, no, people are not being too hard on BP.

 

[LTC8K6]

6.1 BILLION DOLLARS PROFIT in the first quarter of 2010.. mm.. NO WAY are we even being hard enough

^^^that is THREE MONTHS ... TAKE IT ALLLLLLLLLLL

Not sure what that has to do with anything, even if it were true.

 

[Linflas]

Show me this information stating tankers are just as damaging as this leak.

How about I let the National Academy of Sciences do that for you. Warning the link is a pdf.

Oil in the Sea III

 

[CLite]

BP's record isn't that bad over last years and in fact the Department of the Interior's Minerals Management Service had them nominated for safety award.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Visit any refinery and ask what has increased OSHA oversight in the last few years, the local refinery management and engineers will say "BP" every single time.

BP killed 15 people in Texas City in 2005, due to reduced safety staff and failure to implement basic safety standards that were required by OSHA for decades.

BP was the first company to ever spill oil on Alaska's North Slope, in 2006, because of terribly reduced inspection intervals.

BP has received 97% of all "willful, egregious" OSHA safety violations over the last few years.

Their record isn't that bad? They are the single worst run major oil company in the world. If you go to any conference for oil industry and talk to any of the engineers you will be enlightened.

 

[werepossum]

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Visit any refinery and ask what has increased OSHA oversight in the last few years, the local refinery management and engineers will say "BP" every single time.

BP killed 15 people in Texas City in 2005, due to reduced safety staff and failure to implement basic safety standards that were required by OSHA for decades.

BP was the first company to ever spill oil on Alaska's North Slope, in 2006, because of terribly reduced inspection intervals.

BP has received 97% of all "willful, egregious" OSHA safety violations over the last few years.

Their record isn't that bad? They are the single worst run major oil company in the world. If you go to any conference for oil industry and talk to any of the engineers you will be enlightened.

If the bolded is true then BP should in my opinion be barred from any new drilling, shipping or refining within the US jurisdiction, period. And all existing BP drill rigs, shipping or piping facilities, and refineries should have government supervisory personnel on site at BP's expense.

 

[RedCOMET]

BP's record isn't that bad over last years and in fact the Department of the Interior's Minerals Management Service had them nominated for safety award.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Visit any refinery and ask what has increased OSHA oversight in the last few years, the local refinery management and engineers will say "BP" every single time.

BP killed 15 people in Texas City in 2005, due to reduced safety staff and failure to implement basic safety standards that were required by OSHA for decades.

BP was the first company to ever spill oil on Alaska's North Slope, in 2006, because of terribly reduced inspection intervals.

BP has received 97% of all "willful, egregious" OSHA safety violations over the last few years.

Their record isn't that bad? They are the single worst run major oil company in the world. If you go to any conference for oil industry and talk to any of the engineers you will be enlightened.

BP and TOI work in partnership to make sure their rigs operate safely. In fact the other oil companies and drilling contractors work in partnership to make sure the rigs operate safely. A safe rig, is better for everybody. Its in their own best interests to make sure the operations are safe. Obviously, stuff went wrong on the Horizon... no argument on that.

I would think comparing a drilling rig to an oil refinery is apples to oranges. I have never worked or visited a refinery, but I have worked on more than one TOI rig that have been operated by BP and other companies. I have also worked on oil rigs operated by Ensco, Diamond offshore and Noble Energy. Regardless of which companies operates the rig, they will strive for a safe operation all the time. MMS fines are severe.

 

[CLite]

If the bolded is true then BP should in my opinion be barred from any new drilling, shipping or refining within the US jurisdiction, period. And all existing BP drill rigs, shipping or piping facilities, and refineries should have government supervisory personnel on site at BP's expense.

http://www.businessinsider.com/bp-h...s-has-an-awful-track-record-for-safety-2010-6

Now I will fully admit that BP's Alaska spill and texas city massacre may have contributed to OSHA paying more attention to BP than the other majors..... but still 760 "egregious, willful" violations versus Exxon getting 1.

@REDCOMET

Downstream to upstream can be apples to oranges as they are two companies. However, BP demonstrated their upstream business incompetence by being the first company to ever spill oil on Alaska's north slope by having a laughable inspection schedule.

*edit* to address redcomet above.

 

[Daedalus685]

Perhaps you aren't aware that the USA doesn't have nearly enough active enrichment plants, nor nearly sufficient mining and processing capability,to even begin to switch to nuclear energy in the short term even if electric cars were currently practical? Even if we could concentrate the water for cooling, we're currently dependent on decommissioned warheads (ours and purchased Russian warheads) and purchased enriched uranium for even such nuclear capacity as we have. Until we have a safe and efficient breeder reactor or a hugely expanded nuclear industry at all levels, we have a LONG way to go before oil becomes a non-dominant energy source. Coal is our closest competitor, but here in Tennessee, with raped mountains and still cleaning up after a 2008 slag slide, we have no illusions about coal being any cleaner than oil.

CANDU reactors don't use enriched fuel .

But yes, I am aware the infrastructure is not there right now.. but other than money there is no reason it could not be there in a few years. Which is why it is a weening process as I stated (until we have magic powers) but there is no reason we can't start now other than lack of will and/or money. My point was that we don't need oil in the sense that we can get as much power as we need from other sources. Obviously if all of the oil blew up today we would be kind of screwed for a while... but the only reason we still rely on it is because it is currently cheaper, which won't be the case for long (as government regulations change and the subsidization ends).

We don't 'need it' in the sense that we have other ways to extract the power it gives us. 50 years ago without oil we would lose the ability to fly planes and drive cars period. Now a days we can accomplish these technical feats other ways (albeit not for the same price).

There is enough power in the used fuel we store in holes to power us well through the next century.. It is just profoundly more expensive to reprocess that (to add to the fact that it is stored to make this nearly impossible.. at least the older 'waste') than to dig more out of the Canadian shield. We mine and sell to Asia more uranium than I'd care to think about.

Canada mines ten times as much uranium than the USA, though we have no enrichment facilities at all as our reactors do not need them. I will readily admit I am not well versed in the current state of Nuclear power in the USA.

I doubt Canada would have much issue diverting what we sell over seas to the USA instead.. provided the desire was there to buy it.


The issue is that we have to stop relying on a centralized mode of energy production. We could get away with using the plants we have now to subsidize the grid if each building was capable of producing energy though something like solar/wind/geothermal. For that to happen will require a large investment though as retrofitting a house is very expensive and even adding it to a new house it not an insignificant cost. Tax money would likely have to be diverted to this sort of thing as it is unlikely many home owners would want to partake on the up front capitol (but hey, if someone comes up with a clever business model to do this some folk might end up pretty well off)

 

[Patranus]

holding this up as an example of why all offshore drilling should be stopped is retarded.

yup.