Community Protest Against Drilling In The Gulf Of Siam

[KTD]

LLK why don't you call Nu coastal they will give you the answers to there response plan which they have, also they have drilled off Songkhla a few years ago and the platform there is producing. So why do you assume they will have a problem. IF i were you I'd be more concerned about the 2,000,000 barrels of heavy crude being moved by tankers from offshore to Mathaput or Sriracha each month.

John 1, perhaps as bit more reading on the subject prior to comment would benefit the discussion.. The public hearing was exactly about asking NuCoastal and other involved oil companies to provide their response plan should environmental damage occur. They failed to priovide it so far.

You wrote earlier in this thread that the oil companies meet all international safety standards. Can we have a proof of it?

LLK,

you are saying companies involved failed to provide response plan, to who?

To you? Or to the government that sold these bloc's and licences to them give permission to drill and is responsible for setting the standards to be follow'd. You actually think that is not a part of the process?

There are lots of place's in the world you can and cannot drill. There are lots of good companies and lots of bad, as in all industries. Making oil and gas come out the ground to fuel YOUR needs is not the safest or easyest thing in the world to do. Being realistic accidents can and will happen.

If the thai gov did not want drilling in the gulf then there would be none, simple as that.

I am currently working as a sub contractor for Chevron in the world's 6th largest oil field. Now I have no knowledge of how the other companies involved operate but for you to insinuate that a company like Chevron can't provide a spill response plan or meet international safety standards is ridiculous. I don't know your background but I could bet that the safety standards and culture here is far beyond anything you could imagine.

A company that cannot provide a response plan but is involved and affiliated with organization such as Oil Spill Response and The Global Response Network and

are involved in a $1 billion dollar "plan to build and deploy a rapid response system that will be available to capture and contain oil in the event of a potential future underwater well blowout in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico announced in cooperation with ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil and Shell. this company canot provide response plan when they have contingency plans in place for anything you could imagine? When is the last time you spent a billion dollars on the enviroment?

I can see that the enviroment is important to you and I agree and would never argue that. Most people only see oil company's through the bad things that happen and have no knowledge of their comitment to the enviroment. (lots but not all companies) There are also lots of places on the planet that because of posible incident drilling is not feasible, don't think that all these things are not considered prior to drilling by companies.

I think when you tell John 1 to do a bit more reading prior to coment is being quick to judge. Does your knowledge of this and your enviromental comitment go any futher than google?

Spending a billion dollars on the environment while making 300 Billion out of the environment seems like a great deal for the environment

.

I guess "international safety standards" only applies in certain countries for Chevron, really showing true commitment to the environment below;

"Chevron's negligence in the Ecuadorian Amazon has been ignored for decades, though the sights, smells and impacts are just as incensing as gross pollution can be. Perhaps it's because they are indigenous, poor, and without access to media and resources, but the people that are affected by the spills and leakages in Ecuador continue to live in what can only be defined as a terrestrial oil slick. Outcry is minimal.

Chevron (previously Texaco) have dumped almost 17 million gallons of crude oil and 20 billion gallons of drilling wastewater directly into the Ecuadorian Amazon between 1964 and 1990.

Cofan tribe outside Lago who have been hurt dramatically by the contamination and oil pits left on their land. Children in their village swimming in water so polluted with oil that it gleamed iridescent purples and greens as it floated around them.

Chevron's spokespeople have gone as far as to say that the disease is due to lack of sanitation and poverty which seems ludicrous when spending time with these villages and waking up to the smell of petroleum in the air. Its clearly in their drinking water; it's killing their livestock and poisoning them

It could have been largely prevented if these oil giants had simply chose to re-inject the oil back into the earth as they do in the United States. By not re-injecting the oil back into the earth the oil companies saved a few million

A court in Ecuador has told oil giant Chevron Corp to pay $8.6bn in environmental damages, but the US company has termed the court order as "illegitimate and unenforceable" and said it would appeal.

Making 300 Billion out of the environment? Sorry I didn't realize there was much that ultimately didn't come from the environment, isn't everyone profiting?

I guess before giving my opinion the intelligent thing would be to get some more facts pertaining to this so maybe you can fill us in. I don't have any knowledge of this industry inside Ecuador.

Who were Chevron's partners in this? What was government involvement, partnership percent? What was the standards of 1964 and did Chevron have to follow

Ecuador's government legislation? What was the standard of the national partners involved? What was gov't regulations regarding waste water disposal, was a subcontractor used? Normally waste water disposal is gov't regulated.

There are always many details left out of media today that can change the whole aspect of an issue and who is responsible, everyone wants to blame the "oil giants" so that's how it reads.

[KTD]

SamuiNige:"It could have been largely prevented if these oil giants had simply chose to re-inject the oil back into the earth as they do in the United States."

Lord...another informed opinion. ...

For the benefit of the non-Certified Petroleum Landmen out there, please copy and paste some salient information on "re-inject(ing) the oil back into the earth as they do in the United States."

Oh, can't find any information on this? Could it be that you cooked it up all by your lonesome? Try that Google thing; maybe you'll get lucky....

i'm not stephen hawking, i don't have a hard drive behind my back wheels that i spit intuitive quotes from, my post was from the below article,

http://www.huffingto...l_b_566773.html

My point was not about anything other than Chevron negligence, a little lighter than opening a bigoted xenophobic thread.

The comment in the article about re injecting oil is funny. Is it fact that there was no injection program being used? if there was it would surely not be re injecting oil lol! Also would the formation and pressure characteristics allow this type of stimulation, one could go on about the technical aspects and feasibility of injection stimulation all day.

I don't disagree that someone should be responsible for cleaning this up, lots of mistakes made by this and previous generations have left many parts of the world a mess. This ps'd off young women is not wrong about being upset about waste being dumped in the amazon just

ill informed about how these things tend to happen. The oil spilled is still money in the bank so if Chevron left 40million dollars on the ground I'm sure they or someone else are trying to get it back.

And if she really cares about the environment why isn't she ps'd at the other things spilled all over the planet which haven't been cleaned up yet like roads, buildings and cities? I believe they are more damaging and harder to clean up than oil?

Edited February 25, 2011 by KTD

[Rooo]

From News Section:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/596277-national-health-commission-demands-final-report-on-chevron-project-thailand/

[canman]

Now he will not, and will try to sell the land for whatever money you can get for land with the view to an oil rig.

Have I understood this correctly? The view to an oil rig 42km away is making him sell his now worthless land??

42km??? What kind of eyesight does this person have? ONE oil rig, hidden perhaps behind Koh Tao, or several jestskis, or a low flying plane. I cannot believe I would be able to see something that far away. I can't see the SeaTran ferry after about half way to KPP.

All this talk of an oil rig being visible from 42Km is rubbish. No one anywhere on the island will be able to see this rig at any time. Even if they are flaring I highly doubt that even on the darkest night you would be able to see the glow on the horizon.

[canman]

I woud not risk posting citations of similar length that state the opposite, there are plenty on pretty much any environmental web site. However, here is a link to a study that describes current state of marine environment Gulf of Thailand. I do not believe you will read it, but I post it for others, who only view this thread and do not say anything (over 4,000 views). Please read this http://www.aseanenvi...ct/43003535.pdf and understand how close the Gulf of Thailand is to a major break, and how fragile its environment is already Why add yet another risk factor? So that CEO Coastal Energy, a tax heaven registered company, could make money?

I suspect that the state of the marine environment has more to do with pollution and over fishing, I would go so far as to say that the oil development in the GOT has had a net positive effect on the local marine populations. I have visually surveyed a few thousand Km's of the seabed in the GOT and I can tell you it is mostly a desert except when you are on a P/L or at a platform.

[Gatorade]

Now he will not, and will try to sell the land for whatever money you can get for land with the view to an oil rig.

Have I understood this correctly? The view to an oil rig 42km away is making him sell his now worthless land??

42km??? What kind of eyesight does this person have? ONE oil rig, hidden perhaps behind Koh Tao, or several jestskis, or a low flying plane. I cannot believe I would be able to see something that far away. I can't see the SeaTran ferry after about half way to KPP.

All this talk of an oil rig being visible from 42Km is rubbish. No one anywhere on the island will be able to see this rig at any time. Even if they are flaring I highly doubt that even on the darkest night you would be able to see the glow on the horizon.

Trying to cast my mind back to to do a bit of basic navigation to work out visible distance to horizon, and VHF Range is the calculation 1.15 x the square root of the height you are at.

Therefore if you are around the top of the mountain behind Chaweng say 2500ft above mean sea level it would be approx 1.15 X 50 = a distance to horizon of 57.5 Nm on a clear day.

From the beach at sea level say 9 ft height = approx 4NM or around 9Kms max distance.

[canman]

Now he will not, and will try to sell the land for whatever money you can get for land with the view to an oil rig.

Have I understood this correctly? The view to an oil rig 42km away is making him sell his now worthless land??

42km??? What kind of eyesight does this person have? ONE oil rig, hidden perhaps behind Koh Tao, or several jestskis, or a low flying plane. I cannot believe I would be able to see something that far away. I can't see the SeaTran ferry after about half way to KPP.

All this talk of an oil rig being visible from 42Km is rubbish. No one anywhere on the island will be able to see this rig at any time. Even if they are flaring I highly doubt that even on the darkest night you would be able to see the glow on the horizon.

Trying to cast my mind back to to do a bit of basic navigation to work out visible distance to horizon, and VHF Range is the calculation 1.15 x the square root of the height you are at.

Therefore if you are around the top of the mountain behind Chaweng say 2500ft above mean sea level it would be approx 1.15 X 50 = a distance to horizon of 57.5 Nm on a clear day.

From the beach at sea level say 9 ft height = approx 4NM or around 9Kms max distance.

OK for line of sight comms but you are not going to see anything in the visible spectrum. The humidity is far too high and on the best of days your not going to see much past 10K.

[oldsailor35]

Do Thai's really care. Just look at the filth and rubbish around that lovely modern jetty near Big Buddha. Its is absolutely disgusting and nobody sees it. Wherever those fishermen camp they just love to live in junk. Then look at the mess that resort owners at the southern end of Cheong Mon beach have created, it use to be a beautiful spot. Us farang can winge all we like but nothing will change . Samui will quickly get earn the "Junk yard beaches" of Thailand title.

When i think of how it was i get so frustrated.

[oldsailor35]

I remember a certain someone on here "protesting" on here about a floating walk way that the Langham Hotel had installed on Lamai beach, more "knee-jerk, uninformed showmanship for nothing.... "

Really? Were there banners around the island for notification of the organized protest? How many people came? Did the hotel have a plan drawn up beforehand for everyone to study before the construction began? Was there to be only one of these things or many? Is there a societal need for floating walkways in the same way that the need for oil and gas by society which drives the industry that drills wells?

I am not sure about the particulars of the protest that happened about Langham, but this seems somewhat different from drilling offshore for oil and gas. But maybe the Langham walkway is actually a derrick in disguise.

My point was that protesting these plans to drill for natural gas near the islands is laudable if the objections had merit. I believe that whatever objections there are, are, how shall I say? Statistically groundless.

By the way, what are the objections, specifically? What material is being put forth in support of the protesters' position (whatever that might be)?

Also, if the nature of the protest is, "We don't want the rigs near us," then the argument is empty in as far as being based on environmental concerns. The drilling is either bad, in which case it is bad anywhere in the world -- meaning you'd be calling for the end of all drilling worldwide -- or it's not, in which case the protest is a selfish local issue.

Aside from the point that every nation has the inherent right to explore for resources on its shores or territorial waters, advocating the end to such activities is just simpleminded ignorance. Petroleum products are not just gasoline; there are many uses, including plastics, which we all love so much we can't live without them. (You are typing on a keyboard made from a petroleum product. Shock, horror!)

The fact is that we humans MUST explore for energy sources. Our civilization is at the point -- arrived at long ago -- where we no longer have a choice whether to explore for oil and gas or not.

Great posts Tracer Round. Totally agree on your points, some people have no idea and with simplistic ideas.

Hear, hear !

Me too

[oldsailor35]

I remember a certain someone on here "protesting" on here about a floating walk way that the Langham Hotel had installed on Lamai beach, more "knee-jerk, uninformed showmanship for nothing.... "

Really? Were there banners around the island for notification of the organized protest? How many people came? Did the hotel have a plan drawn up beforehand for everyone to study before the construction began? Was there to be only one of these things or many? Is there a societal need for floating walkways in the same way that the need for oil and gas by society which drives the industry that drills wells?

I am not sure about the particulars of the protest that happened about Langham, but this seems somewhat different from drilling offshore for oil and gas. But maybe the Langham walkway is actually a derrick in disguise.

My point was that protesting these plans to drill for natural gas near the islands is laudable if the objections had merit. I believe that whatever objections there are, are, how shall I say? Statistically groundless.

By the way, what are the objections, specifically? What material is being put forth in support of the protesters' position (whatever that might be)?

Also, if the nature of the protest is, "We don't want the rigs near us," then the argument is empty in as far as being based on environmental concerns. The drilling is either bad, in which case it is bad anywhere in the world -- meaning you'd be calling for the end of all drilling worldwide -- or it's not, in which case the protest is a selfish local issue.

Aside from the point that every nation has the inherent right to explore for resources on its shores or territorial waters, advocating the end to such activities is just simpleminded ignorance. Petroleum products are not just gasoline; there are many uses, including plastics, which we all love so much we can't live without them. (You are typing on a keyboard made from a petroleum product. Shock, horror!)

The fact is that we humans MUST explore for energy sources. Our civilization is at the point -- arrived at long ago -- where we no longer have a choice whether to explore for oil and gas or not.

it must be mostly english doing all the complaining. i am english. one of the reasons i left the UK. just full of people moaning and complaining. i would have thought that living in someone elses country where the people are quite layed back that even if my tribe of fellow englsihman did follow me then they might have something interesting to do whilst out here living the dream but no. just complain. protest moan.

apparently even the thai's are just fed up with us and we have a reputation for it.

samui is not what it used to be 8 years ago.

thats my 2 pence i expect people will have some sary remarkes about my post but there again. what do i expect from my fellow engllishman

"Whingeing Poms" is the correct term

[oldsailor35]

An oil spill would probably improve the water condition along Bangrak.

Fair point

[oldsailor35]

Would it not be a better suggestion to speak to the authorities and ask them to , for example, supply "bins" to the beaches so that people actually have something to throw their rubbish in.

The problem is not beach litterbugs - it's the boats dumping their wholesale rubbish overboard. Except for Haad Rin's FMP aftermath, this is mostly what you see washed up on the coral reefs and beaches.

No litterbugs on beaches !.........OMG just take a trip down to the big boat jetty near to Big Buddha and have a squint at what the fishermen are leaving.

[stiggy]

At best the project will be delayed, then the people that stopped it at high level will renegotiate there pay off.