Your video, VIKING SES-2A Oil Rig Evacuation System, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Yes, it's blades. This video shows how it works. https://controlcutter.com/news-posts/video-control-cutter-oil-rig/

But... they mostly do that with helicopters.

When they use boats they drop a line and winch the crew up/down because the oil rigs are generally way too tall to go from deck to deck.

Also, I'm not entirely sure this technology is safer in rough seas than a traditional hull, especially when you factor in the added risk of mechanical failure.

Crew transfers to and from oil rigs in heavy seas. That's profitable enough to not require anything else.

Then your own personal bias is blinding you.

Do you truly believe that more racists voted for Trump than came out previously to vote against the first black president?

Your also not reading what I said, seemingly because you don't like the implications. Not once did I claim racists didn't vote for Trump. Not once did I say anything about Trump making any kind of an even half-decent president. For the record, I'd have voted Hillary if I had a vote. All of that is ENTIRELY outside the point.

The reality that democrats just can't seem to accept is that they LOST the support of the public. The racists didn't suddenly emerge this election cycle. The moderates, the silent majority, just said screw it and stayed home or said screw you and ticked of Trump. A major scare factor in that is folks just like yourself who refuse to even recognise that this huge segment of the population exists and that the democrats need to reach out to them as opposed to labelling them racists and entrenching them as future republican voters that dislike being called racists because they work on an oil rig...

2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

3 and a half years later this video gets sifted!

I wonder what this paramecium is up to now. Probably toppling over oil rigs or killing bees.

Very interesting, and a very gray-area issue!

All kinds of jobs have guaranteed significant risks associated with them -- mining, oil rigs, Alaskan crab fisherman, etc. If there is some feasible and yes, cost efficient way to reduce those risks then it is pretty rational to expect or hope that it will be implemented. But, sometimes you really do need more data to figure out what if anything can be done to mitigate the risks. And sadly, that might require some level of exposing people to some problem that you know exists, but don't know what to do about yet.

If a coal miner suddenly decides that the risk of black-lung is too much for them to continue, I don't think we should expect the mining company to keep them on the payroll even if they refuse to go into the mine. I hope that these guys get the top brass to think long and hard about whether or not it is necessary to ground all the F-22s again, but I think they need to be ready to accept the very real possibility that the Air Force will tell them "don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out".

From a cotton farm in Turkey Scratch Arkansas to the very pinnacle of the music world. 71 year old Levon Helm will soon be gone. Thought I'd post this tribute song written by Elton John from his 1971 album "Madman Across the Water".

Story here. http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Entertainment/Music/6474166/story.html

From the above story "Born May 26, 1940, in Turkey Scratch, Arkansas, the son of cotton farmers, he learned to play guitar and drums as a child. By 17 he was appearing in honky tonks in and around nearby Helena and taking in performance by such southern legends as Conway Twitty, Elvis Presley, Bo Diddley, and Ronnie Hawkins.

He joined Hawkins’ rockabilly band The Hawks just before they moved to Canada in the late 1950s.

In the early 1960s, Helm and Hawkins recruited Canadians Robbie Robertson (guitar), Rick Danko (bass) and pianist Richard Manuel and organist Garth Hudson. They left Hawkins and toured as Levon and the Hawks before backing Bob Dylan in the mid-60s. Fans weren’t initially receptive to Dylan’s switch from acoustic folky to electric folk-rocker, and Helm headed back south, working on offshore oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico for a couple of years until bassist Rick Danko asked him to rejoin the group that would become known around the world as, simply, The Band"

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/health/Levon+Helm+near+death+wife+daughter+with+videos/6474166/story.html#ixzz1sLwHMdvM

The thing with looking at the danger of nuclear power is you have to make a more complicated comparison. It's not just nuclear power or "safe."

For fossil fuels you have to consider every:

* Oil spill, Oil Rig Fire, other fossil fuel related disasters (tanker truck fires, gas station fires, CO poisoning in houses, etc.) Recall for instance, in New Orleans during the flood the contents of refinery storage tanks were spread all over the city, and the Deep Water Horizons disaster that killed more people than Fukishima and caused fantastic amounts of ecological damage.

* The broad diffuse pollution of fossil fuel power stations and refineries (including particulates, global warming from C02, other heavy metals and nastiness released). This is released not only from power stations, but every tailpipe of the millions of cars in the world.

* The damage caused by getting fossil fuels out of the ground. Drilling, fracking, strip mining for coal, and the nastiness released from this.

* Wars. (ie. fossil fuels are running out, but we got enough fissile material to last a long, long time--not that there couldn't be wars over this too (lots of it is in unstable parts of Africa)).

In short, fossil fuels do a huge amount of damage, it's just not as acute and widely reported as when something goes wrong with nuclear, and doesn't carry the same, often irrational, fear that the media loves so much. For instance, some area of land infused with heavy metals is just as unlivable as an area of land infused with radioactive substances, but one we accept as normal pollution, and the other is worldwide, front page news.

The overall comparison is very complicated. My inclination is to think nuclear is better, but that's difficult because it involves mostly *potential* problems, not actual quantifiable problems as with fossil fuels. There will probably never be a good study comparing the two given how much irrational fear and corporate interest is involved.

Wind, solar, and geothermal are very nice and should always be part of the equation, but it's pretty well accepted that it can't actually come near to replacing fossil fuels or nuclear in terms of energy output at any cost.

>> ^deathcow:

we need an animals channel then


That would make things less confusing. Right now Catsanddogs is for domesticated animals and Nature for wild animals(including in zoos).

>> ^blankfist:

It would be very hard for businesses to get as large as corporations do today without the unfair support of government. This means more competition, and logically as a result more small businesses would sprout up, and therefore more jobs could be created.

I think taking away the liability limits ultimately raises the barrier for creating a new business, since it increases the potential downside risk of any new investment, and worse, makes predicting the worst case scenario nigh impossible.

The knock on effects of that would be that investors would be more reluctant to invest, meaning that interest rates would go up, and the tolerance for risk would go down.

In some sense I think we'd see companies that are larger, but also "flatter" in a sense. I'm thinking more McDonalds, Best Buy, and Amazon, and a lot less heavy industry with big, expensive, dangerous, illiquid capital investment.

I sorta say "so what, it's more fair, and restrains corporations' flagrant disregard for safety and the environment".

However, for people who want to see a bazillion small businesses, I think you want the limited liabilities there to help people simplify their risk assessments.
>> ^blankfist:

I don't see why we'd need regulatory requirements or unionization. Most of the responsibility would be held at the top levels, such as CEOs or COOs or supervisors or whomever. And this can all be decided by some form of conflict resolution whether that be the courts or arbitration.

Well, courts are guided by law in those sorts of determinations, arbitration is more guided by the relative strength of the bargaining positions of the participants (i.e. little people get reliably crushed).

Which is to say, we'd need to set some sort of standard on how accountability works, or it'll only be the guy following orders who gets the short end of the stick.

>> ^blankfist:
But my point was that people couldn't escape liability just because they're employed. If your boss told you to murder someone, for instance, you know that to be wrong and would hopefully not follow through. But if you did murder someone, obviously you'd be held accountable, right? kind of the same idea. Maybe not exactly, but it's close enough.

For something as serious and obvious as murder, sure.

But say my boss tells me not to order the scheduled maintenance for critical safety equipment because "it's not in the budget"? If things go wrong later, am I to be held responsible because my idiot boss didn't budget for proper maintenance? Do I really need to constantly present my boss with waivers from legal liability for every decision I think has a potential risk? Can he fire me for demanding them too often?

>> ^blankfist:
If a business spilled oil like BP did, then all the parties involved would be liable within reason. If you were hired to clean the toilets on the rig, then you're probably not going to be responsible in any direct or indirect way. But if you are hired as a professional to do a specific job like supervising the boom or drilling or whatever, and that contributed somehow to the spill, then you're probably going to inherit some substantial responsibility. And I think that's more than fair.


I agree with that, but in my experience as a technical professional, I have to say that unsafe shit is almost exclusively something that happens when management refuses to pony up the cash to do things the right way.

But let's look at the other side of the coin. For the sake of argument, let's pretend management didn't do anything obviously wrong on Deepwater Horizon, and it was just some guy out on the rig who just made a stupid mistake and caused the whole thing to happen.

Should that guy bear all of the financial liability alone, while the CEO's, shareholders, and the company itself are held blameless?

I say even in that case, the blame needs to go upward -- management hired the guy, and someone higher up approved the process that was susceptible to massive damage coming from one guy's human error. They're the ones who put the oil rig in his hands, they're the ones responsible for the damage he did with it.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

^Us per usual, JesusFreak is clueless. Had safety valve regulations been in place - as is the case in many other countries - the BP oil disaster would have been averted.
Enlighten yourself here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704423504575212031
417936798.html
"U.S. regulators don't mandate use of the remote-control device on offshore rigs, and the Deepwater Horizon, hired by oil giant BP PLC, didn't have one. With the remote control, a crew can attempt to trigger an underwater valve that shuts down the well even if the oil rig itself is damaged or evacuated."
Pro tip: If you accuse others of stupidity, you should be careful to not pair the charge with obviously stupid commentary of your own.


You mean the regulatory body in charge of regulating it wasn't regulating it well enough? How is that any different? If only government could solve problems with hindsight, we would be set! Pro tip, if you make a point, actually make one.


PS. Are those laws even in place yet? Also, "PAGE UNAVAILABLE". I will have to take your word on the government being inept.

^Us per usual, JesusFreak is clueless. Had safety valve regulations been in place - as is the case in many other countries - the BP oil disaster would have been averted.

Enlighten yourself here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704423504575212031417936798.html

"U.S. regulators don't mandate use of the remote-control device on offshore rigs, and the Deepwater Horizon, hired by oil giant BP PLC, didn't have one. With the remote control, a crew can attempt to trigger an underwater valve that shuts down the well even if the oil rig itself is damaged or evacuated."

Pro tip: If you wish to accuse others of stupidity, you should be careful to not pair the charge with obviously stupid commentary of your own.

This video has been declared a duplicate by the original submitter; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by vaporlock.