jimcarravall
Posts: 642
Joined: 1/4/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mgellis
Friends,
Just brainstorming some scenario ideas and I wanted to check on a few things with people who are probably more knowledgeable than myself.
First, am I correct in assuming that blowing up someone else’s offshore oil rig makes sense because it prevents them from having access to that oil? (I imagine that seizing control of the oil rig is a better option because it gives YOU control of the oil, but I also imagine it is often a lot more difficult to do this. And then you have to keep other people from taking it back or blowing it up to keep you from having it.)
Second, blowing up someone’s oil may result is pretty ferocious environmental damage. To what extent is this a factor in mission planning? Is it simply considered a necessary evil, that winning the war has to take priority over protecting wildlife, etc.? Or is it one of those things that makes it pretty much off limits, except in the most desperate situations, and perhaps even a “war crime” if someone does it? On a scale of 1 to 10, how “evil” do most countries consider blowing up an oil rig and possibly causing this kind of environmental disaster?
Third, if you know an attack is probably coming in the very near future, and a government decides to at least try to avoid an environmental disaster, does anyone know how long it takes to shut down production and secure an oil rig so that the destruction of the platform is less likely to cause an oil spill? Hours? Days?
Thanks for your help. I look forward to your answers.
Mark
1) Blowing up oil rigs shouldn't make an immediate difference within the construct of present scenario time frames as it relates to a nation's fuel supply.
The real life lead time necessary to extract crude, transport, refine, and redistribute refined fuel back into the country's infrastructure exceeds any current individual scenario's duration.
It would make sense if the creator wanted to factor in strategic benefits as part of scoring.
For an example of how destruction of oil logistics can become a strategic consideration, look at the circumstances surrounding the air strikes on present day ISIS-controlled shipping and storage capacity. A recent story indicated that ISIS, which is a form of employment for the soldiers supporting it, has had to cut soldier pay as the ability to sell petroleum on the black market was hindered by the coalition air strikes in support of the Syrian, Kurdish, and Iraqi opposition forces.
2) It might be worthwhile to review circumstances during Operation Desert Storm as it relates to environmental damage from destruction of oil production capability. While not centered on off shore drilling, there was a significant effort by the Iraqi Army to create environmental and economic chaos for the invading force(s) as it abandoned Kuwait and retreated toward Baghdad. It was years before the destroyed capacity was recovered, first by putting out fires, and then by rebuilding the exploration, drilling, and crude transportation capacity. In addition, there was a significant amount of reporting regarding the danger troops and citizens faced from the pall of burning crude in the region.
3) The proximate cause of most damage from the Deep Water Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was traced back to the failure of a safety valve at the well head on the bottom of the gulf that failed to stop the flow of oil when the rig exploded. Here's a video that might shed some light on how quickly response occurs following a catastrophic failure:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOK9J0wETYo
_____________________________
Take care,
jim
|
Printable Version
Scenarios involving blowing up oil rigs - 
...months later, they'll deploy their fleet 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread