Oil Spill

[mkemse]

Just curious as to what to what others think and feel
As we go into week 3 of the BP OI Spill in the Golf and BP's slowly response to or Maybethier over all lack of concern, Does ANYONE feel now it is time to Boycott BP's Stations and other Products they make?

[Ozme52]

Kind of moot to suggest it... I'd bet it's already happening as a grass root movement, same as it did for Exxon 21 years ago.

I'd bet "most" people who were outraged 21 years ago still avoid buying from Exxon today. The number of Exxon stations throughout the country is probably small compared to any other "big name" brand.

Don't forget to also eschew US Gulf stations, all those Arco outlets (AM-PM) and AMOCO branded gas outlets. I believe those are also currently BP owned brands.

[MMI]

Trouble is, whatever filling station you go to, you don't know which producer's petrol you are using, because they buy and sell from each other right up to the petrol pump.

I see Obama wants to push BP aside. Does anyone think the state can do better?

[TantricSoul]

The Government is already in "control" of the clean up efforts. BP is not just left alone to do whatever it feels like, however, they do have the equipment, experience, manpower and responsibility to get this job done, supposedly, and as such they are the "face" of those attempting to respond to this disaster.

One thing to keep in mind, this experimental well is over a mile under the surface of the water, no one has any experience dealing with the complications involved at this site. Since no one really knows exactly what to do, then all of it is conjecture, guesses, and theories.

Of course ... it is politics as usual so one side wants to look like they are taking action and the other wants to cry conspiracy! There will be the regulation / deregulation argument and congress will pass some law or another to pacify us once more. So business as usual can resume with us all feeling that the government is making us safer.

Boycotting BP? What about Haliburton or TransOcean? ... yeah good luck with that. With everyone pointing fingers at each other, the only obvious truths here are; the environment is the largest loser in this tragedy and that we are simply reaping what we have sowed as the temporary custodians of this planet.

Respectfully,
Tantric

[mkemse]

But BP has already admiiterd they never had a back up plan for ANY emergency situationthat wouldaride, that alone is Outragious, hope you neevr need one but you always haveto have aplan as back up, you have onei n a house it it catch onfire they sholud have had one inplace before the strared the drilig whther it as an experimentor not, but to openly admit they had not backup plan to me is beyond outragiious "Well folks if we riun inot aproblem gues we wil dealwith ti when it happens" you can't operate aaaaaaaany businesslike th, you lways have to hae som type of back plan
Plus Hailburton is a partnet inthis, this is now brinf called worse the nthe Exxxon Valdez was, thisis thw world evirotmantal accident in history, 5 weeks andand stil no solution

[Stealth694]

They just started the Mud Stunt,, BP is definetly worried,,its stock has dropped from $60 a share to $42 a share since the well blew. Add in the civil suits, and the govt inquiries, which are not going to be buried by the press, and BP is looking at a very rough year.

The Obama Administration had just had its own Hurricane Katrina here and they are just pointing fingers. Obama had better do something defineative and fast or he is going to be a joke for the rest of his term.

Plus I would not want to be other oil companies, they might find their drilling licences under close scrutny and alot of govt employee's might learn what its like to be unemployed.

[DuncanONeil]

One blow out in over 30,000 wells dug in the gulf?

And that means the industry is out of control??

Yesterday even the President admitted that this was an exceedingly rare event. Does that not lay more responsibility on the people in charge of inspections.
The Administration also admitted that this may have resulted from a level of complacency. We have done so well for so long that we obviously know what we are doing. In other words we got it right.


The Government is already in "control" of the clean up efforts. BP is not just left alone to do whatever it feels like, however, they do have the equipment, experience, manpower and responsibility to get this job done, supposedly, and as such they are the "face" of those attempting to respond to this disaster.

One thing to keep in mind, this experimental well is over a mile under the surface of the water, no one has any experience dealing with the complications involved at this site. Since no one really knows exactly what to do, then all of it is conjecture, guesses, and theories.

Of course ... it is politics as usual so one side wants to look like they are taking action and the other wants to cry conspiracy! There will be the regulation / deregulation argument and congress will pass some law or another to pacify us once more. So business as usual can resume with us all feeling that the government is making us safer.

Boycotting BP? What about Haliburton or TransOcean? ... yeah good luck with that. With everyone pointing fingers at each other, the only obvious truths here are; the environment is the largest loser in this tragedy and that we are simply reaping what we have sowed as the temporary custodians of this planet.

Respectfully,
Tantric

[DuncanONeil]

At the same time that the President admitted the rarity of this event he stated that he is shutting down drilling on something between 20 and 40 wells.


They just started the Mud Stunt,, BP is definetly worried,,its stock has dropped from $60 a share to $42 a share since the well blew. Add in the civil suits, and the govt inquiries, which are not going to be buried by the press, and BP is looking at a very rough year.

The Obama Administration had just had its own Hurricane Katrina here and they are just pointing fingers. Obama had better do something defineative and fast or he is going to be a joke for the rest of his term.

Plus I would not want to be other oil companies, they might find their drilling licences under close scrutny and alot of govt employee's might learn what its like to be unemployed.

[Carpe Coma]

But BP has already admiiterd they never had a back up plan for ANY emergency situationthat wouldaride, that alone is Outragious, hope you neevr need one but you always haveto have aplan as back up, you have onei n a house it it catch onfire they sholud have had one inplace before the strared the drilig whther it as an experimentor not, but to openly admit they had not backup plan to me is beyond outragiious "Well folks if we riun inot aproblem gues we wil dealwith ti when it happens" you can't operate aaaaaaaany businesslike th, you lways have to hae som type of back plan
Plus Hailburton is a partnet inthis, this is now brinf called worse the nthe Exxxon Valdez was, thisis thw world evirotmantal accident in history, 5 weeks andand stil no solution

You know, if they did have a backup plan there would be people then making the argument; "They knew this could happen yet they were drilling anyway. Bad bad oil companies".

I seriously doubt they didn't have any emergency plans, instead I bet they just did not have plans for any (every) possible situation. The number one rule of contingency planning is that you can't plan for every contingency.

[DuncanONeil]

They did but they failed!
Could the failures have been prevented? Maybe. Did the safety record of the previous drills in the Gulf give rise to a measure of complacency, probably! Something in excess of 30,000 drills in the Gulf without an accident.


You know, if they did have a backup plan there would be people then making the argument; "They knew this could happen yet they were drilling anyway. Bad bad oil companies".

I seriously doubt they didn't have any emergency plans, instead I bet they just did not have plans for any (every) possible situation. The number one rule of contingency planning is that you can't plan for every contingency.

[leo9]

I seriously doubt they didn't have any emergency plans, instead I bet they just did not have plans for any (every) possible situation. The number one rule of contingency planning is that you can't plan for every contingency.

But you start by making plans for the worst possible ones. And any oil exec who doesn't consider the possibility of a massive spill, anywhere where more than a couple of gallons of oil and the sea are together, is in denial to the point of insanity.

[mkemse]

Thanks to those who have replied so far

[leo9]

But you start by making plans for the worst possible ones. And any oil exec who doesn't consider the possibility of a massive spill, anywhere where more than a couple of gallons of oil and the sea are together, is in denial to the point of insanity.

And now we learn, in their own words, that they didn't have emergency systems in place because it was a new "experimental" drill, therefore there was no safety record, therefore they classed it as 100% safe. The same kind of mindless box-ticking that gave sub-prime securities AAA credit rating because they hadn't been around long enough to fail.

This is what happens when doctrinaire capitalists regard government regulations simply as barriers to be overcome, by cheating if possible.

[DuncanONeil]

But you start by making plans for the worst possible ones. And any oil exec who doesn't consider the possibility of a massive spill, anywhere where more than a couple of gallons of oil and the sea are together, is in denial to the point of insanity.

Perhaps! But are you willing to consider that a massive explosion was, at best, the smallest of items of concern?

[denuseri]

My friend sent me this and for our collective benifit I am sharing it with you all. Its suposed to be written by a hydro-geological engineer and a world-wide expert on underground horizontal wells.

Well no doubt they screwed up. It’s like I tell everyone, whenever you see those scenes in the movies where the well starts spewing oil up in air and everyone stands underneath it celebrating—well if that happens in real life, someone’s ass is being fired. Between lost oil and environmental penalties, no one can afford to let that happen.

Initially I thought maybe more of the responsibility fell on Trans Oceanic, who was BP’s drilling subcontractor for that rig. Either they weren’t paying attention or didn’t have the blowout preventer (BOP) working, etc. However, yesterday on the news I heard that Trans Oceanic people reported a disagreement with BP about drilling protocol. Apparently the BP representative insisted that they switch from drilling mud to just drilling with seawater.

Well drilling mud weighs considerably more than seawater, usually on the order of 9 to 10.5 pounds per gallon (depending on type of clay used for the mud, barium additives, etc.), compared with 8.34 pounds per gallon regular fresh water and about 8.6 pounds per gallon for seawater. This translates to 0.447 psi/ft depth for seawater vs. say about 0.52 psi/ft depth using drilling mud. That may not sound like much difference, but when you multiply it out by a couple thousand feet of drilling depth it can make a substantial difference of a couple hundred psi or so. That’s why the mud engineer on the rig is the most important guy there.

Apparently the BP guy told the mud engineer to stop using mud, pull it out of the hole and start using seawater instead. It wasn’t a discussion as much as he said “Do it because I say so”. The mud engineer had been seeing signs of developing pressure and presumably suspected they were getting close to the “pay zone” so he objected, but got overruled.

Coincidentally, and unfortunately, the mud engineer was one of the 11 men killed on the rig when it caught on fire.

The BP guy may have been thinking that because they were drilling in a mile deep ocean, he had a pressure head of 5000 feet of seawater anyhow, so that would compensate against the pressure in the oil formation.

In hindsight, obviously not.

Then when the hole blew out, the rig operator initially hesitated to close the blowout preventer until he got authorization.

That was another big mistake.

Although it didn’t take long to get that authorization, by the time he did the fire had destroyed the connection to the blowout preventer, so that it couldn’t be operated and wouldn’t close.

At that point, everyone knew they were screwed.


There is a lot being debated in the media about how much oil in barrels per day is escaping from the hole. I think that debate is mostly useless, because it is what it is. And everyone needs to appreciate how difficult it is to estimate even if you’re trying. First of all, although everyone looks at the black cloud-like plumes escaping from the hole, it is difficult to estimate what percentage of that is actually oil—it’s actually a mixture of oil, water, mud and natural gas. Only one of those, the oil, is detrimental. Even in the ground, you don’t find pockets of pure oil—it’s an oil/water mixture. That’s partially why you need refineries. The oil may be 10% or 70% or who knows what percentage of the formation fluid. Presumably they have some idea of what they typically find in that oil-bearing pay zone, but any estimate would still be a +/- approximation. Then there is the natural gas mixing as bubbles in the billowing plume volume as well as just water encountered in and around the borehole. I’m sure when BP initially estimated the rate of loss, they probably had a range and reported the low end of the range to minimize the appearance of the damage. Nevertheless, anyone who says they accurately know the rate of loss in any given amount of barrels per day is just kidding themselves.

With regard to our discussion of borehole pressure above, you’ll note that the way they’re trying to “kill” the well is by pumping in drilling mud and then ultimately concrete (about 15 to 16 pounds per gallon, 0.8 psi/ft of depth). Basically the inverse of what was needed to prevent the blowout in the first place.

Environmental cleanup of course will be a huge problem. Despite their looks, the rainbow sheen areas really aren’t that bad—that stuffs biodegrades pretty quickly, especially if you add some nutrients such as phosphates and nitrogen. The bacteria eat that up like it’s candy. In fact, one of our problems when we sample contaminated water is to keep that stuff from degrading before we can get it to the lab to analyze. Even with thicker floating layers, anything under about a 1/16 of an inch or so can be handled ultimately without too much difficulty. Also, when it gets on a sandy beach, that’s one of the best places for it. If it’s real thick and gummy, they can scrape it off for treatment. If it’s thin enough, it actually would be pretty easy to treat it in place—we call that “land farming”. Basically you add nutrients like I mentioned above, sometimes add bacteria if they aren’t indigenous (which they usually are), then maybe rototill/scarify the sand, and it biodegrades pretty quickly—probably in a couple months, which is probably how long it’s going to take them to deal with it otherwise. When it’s in the wetlands, that’s of course a different problem, and more difficult to deal with. Obviously, the wildlife is a concern there.

Nevertheless, we construct artificial man-made wetlands as treatment systems for landfill leachates, mine leachate, and a variety of other treatment needs—it’s quite common in my environmental field. Wetlands are a great system for removing contaminants. Unfortunately in this case, they are also a natural habitat for a wide variety of wild life, so if nothing else that’s a big public relations issue.

Despite BP’s culpability, the government isn’t looking real good here either.

The US EPA totally screwed up when they added that dispersant, which coagulated the oil into globules that then began to sink below the surface. Likewise, the US Army Corps of Engineers postponed installing any barriers in front of the wetlands because they wanted to study the problem further—like that makes any sense. I can’t tell you how many times I have faced similar government agency foot-dragging responses that don’t make sense, but it is so futile when trying to deal with them. It’s like the Army—you have to have a 70 page manual telling you how to construct a latrine, regardless of how bad you need to go to the bathroom—just ask xxxx. Nobody, however, can make a case-by-case individual decision without having it codified ad infinitum—nobody can think for themselves because that would put their ass on the line, and nobody is willing to do that. So regulations and procedures are codified to be applied to all situations, regardless of site-specific needs. That’s why xxxxx can’t wait to retire and get away from those blockheads.

Bottom line—there will be finger pointing galore with this one. But without doubt, for my money, the guy that needs to hang is the BP guy who made them switch to seawater for drilling fluid. By the way, he refused to show up for the congressional hearing on this, citing poor health. Yeah, I would be sick if I were him too.
Have a good weekend, but don’t eat any shrimp or fish from the Gulf.

[VaAugusta]

One blow out in over 30,000 wells dug in the gulf?

And that means the industry is out of control??

Yesterday even the President admitted that this was an exceedingly rare event. Does that not lay more responsibility on the people in charge of inspections.
The Administration also admitted that this may have resulted from a level of complacency. We have done so well for so long that we obviously know what we are doing. In other words we got it right.

And consider: If our Sun were to go out, what is the harm? Does that really mean the universe is out of control? Hardly. It's just one of billions of other stars! Having 1 explode hardly seems any cause for concern.

Perhaps when we take a step back from statistical analysis, and instead examine the actual importance of the event, then we can see that some things matter.

[DuncanONeil]

And consider: If our Sun were to go out, what is the harm? Does that really mean the universe is out of control? Hardly. It's just one of billions of other stars! Having 1 explode hardly seems any cause for concern.

Perhaps when we take a step back from statistical analysis, and instead examine the actual importance of the event, then we can see that some things matter.


Yes, some things matter! BUT, to constantly hear that "the industry" is out of control, that "the industry" deliberately flouts "the rules". While at the same time telling us "the industry" does not have any "rules"

Yes this is a problem. But to use this accident as a justification to; demonize an industry and perhaps to some slight extent push a specific agenda that does not include oil.

Well that is nothing more than grandstanding!!

Then there is the issue of taking the people that are trying to solve the problem away from the problem to defend themselves from "criminal charges"!

Just to get it on record statistics are not a bad thing. They show the trend for various and sundry issues. The one that you seem to think is of no import shows the track record of the industry that many wish is at 100% responsible for the explosion itself.

[IAN 2411]

I can understand the idea of this discussion, but what I cannot work out is the aim. The arguments seem to revolve around the why and how, when in fact the discussions should be about the environment that is well and truly contaminated?

The why, is because BP messed up big time, the how is because they never followed protocol? The result, an explosion killing innocent people, and an oil spill causing an environmental disaster. Which I would like to point out only got into the top twenty oil spill disasters two weeks ago, and it has still not entered the top fifteen. Having said that, I hope to hell that it doesn’t get past the top nineteen that is if it is not already there?

What will happen to BP, let’s see, they will have to pay for the clean-up which will run into a few Billion but they can afford that and more. The American government will fine them, but not too hard because they pay a lot of tax to the American Gov. It will be substantial so as to appease the American people but it will never be enough, because there is no price that can be placed on the after effects.

Executive blame, yes there will be that but BP is multi-national so pick one from thousands, there will be one person handed the American Government that is willing to fall on his sword. Don’t think for one minute that this will never take place on the American coast line again because that is just wishful thinking. All the laws and legislations will not stop this kind of disaster happening again, what happens in international waters is out of our control. Until another fuel is found to fly aircraft, drive our cars and run our ships, this kind of disaster is only one idiot away.

I saw the news clip of Obama looking at the American coast line at the oil, yea well it was very good propaganda for the few but that was all it was. He said nothing more and could do no more than the people in the State that the coastline it belonged to. It was a show of solidarity to the nation that I have seen in the UK with our leaders on many occasion. He is seen afterwards bleating, throwing blame, and how he would do this and do that to stop the flow, but if the truth was known he has probably only read what the rest of us has read about oil spillage and clean up. The only people that know anything about oil is the oil people themselves, and he has no choice but to let them deal with it because he cannot perform miracles.

I live on the south coast of England and have done for 59 years, and I have seen some horrendous oil spills from sinking tanker in the English Channel. Live with oil on your beaches for that amount of time, because oil tankers that were carrying a flag of convenience decided to wash its tanks out four miles out at sea. Children were taken to the beaches and went back covered in oil, but that was life. However because of satellite this doesn’t happen so much now but it still happens. Our coast line has been clean of oil for a number of years now and the sea life is thriving once again. It might take an age for the American coastline to be clean and free of oil, but nature evolves to fight back and it will be clean once more.

Just a little footnote, if you think this is a disaster think of all that nuclear waste around the world stock piled. If that ever started to leak the oil spill would look like a blip.

AS for boycotting BP in which country are you talking about?

[DuncanONeil]

Bit cynical aren't we?
"BP messed up big time, the how is because they never followed protocol?"
If that is the case how do you account for the thousands of wells drilled with no accident?
"(T)he environment that is well and truly contaminated". I have heard that the beaches in Prince William Sound that were not cleaned up after that spill are doing much better than those that were.

Nuclear material? How does a solid leak?


I can understand the idea of this discussion, but what I cannot work out is the aim. The arguments seem to revolve around the why and how, when in fact the discussions should be about the environment that is well and truly contaminated?

The why, is because BP messed up big time, the how is because they never followed protocol? The result, an explosion killing innocent people, and an oil spill causing an environmental disaster. Which I would like to point out only got into the top twenty oil spill disasters two weeks ago, and it has still not entered the top fifteen. Having said that, I hope to hell that it doesn’t get past the top nineteen that is if it is not already there?

What will happen to BP, let’s see, they will have to pay for the clean-up which will run into a few Billion but they can afford that and more. The American government will fine them, but not too hard because they pay a lot of tax to the American Gov. It will be substantial so as to appease the American people but it will never be enough, because there is no price that can be placed on the after effects.

Executive blame, yes there will be that but BP is multi-national so pick one from thousands, there will be one person handed the American Government that is willing to fall on his sword. Don’t think for one minute that this will never take place on the American coast line again because that is just wishful thinking. All the laws and legislations will not stop this kind of disaster happening again, what happens in international waters is out of our control. Until another fuel is found to fly aircraft, drive our cars and run our ships, this kind of disaster is only one idiot away.

I saw the news clip of Obama looking at the American coast line at the oil, yea well it was very good propaganda for the few but that was all it was. He said nothing more and could do no more than the people in the State that the coastline it belonged to. It was a show of solidarity to the nation that I have seen in the UK with our leaders on many occasion. He is seen afterwards bleating, throwing blame, and how he would do this and do that to stop the flow, but if the truth was known he has probably only read what the rest of us has read about oil spillage and clean up. The only people that know anything about oil is the oil people themselves, and he has no choice but to let them deal with it because he cannot perform miracles.

I live on the south coast of England and have done for 59 years, and I have seen some horrendous oil spills from sinking tanker in the English Channel. Live with oil on your beaches for that amount of time, because oil tankers that were carrying a flag of convenience decided to wash its tanks out four miles out at sea. Children were taken to the beaches and went back covered in oil, but that was life. However because of satellite this doesn’t happen so much now but it still happens. Our coast line has been clean of oil for a number of years now and the sea life is thriving once again. It might take an age for the American coastline to be clean and free of oil, but nature evolves to fight back and it will be clean once more.

Just a little footnote, if you think this is a disaster think of all that nuclear waste around the world stock piled. If that ever started to leak the oil spill would look like a blip.

AS for boycotting BP in which country are you talking about?

[denuseri]

Well technically under certian conditions a solid can leak anything from a liquid to a gas to several types of radiation.....ahhhh yeah thats it..I believe the solids in question ian is refering to are mainly going to leak radiation but might be changing some as they do it, so who knows maby some liquids and even gases might leak out too.

[IAN 2411]

Bit cynical aren't we?
"BP messed up big time, the how is because they never followed protocol?"
If that is the case how do you account for the thousands of wells drilled with no accident?
"(T)he environment that is well and truly contaminated". I have heard that the beaches in Prince William Sound that were not cleaned up after that spill are doing much better than those that were.

Nuclear material? How does a solid leak?

Duncan with all due respects you would not like a lump of nuclear waste under your ass that is leaking radiation, and for your information it might be encased in lead, steel and concreet, but lead perrishes and deteriates, steel rusts and returns to its origanal state, and concreet has an even less chance of survival. But hay who the fuck cares it's not our generation that will have the problem of neutralising it, we'll be long dead. As i said in my last post this oil spill as bad as it is will just be a blip.

Regards ian 2411

[mkemse]

Duncan with all due respects you would not like a lump of nuclear waste under your ass that is leaking radiation, and for your information it might be encased in lead, steel and concreet, but lead perrishes and deteriates, steel rusts and returns to its origanal state, and concreet has an even less chance of survival. But hay who the fuck cares it's not our generation that will have the problem of neutralising it, we'll be long dead. As i said in my last post this oil spill as bad as it is will just be a blip.

Regards ian 2411

Keep in mind with all these suggestion the Oil is 500 feet under the suface of the water, alots of these idea are not going to happen how do you setlle concrete in 500 feet of water ect with that pressure and deep water issue. 500 feet under limits your ability for commmon surface solutions

[denuseri]

Dont you mean solutions that will allow BP to continue getting oil from the well as opposed to plugging it outright?

[leo9]

Dont you mean solutions that will allow BP to continue getting oil from the well as opposed to plugging it outright?

That, at least, isn't a problem. The fact that they're discussing drilling relief wells as the long term solution, indicates that they know clearly where the oil dome is. As well as drawing off the pressure that's causing the spill, the relief wells will get the oil that would have come from the blown one.

[denuseri]

It just seems like they keep making lots of excuses for not plugging it, most of what Ive seen has been top hats and domes and very little solution that doesnt also envolve pumping oil/using the well point etc. They even said. oil will continue to leak in the gulf into next year...becuase they dont have enough boats to syphon it off too.

[TantricSoul]

Good news! Profit from oil recovered in the spill will go towards compensation of the financially impacted industries in the gulf ... um .. wait ... that is good news isn't it?

[denuseri]

If they ever come good on even half of the claims being filed against them.

[leo9]

It just seems like they keep making lots of excuses for not plugging it, most of what Ive seen has been top hats and domes and very little solution that doesnt also envolve pumping oil/using the well point etc. They even said. oil will continue to leak in the gulf into next year...becuase they dont have enough boats to syphon it off too.

To be so fair it hurts, they do have a huge problem there. Working on pipes by robot sub at that depth has been compared to doing heart surgery in the dark with tongs; as for dropping the dome on it, I'd compare that to putting an extinguisher on a candle by lowering it from the roof of an apartment block on a string.

But this is exactly why they should have had backups on their backups, so the insoluble problem didn't happen. A famous manual of sailing offered the advice on what to do when caught on a lee shore on a falling tide: "Never get into this situation."

[MMI]

One word:

Bhopal.

[MMI]

NPR carries an AP report which says, "President Barack Obama reassured Prime Minister David Cameron on Saturday that his frustration over the mammoth oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is not an attack on Britain as the two leaders tried to soothe trans-Atlantic tensions over the disaster."

That may be so, but I notice that Mr John M Deeley, who finds it necessary to translate his anglicised name back into the Irish, quips, with reference to England's goalkeeper's fumble that gave the US football team a draw in their first match in the World Cup, "Goalie: The only position on the pitch where hands are permitted. Of course they were the hands of an Englishman. Perhaps they were soaked in crude oil."

[DuncanONeil]

Keep in mind with all these suggestion the Oil is 500 feet under the suface of the water, alots of these idea are not going to happen how do you setlle concrete in 500 feet of water ect with that pressure and deep water issue. 500 feet under limits your ability for commmon surface solutions


I presume a typo, the oil in the gulf is at 5,000 feet!

[DuncanONeil]

To be so fair it hurts, they do have a huge problem there. Working on pipes by robot sub at that depth has been compared to doing heart surgery in the dark with tongs; as for dropping the dome on it, I'd compare that to putting an extinguisher on a candle by lowering it from the roof of an apartment block on a string.

But this is exactly why they should have had backups on their backups, so the insoluble problem didn't happen. A famous manual of sailing offered the advice on what to do when caught on a lee shore on a falling tide: "Never get into this situation."


"(T)hey should have had backups on their backups". Ok! Let me get this straight. The rig exploded. There should have been a system to stop the explosion and a backup system for that system? As well as a backup for the backup? The rig caught fire and there should have been at least three fire suppression systems for that? The rig SANK! Just how do you propose a backup system for that eventuality?

[mkemse]

According to a story on NBC Ngihtly News tonight, documents were founds, inter office memo's that indicate not only were rules violated, but saftey issues were ignored for BP to save some money
Whertherthis Driling Paltform was an experiment or not, they stil should have had a back up plan and even a backup plan for their back up plan
And tonight the survivors of the explosion madei t public that as of today they haverecieived NO phone calls ectfrom BP as to how they are doing, feeling etc. This gors to show how gutless and uncaring BP is to their own employes
Let;s have everyone boycott BP Productsm be it gas/[etro station or other products offered bt BP, if they are that concnered only about their bottom line, let's let them see how it real can hurt

[Lion]

One blow out in over 30,000 wells dug in the gulf?

And that means the industry is out of control??


If one nuclear bomb was stolen/lost, out of the thousands that exist in the world today, that would represent a failure in the system in my opinion.

For something that has this much affect, there should be absolutely safeguards to prevent anything like this from ever happening. Statistics is irrelevant.

Would it be an acceptable reason for a president to respond after a major 9/11 terrorist act to say "hey, we stopped the thousands or so others"? Or would the response be an overhaul the establishment that allowed the terrorists to commit whatever atrocious act they conceived of?

[MMI]

I think it is utterly unacceptable to compare the blow-out with 9/11.

9/11 was a deliberate act of terrorism: an attack designed to kill maim and undermine the US political system and its society.

The oil spill was a negligent or accidental act that resulted from BP's attempts to feed the American economy and promote its oil guzzling lifestyle.

The comparison is reprehensible and those making it should withdraw it immediately.

[mkemse]

I think it is utterly unacceptable to compare the blow-out with 9/11.

9/11 was a deliberate act of terrorism: an attack designed to kill maim and undermine the US political system and its society.

The oil spill was a negligent or accidental act that resulted from BP's attempts to feed the American economy and promote its oil guzzling lifestyle.

The comparison is reprehensible and those making it should withdraw it immediately.

I agree the 2 incidnets have notinig in commom, one was delberate Terrorsim the other an accident

[IAN 2411]

[1] Barack Obama said he would have fired BP's boss had he run the company
President Obama's comments about the BP oil spill were not "anti-British", the American ambassador to London has said.
Obama administration officials have used the old name "British Petroleum" when making criticisms of the firm - sparking controversy in the UK.

US ambassador Louis Susman said Mr Obama had used "British Petroleum" perhaps once, but was keen t” o say "BP".
The Deepwater Horizon rig exploded in the Mexican Gulf on 20 April, killing 11 workers and creating a huge leak.

[2] Mr Obama has said he would have fired BP's top executive Tony Hayward if he were in charge of the company and has supported the idea that it suspend its quarterly dividend for shareholders.
'Catastrophic event'

His comments have provoked anger among many business people and pensioners in the UK, many of whose pension funds have investments in the oil giant.

BP, which has many US as well as UK employees and shareholders, has not been known as British Petroleum since 1998.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[3] US Ambassador Louis Susman: President Obama "would probably have said the same thing if it had been an American company"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[4] 'Warm conversation'

Mr Obama spoke to UK Prime Minister David Cameron by telephone on Saturday.

Mr Susman said it had been a "very warm conversation" covering a "multitude" of subjects.

He added: "When the issue of BP came up, they were both agreed. It's an ecological disaster. BP has to do everything possible to stop the leak, accept responsibility and the president made it very clear that he has no intention of trying to hurt the financial viability of BP. That would be the last thing we want".

He added: "It has nothing to do with anti-British [sentiment]."

UK Foreign Secretary William Hague said the clean-up following the oil spill represented a "big test" for BP.

He told the Andrew Marr Show: "The US are not seeking to undermine the value of BP. They know full well there are many thousands of people working for BP in the US and they have also got many shareholders, as in the UK."

Mr Obama's comments had led to angry reactions from some UK politicians.

Former Conservative Party chairman Lord Tebbit accused him of giving a "xenophobic display of partisan political presidential petulance against a multinational company".

London Mayor Boris Johnson said there was "something slightly worrying about the anti-British rhetoric that seems to be permeating from America".

From the business world, Miles Templeman, director general of the Institute of Directors, said some of the language being used by the Obama administration was "inappropriate".

And Richard Lambert, director of the CBI employers' group, called the rhetoric a "matter of concern
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Then why didn’t he use “BP” it looks as though he was a lot keener to use “British Petroleum probably to make his point. “Hell don’t blame me I'm the American President.

[2] The actual amount of American investors is 40% and the rest of the company is owned by UK and foreign investors. Tony Hayward is just a figure head and what would that prove by firing him, because he probably knows as much about setting up a oil well as Obama does, and by looking at Obama’s comments over the last month damn all. It’s like Obama is saying the same speech over and over again, just changing the odd word to make it look different. To put things in a little more prospective, he is only repeating what Tony Hayward said before Obama opened his mouth.

[3] Yes, i am in no doubt he would have done, but he would have got the name right, and it would have been a very low key speech. In my opinion he has a thing about the UK that he dislikes, well he ought to grow up and stop throwing his toys out of the pram.

[4] If it is not anti British then why are all these Statesmen and Financial Heavies getting involved.


Regards ian 2411

[leo9]

"(T)hey should have had backups on their backups". Ok! Let me get this straight. The rig exploded. There should have been a system to stop the explosion and a backup system for that system? As well as a backup for the backup? The rig caught fire and there should have been at least three fire suppression systems for that? The rig SANK! Just how do you propose a backup system for that eventuality?

In the first place, the leak didn't happen because of the fire, the explosion and fire happened because of the gas surge that burst the pipes.

There are devices to catch such pressure surges. A lot of them weren't in place on this rig, because they cost money and slow down the work. There was a valve that could have stopped the blowout, but the operator who could have closed it wasn't authorised to do it without permission from higher up, and by the time he got it, it was too late.

But the blowout wouldn't have happened if they had been drilling with mud. Oil bores are backfilled with fluid to stop pressure surges. The best fluid for this is mud because it's dense, but for that reason it's slow and expensive to handle. A week before the blowout, the drillers were told to switch to using water because the operation was taking too long.

The rest is history.. and ecology.

[leo9]

Let;s have everyone boycott BP Productsm be it gas/[etro station or other products offered bt BP, if they are that concnered only about their bottom line, let's let them see how it real can hurt
Those who pay attention to these things have tried the same thing with Shell for their much worse sins in Nigeria (http://blogs.forbes.com/csr/2010/06/17/bp-nigeria-and-csr/), but it's not that simple. Oil is fungible, if they don't sell it from their own stations they can sell it through other vendors.

[leo9]

[4] If it is not anti British then why are all these Statesmen and Financial Heavies getting involved.


This is funny. All through the Bush years we were told that if we criticised their President we were anti-American. Now we're complaining that if they criticise a multinational oil firm that happens to be called "British" for historical reasons, they're anti-British.

But if BP's PR department were earning their pay, they'd have realised at the start that in modern American movies the really nasty villain always has an English accent, and they'd have found someone from Texas to be the spokesman.

[MMI]

I have to confirm that Companies House shows that BP PLC really is a British company, and as a British company whose greatest interest seems to lie in the USA, I really do think that it should try a little harder to clean up the mess, and if it can't do it by itself, to at least try to enlist American co-operation and help ... or wherever that help can be found ... Russia or China if necessary. I'm glad they've suspended dividends ... why the hell did it take so long ... why did Obama have to insist? I'm glad they've set aside a reserve to pay for the clean-up (is it a cash reserve, or just an accounting transaction?). Again, why did it take so long? If BP had taken the initiative, maybe America would cut the company a little more slack. As far as I can see, BP has brought it all on itself.

Having said that, I hear America's insistence that BP's to blame, so it must pay every last cent it takes to restore the environment, the economy and people's livlihoods, and I wonder what pressure is being put on the Dow Corporation - a US company - to stop the pollution, and to clean up the environment in Bhopal, and to restore people's livlihoods there, more than 25 years after the disaster caused by their Union Carbide subsidiary.

[leo9]

I have to confirm that Companies House shows that BP PLC really is a British companyI stand corrected, though in the world of multinational companies that's a pretty technical point: I'm sure they would be registered in the Cayman Islands if it suited them better.


Having said that, I hear America's insistence that BP's to blame, so it must pay every last cent it takes to restore the environment, the economy and people's livlihoods, and I wonder what pressure is being put on the Dow Corporation - a US company - to stop the pollution, and to clean up the environment in Bhopal, and to restore people's livlihoods there, more than 25 years after the disaster caused by their Union Carbide subsidiary.

<with great effort suppresses bitterly cynical and grossly anti-American comment>

What indeed.

[DuncanONeil]

You may consider it a failure of the system but it is not a failure of the nuclear bomb system or the military but of security. Do you punish the entire military system for the failure of a technician or guard?

In things made by humans nothing is absolute! Statistics are never irrelevant, it is the manner of use.

9/11 is a horse of a different color. This was an act of war! Does not even come close to an OSHA violation. Even setting that aside this was a catastrophic event that destroyed the rig and consequently any safety protocols as well.


If one nuclear bomb was stolen/lost, out of the thousands that exist in the world today, that would represent a failure in the system in my opinion.

For something that has this much affect, there should be absolutely safeguards to prevent anything like this from ever happening. Statistics is irrelevant.

Would it be an acceptable reason for a president to respond after a major 9/11 terrorist act to say "hey, we stopped the thousands or so others"? Or would the response be an overhaul the establishment that allowed the terrorists to commit whatever atrocious act they conceived of?

[DuncanONeil]

Object to the use of the phrase "promote its oil guzzling lifestyle". It is specious and is often intended to affect only one thing, gasoline. Oil provides way more than that. Without it we are likely back in the 19th century. And the hardcore Greenies claim it is the Right trying to turn back the clock.
Even if this country is successful in eliminating the use of oil that leaves the other 80% out there free to continue. I see a real problem in that.


I think it is utterly unacceptable to compare the blow-out with 9/11.

9/11 was a deliberate act of terrorism: an attack designed to kill maim and undermine the US political system and its society.

The oil spill was a negligent or accidental act that resulted from BP's attempts to feed the American economy and promote its oil guzzling lifestyle.

The comparison is reprehensible and those making it should withdraw it immediately.

[DuncanONeil]

Two things. You mischaracterize what I said. I said nothing about the cause of the leak.


In the first place, the leak didn't happen because of the fire, the explosion and fire happened because of the gas surge that burst the pipes.

There are devices to catch such pressure surges. A lot of them weren't in place on this rig, because they cost money and slow down the work. There was a valve that could have stopped the blowout, but the operator who could have closed it wasn't authorised to do it without permission from higher up, and by the time he got it, it was too late.

But the blowout wouldn't have happened if they had been drilling with mud. Oil bores are backfilled with fluid to stop pressure surges. The best fluid for this is mud because it's dense, but for that reason it's slow and expensive to handle. A week before the blowout, the drillers were told to switch to using water because the operation was taking too long.

The rest is history.. and ecology.

[DuncanONeil]

What about all the help that has been offered and declined by the ADMINISTRATION of the US itself?


I have to confirm that Companies House shows that BP PLC really is a British company, and as a British company whose greatest interest seems to lie in the USA, I really do think that it should try a little harder to clean up the mess, and if it can't do it by itself, to at least try to enlist American co-operation and help ... or wherever that help can be found ... Russia or China if necessary. I'm glad they've suspended dividends ... why the hell did it take so long ... why did Obama have to insist? I'm glad they've set aside a reserve to pay for the clean-up (is it a cash reserve, or just an accounting transaction?). Again, why did it take so long? If BP had taken the initiative, maybe America would cut the company a little more slack. As far as I can see, BP has brought it all on itself.

Having said that, I hear America's insistence that BP's to blame, so it must pay every last cent it takes to restore the environment, the economy and people's livlihoods, and I wonder what pressure is being put on the Dow Corporation - a US company - to stop the pollution, and to clean up the environment in Bhopal, and to restore people's livlihoods there, more than 25 years after the disaster caused by their Union Carbide subsidiary.

[IAN 2411]

BP Sues Halliburton Over Gulf Oil Spill Cost

British oil firm BP is suing Halliburton over the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe that killed 11 people and spewed millions of litres of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.

In a filing at the federal court in New Orleans, BP said the cement contractor should reimburse it for the cost of cleaning up what was dubbed the worst ocean oil spill in US history.

BP also wants compensation for the lost profits from the well and "all other costs and damages".

Markets reacted to the news with BP share prices opening up 1% on the first trading day since the new-year holiday break.

The oil firm has already paid $21bn (£13.5bn) for the clean-up operation and compensating individuals, businesses and governments.

It has also reserved more than $40bn (£25.8bn) to cover costs related to the sinking of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig.

The company previously said it expected the costs of sealing the blown out well, cleaning up the damage, compensating those affected and government fines to reach $42bn (£27bn).

BP and Halliburton accuse each other of making critical mistakes that caused the blow-out of the well off the Louisiana coast in April 2010.

A report released in November spread blame for the disaster between the UK oil company, the Deepwater Horizon rig operator Transocean and US regulators.

Eleven workers were killed in the explosion and 4.9 million barrels of oil spilled into the ocean before the leak was finally capped.

The US government immediately asked the Coast Guard and the offshore drilling regulator BOEMRE to investigate.

A slew of lawsuits and federal citations have followed against the companies involved.

Last month, Cameron International Corp agreed a $250m (£160m) settlement with BP to help pay costs associated with the spill.

But agreements with Halliburton, as well as Transocean, have proved elusive. The two companies have launched lawsuits of their own.
.................................................. ..

I think they have as much chance of winning that case as sorting Europe’s debt crisis out before March. Halliburton pay far too much tax to the USA Fed Gov to be allowed to lose. The American Gov will want to avoid any connection with the UK based company. It is British in name only and only because it has never been moved from companies house. In my opinion, the company should have had that British status taken from them at the time of the disaster. They are a worldwide corporation and should be acknowledged as such.

Be well IAN 2411