Oil Spill

[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/...geria-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 company

I 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