Gulf Oil Spill - Going From Bad to Catastrophic! [Archive]

Nbadan

06-13-2010, 04:18 PM

From the Oil drum forum...

So you have to ask WHY? Why make it worse?...there really can only be one answer and that answer does not bode well for all of us. It's really an inescapable conclusion at this point, unless you want to believe that every Oil and Gas professional involved suddenly just forgot everything they know or woke up one morning and drank a few big cups of stupid and got assigned to directing the response to this catastrophe. Nothing makes sense unless you take this into account, but after you do...you will see the "sense" behind what has happened and what is happening. That conclusion is this:

The well bore structure is compromised "Down hole".

That is something which is a "Worst nightmare" conclusion to reach. While many have been saying this for some time as with any complex disaster of this proportion many have "said" a lot of things with no real sound reasons or evidence for jumping to such conclusions, well this time it appears that they may have jumped into the right place...

*sic*

It means they will never cap the gusher after the wellhead. They cannot...the more they try and restrict the oil gushing out the bop?...the more it will transfer to the leaks below. Just like a leaky garden hose with a nozzle on it. When you open up the nozzle?...it doesn't leak so bad, you close the nozzle?...it leaks real bad,
same dynamics. It is why they sawed the riser off...or tried to anyway...but they clipped it off, to relieve pressure on the leaks "down hole". I'm sure there was a bit of panic time after they crimp/pinched off the large riser pipe and the Diamond wire saw got stuck and failed...because that crimp diverted pressure and flow to the rupture down below.

Contrary to what most of us would think as logical to stop the oil mess, actually opening up the gushing well and making it gush more became direction BP took after confirming that there was a leak. In fact if you note their actions, that should become clear. They have shifted from stopping or restricting the gusher to opening it up and catching it. This only makes sense if they want to relieve pressure at the leak hidden down below the seabed.....and that sort of leak is one of the most dangerous and potentially damaging kind of leak there could be. It is also inaccessible which compounds our problems. There is no way to stop that leak from above, all they can do is relieve the pressure on it and the only way to do that right now is to open up the nozzle above and gush more oil into the gulf and hopefully catch it, which they have done, they just neglected to tell us why, gee thanks.

A down hole leak is dangerous and damaging for several reasons.
There will be erosion throughout the entire beat up, beat on and beat down remainder of the "system" including that inaccessible leak. The same erosion I spoke about in the first post is still present and has never stopped, cannot be stopped, is impossible to stop and will always be present in and acting on anything that is left which has crude oil "Product" rushing through it. There are abrasives still present, swirling flow will create hot spots of wear and this erosion is relentless and will always be present until eventually it wears away enough material to break it's way out. It will slowly eat the bop away especially at the now pinched off riser head and it will flow more and more. Perhaps BP can outrun or keep up with that out flow with various suckage methods for a period of time, but eventually the well will win that race, just how long that race will be?...no one really knows....However now?...there are other problems that a down hole leak will and must produce that will compound this already bad situation.

This down hole leak will undermine the foundation of the seabed in and around the well area. It also weakens the only thing holding up the massive Blow Out Preventer's immense bulk of 450 tons. In fact?...we are beginning to the results of the well's total integrity beginning to fail due to the undermining being caused by the leaking well bore.

The first layer of the sea floor in the gulf is mostly lose material of sand and silt. It doesn't hold up anything and isn't meant to, what holds the entire subsea system of the Bop in place is the well itself. The very large steel connectors of the initial well head "spud" stabbed in to the sea floor. The Bop literally sits on top of the pipe and never touches the sea bed, it wouldn't do anything in way of support if it did. After several tens of feet the seabed does begin to support the well connection laterally (side to side) you couldn't put a 450 ton piece of machinery on top of a 100' tall pipe "in the air" and subject it to the side loads caused by the ocean currents and expect it not to bend over...unless that pipe was very much larger than the machine itself, which you all can see it is not. The well's piping in comparison is actually very much smaller than the Blow Out Preventer and strong as it may be, it relies on some support from the seabed to function and not literally fall over...and it is now showing signs of doing just that....falling over.

If you have been watching the live feed cams you may have noticed that some of the ROVs are using an inclinometer...and inclinometer is an instrument that measures "Incline" or tilt. The BOP is not supposed to be tilting...and after the riser clip off operation it has begun to...

This is not the only problem that occurs due to erosion of the outer area of the well casings. The way a well casing assembly functions it that it is an assembly of different sized "tubes" that decrease in size as they go down. These tubes have a connection to each other that is not unlike a click or snap together locking action. After a certain length is assembled they are cemented around the ouside to the earth that the more rough drill hole is bored through in the well making process. A very well put together and simply explained process of "How to drill a deep water oil well" is available here:

Much, much more: The Oil Drum forum (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6593#comment-648967)

Nbadan

06-13-2010, 04:26 PM

It's a race now...a race to drill the relief wells and take our last chance at killing this monster before the whole weakened, wore out, blown out, leaking and failing system gives up it's last gasp in a horrific crescendo.

We are not even 2 months into it, barely half way by even optimistic estimates. The damage done by the leaked oil now is virtually immeasurable already and it will not get better, it can only get worse. No matter how much they can collect, there will still be thousands and thousands of gallons leaking out every minute, every hour of every day. We have 2 months left before the relief wells are even near in position and set up to take a kill shot and that is being optimistic as I said.

Over the next 2 months the mechanical situation also cannot improve, it can only get worse, getting better is an impossibility. While they may make some gains on collecting the leaked oil, the structural situation cannot heal itself. It will continue to erode and flow out more oil and eventually the inevitable collapse which cannot be stopped will happen. It is only a simple matter of who can "get there first"...us or the well.

We can only hope the race against that eventuality is one we can win, but my assessment I am sad to say is that we will not.

The system will collapse or fail substantially before we reach the finish line ahead of the well and the worst is yet to come.

Sorry to bring you that news, I know it is grim, but that is the way I see it....I sincerely hope I am wrong.

We need to prepare for the possibility of this blow out sending more oil into the gulf per week then what we already have now, because that is what a collapse of the system will cause. All the collection efforts that have captured oil will be erased in short order. The magnitude of this disaster will increase exponentially by the time we can do anything to halt it and our odds of actually even being able to halt it will go down.

The magnitude and impact of this disaster will eclipse anything we have known in our life times if the worst or even near worst happens...

We are seeing the puny forces of man vs the awesome forces of nature.
We are going to need some luck and a lot of effort to win...
and if nature decides we ought to lose, we will....

Nbadan

06-13-2010, 04:44 PM

It looks more like stuff at the bottom being kicked up by the sub's propellers. I hope I'm right.

We all need for things to start going good for us soon or this situation could be exponentially bad in short term.. how bad? ...ever hear of the Clathrate gun hypothesis?

boutons_deux

06-13-2010, 04:49 PM

if they screwed up with this wellhead, where's the confidence that they can won't screw one or both of the relief wells?

How can be sure the relief drillings will actually hit the reservoir?

The relief wells have to remove how much oil (and where does it go? since BP hasn't ordered a mega-tanker to the site) has to be pumped until the pressure is reduced enough to seal the first hole?

Nbadan

06-13-2010, 05:09 PM

On May 31st, the Washington Post noted (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/30/AR2010053002195_pf.html):

Sources at two companies involved with the well said that BP also discovered new damage inside the well below the seafloor and that, as a result, some of the drilling mud that was successfully forced into the well was going off to the side into rock formations.

"We discovered things that were broken in the sub-surface," said a BP official who spoke on the condition of anonymity. He said that mud was making it "out to the side, into the formation."

On June 2nd, Bloomberg pointed out (http://preview.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-02/bp-gulf-of-mexico-oil-leak-may-last-until-christmas-in-worst-case-scenario.html):

Plugging the well is another challenge even after BP successfully intersects it, Robert Bea, a University of California Berkeley engineering professor, said. BP has said it believes the well bore to be damaged, which could hamper efforts to fill it with mud and set a concrete plug, Bea said.

On June 3rd, The Canadian Press (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100603/world/us_oil_spill_explosives) quoted the top government official in charge of the response to the oil spill - Admiral Thad Allen, the commandant of the Coast Guard - as pointing to the same possibility:

The failure of the so-called top kill procedure - which entailed pumping mud into the well at high velocity - suggested "there actually could be something wrong with the well casing, and there could be open communication in the strata or the rock formations below the sea floor," Allen said.

On June 7th, Senator Bill Nelson told MSNBC that he's investigating reports of oil seeping up from additional leak points on the seafloor:

Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL): Andrea we’re looking into something new right now, that there’s reports of oil that’s seeping up from the seabed… which would indicate, if that’s true, that the well casing itself is actually pierced… underneath the seabed. So, you know, the problems could be just enormous with what we’re facing.

Andrea Mitchell, MSNBC: Now let me understand better what you’re saying. If that is true that it is coming up form that seabed, even the relief well won’t be the final solution to cap this thing. That means that we’ve got oil gushing up at disparate places along the ocean floor.

Sen. Nelson: That is possible, unless you get the plug down low enough, below where the pipe would be breached.

Washington Blog (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/06/evidence-points-to-destruction-beneath.html)

We have a right to know what's really going on.

Given the impact on America's people, natural resources and economy, BP and the government must fully disclose the amount of damage underneath the sea floor, and what that means for the efforts to cap the well.

jack sommerset

06-13-2010, 07:41 PM

http://i935.photobucket.com/albums/ad194/DNS_photos_an_sheeit/michelles-vajayjay-obama-michelle-d.jpg

word

06-14-2010, 08:23 AM

On April 1, a job log written by a Halliburton employee, Marvin Volek, warns that BP’s use of cement “was
against our best practices.”

An April 18 internal Halliburton memorandum indicates that Halliburton again warned BP about its practices,
this time saying that a “severe” gas flow problem would occur if the casings were not centered more carefully.

Around that same time, a BP document shows, company officials chose a type of casing with a greater risk of
collapsing.

Reminds me of an old oil field joke. Each day, a drilling log has to be filled out. The joke is, during a blowout the crew shuts in the well and enters that into the log. Then the drillers next entry in the log is ...

10 minutes running, 30 minutes walking back ....

George Gervin's Afro

06-14-2010, 09:19 AM

I blame Obama. He should have known about this.

EmptyMan

06-14-2010, 11:35 AM

fuuuuuuuuuuuuuu 2012 here we come

I blame this on the Large Hadron Collider. France opened up a black hole next to Texas to take out its biggest competition in Apocalyptic survival no doubt.

RandomGuy

06-14-2010, 01:07 PM

We all need for things to start going good for us soon or this situation could be exponentially bad in short term.. how bad? ...ever hear of the Clathrate gun hypothesis?

Silly. There is no such thing as global warming, remember?

boutons_deux

06-14-2010, 02:41 PM

# The New York Times

June 14, 2010
Cash Flows for BP, but Investors Worry
By JAD MOUAWAD and CLIFFORD KRAUSS

Although BP generates billions of dollars in profit every quarter, the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is rattling both government and investor confidence in the London-based oil giant’s ability to handle the economic consequences.

As the administration continued to pressure BP on Monday to set aside money in a fund dedicated to paying spill damages, company’s directors met via teleconference to discuss the meeting on Wednesday between BP executives and President Obama.

The directors focused on how to respond to the administration’s request that the company suspend the dividend, which was $10.48 billion last year, and set up a multibillion-dollar escrow account to guarantee payment of damages. Although a company spokesman declined to discuss the board meeting in detail, he said that BP does not need to announce a decision on payment of the next quarter’s dividend until late July.

Investors are becoming increasingly nervous at BP’s liabilities and the company’s ability to pay. BP shares were down about 9 percent in New York trading on Monday. The uncertainty has cut the value of BP’s shares in half since April 20, when the Deepwater Horizon drilling ship exploded in the Gulf of Mexico. BP’s market capitalization has dropped about $90 billion.

On the face of it, the mistrust in BP’s finances seems misplaced. With oil trading above $75 a barrel, the company has torrents of cash flowing in and maintains that it will be able to use that revenue to pay for the cleanup as well as many of the penalties it will face.

BP is the biggest oil and gas producer in the United States, which accounts for about a third of its global business. It operates the biggest oil field in North America — Prudhoe Bay in Alaska’s North Slope. Its refineries in Texas City, Tex., and Whiting, Ind., are among the five largest in the country.

BP had net income of $6 billion in the first quarter, after posting a $17 billion profit last year. Globally, BP had 63 billion barrels of resources as at the end of 2009, including more than 18 billion barrels of proved reserves.

The company’s operating cash flow last year was $27.7 billion and it spent $22 billion on capital expenses, including exploration and development projects. At the end of 2009, it had $8.34 billion in cash and cash equivalents. It had debt of $26.16 billion at the end of last year, giving it a debt-to-equity ratio of 20 percent. The company has said that it could raise that ratio to 30 percent and still have an appropriate level of financial flexibility.

But BP now faces bigger risks. Its inability to stop the leak — and put an end to the worst environmental disaster in American history — means it is facing a political crisis as much as a financial one.

The drop in share price could make BP a target for a takeover by Western rivals or even one of Asia’s national oil companies. The company’s poor safety record could jeopardize its ability to do business in the United States. Globally, BP could see its reputation erode, affecting its ability to bid for projects and develop resources.

The crisis is also likely to damage BP’s balance sheet and its ability to borrow money. Its bonds are now trading at junk levels, which would raise the price it would have to pay to raise capital, if needed.

So far, the company says it has spent $1.43 billion on the spill, including cleanup costs. And it has defended its ability to face claims.

“Our asset base is strong and valuable,” BP said in a statement last week, adding that it had “significant capacity and flexibility in dealing with the cost of responding to the incident, the environmental remediation and the payment of legitimate claims.”

Fadel Gheit, an oil and gas analyst at Oppenheimer & Company, said in a research note that he expects BP to have an operating cash flow of $34 billion in 2010 and $37 billion in 2011. BP can borrow up to $15 billion and still “keep its debt ratio below the top of its acceptable range of 20-30 percent,” he said.

A firming of oil and gas prices in recent days has also helped the company’s revenues, Mr. Gheit said. He estimated that every dollar increase in the price of a barrel of oil produces $100 million extra per quarter.

For the moment, the main risk lies in estimating the liability the company may face.

Depending on how much oil is spilled, and how long the spill lasts, the cost to BP could range from $4.5 billion, if the spill were stopped today, to $26 billion, if it lasted a total of 90 days, when a relief well is expected to be completed, according to Kevin Book, an analyst at Clear View Energy Partners.

This includes payment for all tourism and commercial fishing revenues for the four states most affected by the spill — Alabama, Florida, Louisiana and Mississippi — which amounts to around $15 billion for a full year. It also includes civil fines of $25,000 per day and criminal penalties of $4,100 per barrel spilled. And it includes clean-up costs estimated at between $23 million to $35 million per day.

But estimates vary. Credit Suisse has estimated that the cleanup would cost $15 billion to $23 billion, plus another $14 billion of claims.

Oppenheimer estimated that BP would eventually face $20 billion in claims and cleanup costs. Punitive damages to the federal and state governments could double that figure. Mr. Gheit said the maximum cost could range up to $60 billion, which would be paid over many years.

BP could fight these claims in court to reduce punitive damages. Plaintiffs in the Exxon Valdez spill received 10 cents for every dollar claimed in court against Exxon Mobil. Also, the “total cost burden is unlikely to arrive in a single instant — much of the liability will be litigated and paid out over time,” Mr. Book said.

The government has also raised the prospect of making BP pay the salaries of workers affected by the government’s temporary moratorium on offshore oil drilling. This is an unprecedented demand, and legal experts said the argument has little chance of standing before the courts. But it also increases the uncertainty over BP’s liabilities.

Mr. Gheit said that if the Obama administration pushed BP to pay the salaries for the 15,000 to 20,000 workers who could lose their jobs for up to a year due to the drilling moratorium, that could raise the company’s liabilities by an extra $1 billion to $1.5 billion. More importantly, it would open the door to more claims by workers and business owners who lose income indirectly from a drilling moratorium.

“Once you open the door, it’s an avalanche,” Mr. Gheit said. “Those oil workers are not going into the fast food restaurants, they are not going to be driving their cars, they are not going to be shopping.”

MannyIsGod

06-14-2010, 04:24 PM

Wait, because I'm not sure I read this right...

But if the entire well just completely fails we could see a weekly output equaling or surpassing the total amount leaked to date? Holy, fucking shit.

z0sa

06-14-2010, 04:26 PM

It's been a catastrophe for a while, Dan..

MannyIsGod

06-14-2010, 04:31 PM

We need to prepare for the possibility of this blow out sending more oil into the gulf per week then what we already have now, because that is what a collapse of the system will cause. All the collection efforts that have captured oil will be erased in short order. The magnitude of this disaster will increase exponentially by the time we can do anything to halt it and our odds of actually even being able to halt it will go down.

There are a ton of geologists in my dept at UNM who specialize in petroleum studies of some sort. I have no way of knowing if they'll let me, but I'm now so freaked out by this I think I'll pick their brains the moment I get a chance.

That amount of oil going into the gulf would basically kill off the fishing industries in the entire gulf as well as most of the beaches. I don't think we'd have any hope of keeping the oil contained if the volume was that high. All assumptions, but if we can't contain it now how could we contain it with that much pouring into the gulf each week?

Nbadan

06-14-2010, 10:51 PM

It's been a catastrophe for a while, Dan..

A full blowout could equal anywhere from 2-4 billion gallons of oil in the gulf, what we've seen so far is a small fraction of that amount....

Cry Havoc

06-15-2010, 01:56 AM

There are a ton of geologists in my dept at UNM who specialize in petroleum studies of some sort. I have no way of knowing if they'll let me, but I'm now so freaked out by this I think I'll pick their brains the moment I get a chance.

You're probably not the first person to think of this. Would be really cool if they actually talked to you though. They might be a bit more open to talking to a fellow "ologist", even if it's of the sky variety. :P: Let us know what they say if you actually go through with that.

Where is word? I wonder if he has any input on the situation, being ST's resident drilling expert and all....

Wild Cobra

06-15-2010, 02:58 AM

You're probably not the first person to think of this. Would be really cool if they actually talked to you though. They might be a bit more open to talking to a fellow "ologist", even if it's of the sky variety. :P: Let us know what they say if you actually go through with that.

Where is word? I wonder if he has any input on the situation, being ST's resident drilling expert and all....
The primary problems have nothing to do with geology or the study of petroleum. You see, oil is so much lighter than water, that there is about a 350 PSI difference between oil and sea water at that depth. It gets worse. I forget how far the well is tapped under the sea bed, but the pressure of the ocean floor over the oil, and extra depth, makes the pressure rather extreme. If I recall correctly, the oil pocket is around 18000 ft. This 350 PSI difference now becomes about 1200 PSI for just the difference between oil and water. However, only the fort 5000 or so feet are sea water. The remaining almost 13000 feet is sea floor, at a greater density than sea water. We are now talking of at least 2000 PSI differential pressure. This is how I understand the sciences. I have been told the pressure is actually about 3000 PSI.

Now tell me. Just how is normal petroleum sciences going to deal with deep underwater problems?

Winehole23

06-15-2010, 03:05 AM

The primary problems have nothing to do with geology or the study of petroleum. You see, oil is so much lighter than water, that there is about a 350 PSI difference between oil and sea water at that depth. It gets worse. I forget how far the well is tapped under the sea bed, but the pressure of the ocean floor over the oil, and extra depth, makes the pressure rather extreme. If I recall correctly, the oil pocket is around 18000 ft. This 350 PSI difference now becomes about 1200 PSI for just the difference between oil and water. However, only the fort 5000 or so feet are sea water. The remaining almost 13000 feet is sea floor, at a greater density than sea water. We are now talking of at least 2000 PSI differential pressure. This is how I understand the sciences. I have been told the pressure is actually about 3000 PSI.Deepwater conditions are extreme. Check.

Now tell me. Just how is normal petroleum sciences going to deal with deep underwater problems?I haven't the foggiest. Please advise us, profe.

Weren't they already supposed to have a plan for worst-case contingencies, or did that get waived too?

Winehole23

06-15-2010, 03:11 AM

That amount of oil going into the gulf would basically kill off the fishing industries in the entire gulf as well as most of the beaches.Fishing has already been suspended in one third of the federal fishery in the Gulf of Mexico. I don't know anything about the state by state action, but would imagine that Louisiana is pretty well fucked already.

Has it hit the beaches in FL yet?

LnGrrrR

06-15-2010, 05:00 AM

Deepwater conditions are extreme. Check.

I haven't the foggiest. Please advise us, profe.

Weren't they already supposed to have a plan for worst-case contingencies, or did that get waived too?

That's my question. If worst case scenario involved pretty much making the entire gulf an oil drum, you'd think that standards would be upheld more rigorously, despite the one-in-million nature of sun a catastrophe. To not do so is criminally irresponsible.

What do libertarians have to say about situations like this, where a non-gov party could theoretically taint a natural area so thoroughly? Let's hypothesize that BP gies into bankruptcy due to the spill... Should the people who rely on the Gulf just suck it up and move on?

boutons_deux

06-15-2010, 05:10 AM

Fun poking blindly the original well with relief wells

BP's Spill Relief Wells Draw Scrutiny

http://www.aolnews.com/gulf-oil-spill/article/bps-spill-relief-well-draws-scrutiny/19514482?sms_ss=digg

Winehole23

06-15-2010, 05:14 AM

... Should the people who rely on the Gulf just suck it up and move on?They'll have to.

Injuries are instant; remedies however, can be very slow.

DarrinS

06-15-2010, 07:36 AM

I wonder if a very large suction pile would work?

boutons_deux

06-15-2010, 08:42 AM

More input on how our wonderful, trustworthy, venal corporations fuck us, their employees, and the environment over:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-oil-inspection-20100615,0,3993237,print.story

RandomGuy

06-15-2010, 08:58 AM

the “total cost burden is unlikely to arrive in a single instant — much of the liability will be litigated and paid out over time,” Mr. Book said.

Probably the most important sentence in that story.

Given that BP's yearly profit, before dividends, is likely to approach 20bn this year, before cleanup/claims costs, BP simply has to avoid paying it all out in a single year.

It would be highly unreasonable to pay everything out in one year, not to mention logicistically not very feasible.

Talk of seizing BP's assets is foolish and short-sighted. This company has the ability to pay as long as we don't do something stupid and expect them to pay all at once.

Let them pay about 1Bn per month into an escrow account managed by a competant fund manager, and distribute the funds for claims/costs at a slightly lower rate to allow some capital to build up.

This is essentially the business model of an insurance company, so there is no shortage of people with expertise to run it.

boutons_deux

06-15-2010, 09:03 AM

boutons_deux

06-15-2010, 09:06 AM

BP hiding filming and reporting of the disaster, using mercenaries

BP hires private security contractors to guard ‘black water’

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0615/bp-hires-private-security-contractors-guard-oily-beaches/

RandomGuy

06-15-2010, 09:33 AM

BP hiding evidence of damage, knowing the financial penalties will be based on damages

Expert suggests BP is hiding oiled animal carcasses

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0615/expert-suggests-bp-hiding-oiled-animal-carcasses/

"Turtle watch volunteers who walk the beaches consistently every morning at 6:00 a.m., they're saying the carcasses are disappearing," Ott told host Keith Olbermann. "People who walk the beaches at night, they've seen little baby dolphins wash up dead, flashlights, people descend out of nowhere, carcass gone in 15 minutes

This is not evidence of BP "hiding damage" that is evidence that someone is cleaning up oily carcasses.

If your goal is to limit damage caused by oil, would you then try to clean up oily carcasses?

boutons_deux

06-15-2010, 09:47 AM

The goal would to hide evidence of damage, not limit the damage.

Why decapitate the carcasses?

Cry Havoc

06-15-2010, 10:00 AM

The primary problems have nothing to do with geology or the study of petroleum. You see, oil is so much lighter than water, that there is about a 350 PSI difference between oil and sea water at that depth. It gets worse. I forget how far the well is tapped under the sea bed, but the pressure of the ocean floor over the oil, and extra depth, makes the pressure rather extreme. If I recall correctly, the oil pocket is around 18000 ft. This 350 PSI difference now becomes about 1200 PSI for just the difference between oil and water. However, only the fort 5000 or so feet are sea water. The remaining almost 13000 feet is sea floor, at a greater density than sea water. We are now talking of at least 2000 PSI differential pressure. This is how I understand the sciences. I have been told the pressure is actually about 3000 PSI.

Now tell me. Just how is normal petroleum sciences going to deal with deep underwater problems?

Thanks for the completely unnecessarily aggressive response.

I guess I know I've made an impact on the Political Forum when I'm randomly musing about a situation and WC feels the need to attack me for it. :lol

I wonder if a very large suction pile would work?

You want them to put Sasha Vujacic at the bottom of the ocean?

jack sommerset

06-15-2010, 10:06 AM

LOL @ Cry Havoc saying WC is attacking him! Pussy.

DarrinS

06-15-2010, 10:13 AM

You want them to put Sasha Vujacic at the bottom of the ocean?

:lmao

Cry Havoc

06-15-2010, 10:58 AM

LOL @ Cry Havoc saying WC is attacking him! Pussy.

Clearly I'm really broken up about it. :lol

Sportcamper

06-15-2010, 11:14 AM

The spill was Catastrophic from day one...Will take over 100 years to clean this mess up...Go Big Oil...

Wild Cobra

06-15-2010, 11:22 AM

I haven't the foggiest. Please advise us, profe.
That's my point. There is a very small group of people who can address the problem at the sea floor.

Weren't they already supposed to have a plan for worst-case contingencies, or did that get waived too?
I don't know.

What I don't understand is why there was no backup to the pick off hydraulics. That was their only safety for this level of damage and it failed to work. For all that BP did wrong, they were probably not worried because this devise was suppose to work. If it didn't fail, we wouldn't have these problems. That's why i say part of the responsibility is on the manufacturer of this device.

Wild Cobra

06-15-2010, 11:28 AM

Thanks for the completely unnecessarily aggressive response.

I guess I know I've made an impact on the Political Forum when I'm randomly musing about a situation and WC feels the need to attack me for it. :lol

Sorry, I did mean to respond to Manny's post.

boutons_deux

06-15-2010, 11:32 AM

# The New York Times

June 15, 2010
Oil Executives Tell Committee That BP Spill Is an Aberration
By JOHN M. BRODER

WASHINGTON — The chief executives of the world’s largest oil companies faced a Congressional panel of inquisitors on Tuesday and tried to cast the BP spill as a rare event that their companies were not likely to repeat.

In their remarks, the executives said that continued offshore exploration and drilling were essential to American oil and gas supplies and to the health of their industry.

In a moment of Capitol Hill drama reminiscent of the grilling of tobacco industry executives in 1994, the oil company officials were summoned by the House Energy and Commerce Committee to justify offshore drilling and explain how their safety practices differed from BP’s.

Rex W. Tillerson, chairman of Exxon Mobil, testified that if companies follow proper well design, drilling, maintenance and training procedures accidents like Deepwater Horizon explosion on April 20 “should not occur,” implying that BP had failed to do so.

John S. Watson, chief executive of Chevron, also pointed an implicit finger at BP, saying that every Chevron employee and contractor has the authority to stop work immediately if they see anything unsafe. Congressional investigators charge that BP went ahead with risky procedures even after repeated warnings from company workers and contract employees on the ill-fated rig.

“Our internal review confirmed what our regular audits have told us,” Mr. Watson testified. “Chevron’s deepwater drilling and well control practices are safe and environmentally sound.”

Lamar McKay, the president of BP America, would not say whether the company would place funds in an escrow account to handle future claims for economic and ecological damages because of the oil spill, as many in Congress and the administration are demanding.

“I cannot commit today one way or another to a fund,” Mr. McKay said in response to a question from Representative Fred Upton, Republican of Michigan, “We have said we’ll honor all legitimate claims and the full company stands behind that.”

President Obama is expected to raise the matter of an escrow fund when he meets with top BP executives at the White House on Wednesday.

Mr. McKay, did, however, issue a plea for forbearance from Congressional and executive branch officials, saying: “America’s economy, security and standard of living today significantly depend upon domestic oil and gas production. Reducing our energy production, absent a concurrent reduction in consumption, would shift additional jobs and dollars offshore and place millions of additional barrels per day into tanker ships that must traverse the world’s oceans.”

The executives appeared before the energy and environment subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, chaired by Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts. He questioned the oil company representatives not only about safety procedures but about emergency planning, the use of dispersants and differences in regulations in other countries.

Representative Henry A. Waxman, chairman of the House committee, focused on the spill response plans of the five companies. They were prepared by an outside contractor and are virtually identical, Mr. Waxman said.

Each of the plans addresses a worst-case spill. BP’s plan says it can handled a spill of 250,000 barrels a day; Chevron and Shell say they can handle 200,000 barrels a day. The current estimate for the BP spill is about 30,000 barrels a day, and it is clear that the company’s plan was not adequate to deal with it.

Mr. Waxman said it is clear that the plans are “just paper exercises.”

“BP failed miserably when confronted with a real leak,” Mr. Waxman said, “and Exxon Mobil and the other companies would do no better.”

Mr. Markey prepared a series of questions about industry spending on research and alternative energy, and plans to expand offshore operations to the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic coasts.

“Now the other companies here today will contend that this was an isolated incident. They will say a similar disaster could never happen to them,” Mr. Markey said as the hearing opened. “And yet it is this kind of Blind Faith — which is ironically the name of an actual rig in the Gulf — that has led to this kind of disaster.”

Mr. Markey added: “In preparation for this hearing, the committee reviewed the oil spill safety response plans for all of the companies here today. What we found was that these five companies have response plans that are virtually identical. The plans cite identical response capabilities and tout identical ineffective equipment. In some cases, they use the exact same words. We found that all of these companies, not just BP, made the exact same assurances.” :lol

Like BP, Mr. Markey said, three other companies include references to protecting walruses, which have not called the Gulf of Mexico home for three million years. :lol

“Two other plans are such dead ringers for BP’s that they list a phone number for the same long-dead expert,” he said. :lol

Wild Cobra

06-15-2010, 11:46 AM

The spill was Catastrophic from day one...Will take over 100 years to clean this mess up...Go Big Oil...
How do you get 100 years?

If you are comparing it to something like the Exxon Valdez, then you would be wrong to do so. Temperature plays a big role in this.

RandomGuy

06-15-2010, 12:23 PM

“Two other plans are such dead ringers for BP’s that they list a phone number for the same long-dead expert,[/B]” he said. :lol

Copy, meet paste... :lol :depressed

Seems like we need to use big, bad government to demand that the free market provide a better response plan.

It should alarm anyone that these companies have given so little response to high magnitude of loss/low probability events.

Prudent risk management seems to have been too much to ask. Time to stop asking and start compelling.

RandomGuy

06-15-2010, 12:26 PM

How do you get 100 years?

If you are comparing it to something like the Exxon Valdez, then you would be wrong to do so. Temperature plays a big role in this.

There are still areas of coastline off Mexico where one can stick a knife into the ground and bring it up coated with tarry residue from the Ixtoc spill over 30 years ago. I don't think 100 years is too outside the pale.

You were right though. Comparing it to the Exxon Valdez is a wrong comparison to make.

This is much, much bigger.

MannyIsGod

06-15-2010, 12:51 PM

The primary problems have nothing to do with geology or the study of petroleum. You see, oil is so much lighter than water, that there is about a 350 PSI difference between oil and sea water at that depth. It gets worse. I forget how far the well is tapped under the sea bed, but the pressure of the ocean floor over the oil, and extra depth, makes the pressure rather extreme. If I recall correctly, the oil pocket is around 18000 ft. This 350 PSI difference now becomes about 1200 PSI for just the difference between oil and water. However, only the fort 5000 or so feet are sea water. The remaining almost 13000 feet is sea floor, at a greater density than sea water. We are now talking of at least 2000 PSI differential pressure. This is how I understand the sciences. I have been told the pressure is actually about 3000 PSI.

Ok, wtf does that have to do with me trying to find out more about well behavior from the most qualified people around me?

Now tell me. Just how is normal petroleum sciences going to deal with deep underwater problems?

Now tell me, just when did I say it was?

You're so fucking mind numbingly stupid sometimes that if I could reach through the computer you'd probably have several broken noses by now. God damn its like dealing with a fucking retard except retards usually understand their retarded.

Wild Cobra

06-15-2010, 01:04 PM

Ok, wtf does that have to do with me trying to find out more about well behavior from the most qualified people around me?

Not much. i just don't think they will have much to offer unless they have specialized in deep sea oil.

Now tell me, just when did I say it was?

We all make certain assumptions in what we read. I seriously doubt you will find many that have studied much on the topic, or better yet, have any hands-on.

You're so fucking mind numbingly stupid sometimes that if I could reach through the computer you'd probably have several broken noses by now. God damn its like dealing with a fucking retard except retards usually understand their retarded.

LOL... sounds like you're about to have a breakdown.

Wild Cobra

06-15-2010, 01:08 PM

There are still areas of coastline off Mexico where one can stick a knife into the ground and bring it up coated with tarry residue from the Ixtoc spill over 30 years ago. I don't think 100 years is too outside the pale.

You were right though. Comparing it to the Exxon Valdez is a wrong comparison to make.

This is much, much bigger.
Well, we are lucky in the fact very little has made land.

Correct me if I'm wring, but our shores on the Gulf are normally losing sand to the sea, and normally gaining sand in Mexico. Once covered with new sand, it doesn't wash away.

That was only 160 ft. to the floor and took 10 months to contain.

RandomGuy

06-15-2010, 02:03 PM

Well, we are lucky in the fact very little has made land.

Lucky so far, yes.

I doubt we will be quite so lucky over time.

Wild Cobra

06-15-2010, 02:05 PM

Lucky so far, yes.

I doubt we will be quite so lucky over time.
hard to say. The normal gulf flow should keep us safe, unless we get some wild hurricanes.

Sportcamper

06-15-2010, 02:15 PM

It is doubtful that anyone posting on this forum will live long enough to see this mess cleaned up…The fallout will remain for over 100 years just like other oil messes….

In the 60’s Malibu was pristine with sandy beaches & fishing that was incredible…… Huge Halibut, Bonita, Lobster, Crab, sometimes Salmon & if you went out past the pier on a day boat huge Red Snappers….Then that “MINOR” Santa Monica oil spill happened (1969 )…To this day you can walk the beach & get tar all over your feet & towel…

There are no more huge halibut or salmon or lobsters being caught off the beaches of So Cal…The stuff they call red snapper these days were a throw back fish in the 60’s…

The shell fish & shrimp industries in the Gulf of Mexico will be in trouble for a long long time….Nobody will want to eat shrimp & oysters from the Gulf of Mexico…

This was all preventable…One shut off valve upstream from the pump…But Oil companies & politicians could care less…They don’t like to go outside & play I guess…

DarrinS

06-15-2010, 03:12 PM

RandomGuy

06-15-2010, 04:52 PM

RandomGuy

06-15-2010, 04:56 PM

Gotta stop you right there. You ASSUME that the tar balls are leftovers from that spill. Fact is, that area (and most of sourthern Cal for that matter) has enormous amounts of natural seepage, both undersea and on land. Same thing along our Texas coast.

You seem to be assuming it is "natural seepage".

The difference in spills versus "seepage" is concentration. I would wager that it is far more likely to be the result of a spill than seepage.

Seepage according to what I have read simply leaves a very very very thin film on the top of the ocean that is next to undetectable.

Not quite the recipe for tar balls, is it?

If that were the case where are the historical accounts of tar balls on beaches before we started drilling offshore?

DarrinS

06-15-2010, 05:41 PM

You seem to be assuming it is "natural seepage".

The difference in spills versus "seepage" is concentration. I would wager that it is far more likely to be the result of a spill than seepage.

Seepage according to what I have read simply leaves a very very very thin film on the top of the ocean that is next to undetectable.

Not quite the recipe for tar balls, is it?

If that were the case where are the historical accounts of tar balls on beaches before we started drilling offshore?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarball_(oil)

A tarball is a blob of petroleum which has been weathered after floating in the ocean. Tarballs are an aquatic pollutant in most environments, although they can occur naturally and as such are not always associated with oil spills.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1c/Tarball_2007.jpg/220px-Tarball_2007.jpg
A tar ball from Moss Landing State Beach in California in 2007, probably from natural seepage.

DarrinS

06-15-2010, 05:42 PM

Wild Cobra

06-15-2010, 06:48 PM

What's funny about all this is that the natural seepage would probably be eliminated or reduced if we could relieve the pressure by drilling!

RandomGuy

06-16-2010, 09:13 AM

Natural Offshore Oil Seepage and Related Tarball Accumulation on the California Coastline—Santa Barbara Channel and the Southern Santa Maria Basin; Source Identification and Inventory

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1225/

Thanks!

Fascinating. I learned something from reading it. Natural seepage does indeed produce tarballs.

RandomGuy

06-16-2010, 09:16 AM

What's funny about all this is that the natural seepage would probably be eliminated or reduced if we could relieve the pressure by drilling!

Reasonable conclusion, if not supported by data that I have yet seen. A good chunk of oil remains even in "tapped" sources, simply because it isn't economical or even technologically feasible to get it all.

DarrinS

06-16-2010, 09:48 AM

What's funny about all this is that the natural seepage would probably be eliminated or reduced if we could relieve the pressure by drilling!

Perhaps, although the ground seeps I have personally witnessed are not so much gushing as they are oozing.

Sportcamper

06-16-2010, 10:29 AM

You have to wonder why these Natural Offshore Oil Seepage's show up after oil spills…

http://sfappeal.com/alley/images/Korea_oil_spill_bird.jpg

DarrinS

06-16-2010, 10:45 AM

You have to wonder why these Natural Offshore Oil Seepage's show up after oil spills…

http://sfappeal.com/alley/images/Korea_oil_spill_bird.jpg

Nah, that looks like oil from a spill (or leak).

This is what you claimed, with nothing to back it up.

It is doubtful that anyone posting on this forum will live long enough to see this mess cleaned up…The fallout will remain for over 100 years just like other oil messes….

In the 60’s Malibu was pristine with sandy beaches & fishing that was incredible…… Huge Halibut, Bonita, Lobster, Crab, sometimes Salmon & if you went out past the pier on a day boat huge Red Snappers….Then that “MINOR” Santa Monica oil spill happened (1969 )…To this day you can walk the beach & get tar all over your feet & towel…

There are no more huge halibut or salmon or lobsters being caught off the beaches of So Cal…The stuff they call red snapper these days were a throw back fish in the 60’s…

The shell fish & shrimp industries in the Gulf of Mexico will be in trouble for a long long time….Nobody will want to eat shrimp & oysters from the Gulf of Mexico…

This was all preventable…One shut off valve upstream from the pump…But Oil companies & politicians could care less…They don’t like to go outside & play I guess…

Sportcamper

06-16-2010, 10:50 AM

Nothing to back it up…
:lol
You need to get out once in a while…

Winehole23

06-16-2010, 02:41 PM

In the latest iteration of its plan, revealed Sunday in a letter sent to U.S. Coast Guard Rear Admiral James Watson, BP said it expects to have the capacity to capture between 40,000 and 53,000 barrels of oil a day by the end of June. That compares with the 15,000 barrels a day that are being collected now, out of the 20,000 to 40,000 barrels that a team of scientists estimates as the daily flow rate from the Macondo well.

BP, which said that further enhancements will increase the collection capacity to as high as 80,000 barrels a day by mid-July, submitted its latest plan after Watson, the federal government's second-in-command for the spill response, told the company Friday its previous plan didn't meet the bill and gave BP a 48-hour deadline to come up with a revised scheme.

Read more: http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=201006141349dowjonesdjonline000 276&title=update-bp-outlines-latest-plans-to-capture-more-oil-from-spill#ixzz0r2xmpK00

boutons_deux

06-16-2010, 02:54 PM

Wait! There's More!

WEDNESDAY 16 JUNE 2010

EXCLUSIVE: New Documents, Employees Reveal BP's Alaska Oilfield Plagued by Major Safety Issues

Tuesday 15 June 2010

by: Jason Leopold, t r u t h o u t | Investigative Report

Nearly 5,000 miles from the oil-spill catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico, BP and its culture of cost-cutting are contributing to another environmental mess.

According to internal BP documents obtained by Truthout, and after interviewing more than a dozen employees over the past month, the Prudhoe Bay oil field, in a remote corner of North America on Alaska's north shore, is in danger.

After two serious oil spills and other mishaps, the BP employees fingered a long list of safety issues that have not been adequately addressed, making the Prudhoe Bay oilfield vulnerable to a devastating accident that potentially could rival the havoc in the Gulf.

"The condition of the [Prudhoe Bay] field is a lot worse and in my opinion a lot more dangerous," said Marc Kovac, who has worked for BP on Alaska's North Slope for more than three decades. "We still have hundreds of miles of rotting pipe ready to break that needs to be replaced. We are totally unprepared for a large spill."

Kovac, a mechanic and welder who is the steward of the United Steelworkers union local 4959, said a lot of employees share his feelings, but "don't want to risk their jobs for speaking out." Kovac said he was willing to take the risk because BP has been slow to deal with the Prudhoe Bay problems and that "many lives are at stake."

Some of the employees, speaking anonymously, said BP follows an "operate to failure" attitude.

Kovac said that means BP Alaska avoids spending money on "upkeep" and instead runs the equipment until it breaks down.

http://www.truth-out.org/documents-employees-reveal-bps-alaska-oilfield-plagued-by-major-safety-issues60470?print

Wild Cobra

06-16-2010, 04:20 PM

Wait! There's More!

WEDNESDAY 16 JUNE 2010

EXCLUSIVE: New Documents, Employees Reveal BP's Alaska Oilfield Plagued by Major Safety Issues

Tuesday 15 June 2010

by: Jason Leopold, t r u t h o u t | Investigative Report

<snip>
Any legitimate news sources cover this? Doesn't Truth Out tend to get disgruntled employees that lie?

Winehole23

06-16-2010, 04:31 PM

Wild Cobra

06-16-2010, 04:36 PM

Wild Cobra

06-16-2010, 04:39 PM

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/06/bp-nightmare-email/

http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2043:chairmen-send-letter-to-bp-ceo-prior-to-hearing&catid=122:media-advisories&Itemid=55
I'm not going to sift though several links. Have any particular quotes of interest? If you recall, I do hold BP responsible for this. I just don't see the merit of Kovac's claims being only seen on five progressive links when I searched.

If you allow bullshit mixed in with the real problems, then some will stop believing BP has any direct fault. Can we stick with what can be verified?

Nbadan

06-16-2010, 04:44 PM

Can it be verified that B.P. negligently failed to install a less than million dollar emergency cut-off valve to save money that would have likely avoided this catastrophe?

Wild Cobra

06-16-2010, 04:49 PM

Can it be verified that B.P. negligently failed to install a less than million dollar emergency cut-off valve to save money that would have likely avoided this catastrophe?
Again, I hold BP responsible for this leak. I'll bet yes, it can be verified they didn't install it. However, that wasn't their negligence. It simply left them with one less way to combat the problem. The negligence was rushing to get the oil flowing, and the normal skipped steps along the way.

Nbadan

06-16-2010, 04:56 PM

..the acoustic switch isn't required in the U.S. but if your digging 18K feet into sea bed near well known methane gas deposits...you would think that a corporation with any conscious would want that extra layer of safety given the marginal costs....

A senior House Democrat said that the blowout preventer that failed to stop an oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico had a dead battery in its control pod, leaks in its hydraulic system, a “useless” test version of one of the devices that was supposed to close the flow of oil and a cutting tool that wasn’t strong enough to shear through joints that made up 10 percent of the drill pipe.

Wash Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/12/AR2010051202190_pf.html)

Yonivore

06-16-2010, 05:00 PM

Can it be verified that B.P. negligently failed to install a less than million dollar emergency cut-off valve to save money that would have likely avoided this catastrophe?
That's what the Interior Department's MMS inspections would have discovered before the spill...had they been conducted.

Nbadan

06-16-2010, 05:06 PM

ONCE AGAIN....they were not required and while your bringing up 'failed safety inspections' why don't you post about how the Bush Administration under Dick Cheney loosened safety and inspection regulations while deep-water rig safety grew more precarious...

boutons_deux

06-16-2010, 05:07 PM

The fucking "Christians", and Left Behinders wanted Armageddon? Well, here's what it might look like:

Oil Spill Forces Animals To Flee To Shallow Water Off Coast, Scientists Warn Of 'Mass Die-Off'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/16/oil-spill-forces-animals-_n_615003.html?view=print

Reich says put PB America into receivership. I say seize all their assets and bank accounts.

Nbadan

06-16-2010, 05:09 PM

The testimony from Saucier established that the government agency he works for doesn’t do any certification of blowout preventers, the massive devices that are supposed to be the final cut off of an out-of-control well. Saucier said most of the action MMS has taken to control blowout preventers has been through “notices to lessees,” letters that go to drill operators but are not enforceable.

“We have self-certification of critical equipment and safety notices that are not enforceable…” Nguyen said, digesting the testimony before tailing off, pursing his lips and moving on to his next question.

The panel of three Coast Guard officials and three MMS representatives also appeared disappointed to learn from Saucier that tighter rules for monitoring deepwater drilling safety systems were proposed nine years ago, but got lost in the shuffle and never were adopted.

Saucier said new rules were written in 2001 to require secondary control systems for blowout preventers, the stacks of valves and pistons on the seafloor that are supposed to shut a well in an emergency, but MMS higher-ups in Washington never approved the regulations.

“As far as I know, they’re still up in headquarters,” he said.

RandomGuy

06-16-2010, 05:10 PM

Marc Kovac is the only source for all these stories up there. He is the union steward. Be a big feather in his cap if he could get more safety checkers hired. I find it ironic. They find problems during preventative maintenance, things working just like they should, and he cries. I doubt his concerns are valid. There seem to be two incidents that were normal, and only one that I found where a BP engineer authorized temporary operation of a problem well that went bad on 8/16/02.

This is a risky job to begin with. Unions are one thing, but to be a union pussie...

Get real.

Actually if you read the entire article, it draws on multiple sources, including line employees, managers, executives, outside investigators, and open source Alaskan state government documents. Seems fairly well researched and thorough.

BP has had some bad problems with the operations up there, you may remember the issue of "pigging" the lines and corrosion at the time of the spill in 2006.

This article seems to paint a fairly consistant picture of safety lapses.

Nbadan

06-16-2010, 05:11 PM

B.P. problems on the North Slope..

* September 29, 2008 an 8 inch high pressure gas line at the Y-Pad location “separated” sending 3 pieces of pipe to the tundra. One segment of the pipe landed 900 feet from the pipeline. Roughly 30 minutes later a second and unrelated incident occurred on the S Pad where there was a gas release.

* January 15, 2009 a isc cleaning pig became lodged and lost in a 34 inch Oil Transit Line during de-oiling allowing gas to pass around the pig and travel through Skid 50, to Pump Station 1 causing a significant venting of gas to the atmosphere and the complete shutdown of the Trans Alaska Pipeline for a period of time.

* October 10, 2009 at the Central Compressor Plant low pressure flare staging valves were stuck closed causing gas to travel to the backup low pressure flare valves, which activated causing the gas to vent to the atmosphere which could have caused an explosion.

* November 29, 2009 an 18 inch three-phase common line near the Lisburne Production Center carrying a mixture of crude oil, produced water and natural gas ruptured spraying its contents over an estimated 8,400 square feet area.

RandomGuy

06-16-2010, 05:12 PM

That's what the Interior Department's MMS inspections would have discovered before the spill...had they been conducted.

More Bush-era cronyism rearing its ugly head. MMS got waaay to buddy-buddy with the people it was supposed to regulate.

The current administration shares a good chunk of the blame for not getting off its ass and fixing the problem.

Good God, how long will it take to cleanout Bush-era incompetence?

Good job, Brownie.

Wild Cobra

06-16-2010, 05:17 PM

B.P. problems on the North Slope..
So? Problems are normal.

Yonivore

06-16-2010, 05:20 PM

More Bush-era cronyism rearing its ugly head. MMS got waaay to buddy-buddy with the people it was supposed to regulate.

The current administration shares a good chunk of the blame for not getting off its ass and fixing the problem.

Good God, how long will it take to cleanout Bush-era incompetence?

Good job, Brownie.
The well that blew was approved to commence drilling on March 9, 2009 by Obama's Interior Secretary.

I guess, Rahm Emanuel staying free at a BP consultant-owned apartment and BP being a charter member of the cap and trade lobby don't count as cronyism in your book.

Good God, how long will it take for you to figure out Obama's an incompetent and corrupt politician?

RandomGuy

06-16-2010, 05:24 PM

The well that blew was approved to commence drilling on March 9, 2009 by Obama's Interior Secretary.

I guess, Rahm Emanuel staying free at a BP consultant-owned apartment and BP being a charter member of the cap and trade lobby don't count as cronyism in your book.

I think the BP-Obama ties have been vastly overstated by the right in the normal self-serving way that you always attempt to distort grains of truth to suit your narratives.

That said, it is something we should be concerned about, no matter who is doing it. IF the Obama adminsitration really does put any given corporate/industry needs above those of the American people, then that is a bad thing and should stop.

I noticed you were decidedly silent when Cheney let coal-industry lobbyists literally write public policy. Why did this stuff not concern YOU then? Hmmm?

Nbadan

06-16-2010, 05:26 PM

:rolleyes

So now you want to go after ever politician who received lobbying money or favors from BP?

The BP political action committee (PAC) gave $219,500 to federal candidates in the 05/06 election cycle - 34% to Democrats, 65% to Republicans. [13] A summary of the BP PAC data is below, from Open Secrets:

2010
Total Spent - $173,781
Contributions to Federal Candidates - $75,550 (42% to Democrats, 58% to Republicans)

2008
Total Spent - $619,255
Contributions to Federal Candidates - $198,500 (41% to Democrats, 59% to Republicans)

2006
Total Spent - $601,696
Contributions to Federal Candidates - $219,500 (34% to Democrats, 65% to Republicans)

2004
Total Spent - $678,337
Contributions to Federal Candidates - $220,499 (38% to Democrats, 62% to Republicans)

BP is one of the largest energy company contributors to both Republican and Democratic candidates for Congress. These contributions total $122,300 to the 110th US Congress (as of the third quarter), the largest of which has been to Rep. Mary Landrieu (D-LA). Rep. Landrieu, for her part, has been supportive of the oil industry on energy, war and climate bills.[2] (Add information from more recent reports)

Source Watch (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=BP)

Wild Cobra

06-16-2010, 05:26 PM

Wild Cobra

06-16-2010, 05:28 PM

I noticed you were decidedly silent when Cheney let coal-industry lobbyists literally write public policy. Why did this stuff not concern YOU then? Hmmm?
[I raise my hand]... Teacher, what authority did Cheney have to allow that to happen?

link please...

Nbadan

06-16-2010, 05:30 PM

:lol

What authority did Cheney have to allow torture to happen? Yeah, dictators are like that....

Yonivore

06-16-2010, 05:36 PM

I noticed you were decidedly silent when Cheney let coal-industry lobbyists literally write public policy. Why did this stuff not concern YOU then? Hmmm?
I don't recall that thread. Who claimed coal-industry lobbyists literally wrote public policy. But, more germane to the current issue, to what catastrophic disaster did it lead?

RandomGuy

06-16-2010, 05:49 PM

[I raise my hand]... Teacher, what authority did Cheney have to allow that to happen?

link please...

Hmm. Have to do some digging.

There was some administration policy that was literally drawn word-for-word from a position paper written by a lobbyist for the coal industry, if memory serves.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cheney_Energy_Task_Force

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4830129/

Just to refresh your memory.

Pretty much the entire energy policy was driven by meetings with energy industry executives, with little thought to what might be best for the public at large. Cheney seems to have confused what was good for a group of companies with the public good.

Feel free to do some reading on your own though.

RandomGuy

06-16-2010, 05:57 PM

Getting Cheney's Ear (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,198862,00.html)

Cheney's Energy Task Force Records Revealed (http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=12067186)

There was one meeting with environmentalists on April 13th, 2001, which was about two months into the work of the task force. And by that time, the task force staff had at least 40-some-odd meetings with a whole range of industry groups, lawmakers, et cetera.

And what we were told for this story is that, at some point, some of the staff realized that it might not look so good if they didn't talk to environmentalists. And so they kind of hastily put together a meeting about two months into the process and invited the Sierra Club and some other people in the environmental world to come and talk to the task force.

By the account of several of those people at that meeting, it was a fairly perfunctory meeting and I think what's quite telling is that at that point, a draft of the report was basically already done. So it doesn't seem that this was particularly strong input into the process.

I was unable to find the exact story regarding the copy-paste job from the lobbyist into the final document produced by the Task Force.

RandomGuy

06-16-2010, 06:00 PM

[I raise my hand]... Teacher, what authority did Cheney have to allow that to happen?

link please...

As for "what authority" I would guess that Bush simply tapped the former oil industry executive to head up the task force. The answer to your question is the authority of the president.

Unsurprisingly, a document that heavily favored fossil fuel industries resulted.

Shocker.

Not sure what the poitn of your question was, TBH. ???

RandomGuy

06-16-2010, 06:05 PM

Getting Cheney's Ear (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,198862,00.html)

Cheney's Energy Task Force Records Revealed (http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=12067186)

I was unable to find the exact story regarding the copy-paste job from the lobbyist into the final document produced by the Task Force.

I take that back... (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0826-02.htm)

In the sessions they held while they worked on the plan, Cheney and his staff generally heard a message reinforcing their own mind-set: Free markets, fewer pollution rules and expanded development of traditional fuels.

Using less energy and energy in different forms were notions mentioned but not emphasized. "What do you expect?" asked one energy industry insider whose colleagues met with Cheney. "These people make their living from coal and natural gas and nuclear power. Do you think they're going to push for solar and wind?"

The influences [of the energy industry] are evident in the final product.

The report focuses on easing regulation for oil and gas drilling, coal-fired generators, nuclear power plants and transmission of electricity, while providing energy assistance to poor households. Though the plan also backs alternative fuels and conservation, it gives the most support to increasing the supply of traditional sources of energy.

One passage adopts word for word a proposal on global warming from the U.S. Energy Assn.'s National Energy Strategy, which is dominated by trade groups. The section suggests encouraging other countries to build factories with clean technologies sold by U.S. companies.

Sounds more like an exercise in group-think than good policy making, doesn't it?

Wild Cobra

06-16-2010, 06:07 PM

Not sure what the poitn of your question was, TBH. ???
My point was the Cheney didn't authorize shit. I responded to:

Cheney let coal-industry lobbyists literally write public policy
He could advise, but didn't have that power.

Wild Cobra

06-16-2010, 06:09 PM

Sounds more like an exercise in group-think than good policy making, doesn't it?
Agreed.

PublicOption

06-17-2010, 01:03 AM

145 million gallons leaked and counting

http://www.wlox.com/Global/category.asp?C=186625

PublicOption

06-17-2010, 01:11 AM

country=hen house
fox=giant coorporations
government=dog guarding the hen house

the fox gave too many steaks to the dog and now the fox has been caught stealing the hens.

PublicOption

06-17-2010, 01:11 AM

............while the dog was pigging out on the steaks

sook

06-17-2010, 01:28 AM

anybody calling out Rahm Emanuel is antisemetic.

No way around it you cowards.

Winehole23

06-17-2010, 03:20 AM

I'm not going to sift though several links. Have any particular quotes of interest?The Wired article is super short, dude. If you click it, you won't need me to read it for you. You'll be practically done right when you look at it.

If you recall, I do hold BP responsible for this. I just don't see the merit of Kovac's claims being only seen on five progressive links when I searched. Who, please?

Share the links, please. I gave you mine.

If you allow bullshit mixed in with the real problems, then some will stop believing BP has any direct fault. Can we stick with what can be verified?Huh?

Winehole23

06-17-2010, 03:20 AM

This ain't no criminal court, counselor.

Winehole23

06-17-2010, 03:21 AM

Go away with yourself and your criminal standards of proof. This is a current events forum. Persuasion rules, not proof.

Winehole23

06-17-2010, 03:21 AM

Please catch up.

boutons_deux

06-17-2010, 04:34 AM

Nightmare about the pipe being spewing in several places, eroding the sand/gravel around it, failing, the huge BOP falling over. Also explains why perhaps they aren't trying to put any pressure on the topmost flow, because that would cause more to flow from the holes in the pipe lower down accelerating the erosion and BOP fallover

http://motherjones.com/blue-marble

btw, can' find it now, but BP is apparently the largest supplier of fuel to the US military.

Winehole23

06-17-2010, 05:24 AM

In tune with the headline, and gaining notoriety:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6593#comment-648967

DarrinS

06-17-2010, 09:52 AM

btw, can' find it now, but BP is apparently the largest supplier of fuel to the US military.

And?

MannyIsGod

06-17-2010, 10:05 AM

And?

You want an irresponsible company being responsible for fuel supply to our military? You want to reward them with that type of business? Those are just two relevant thoughts stemming from that fact.

boutons_deux

06-17-2010, 10:07 AM

And?

There will be political decisions as to whether legal attacks on BP remain civil or get promoted to criminal. ie, BP could be judged by the politicians to be "above the law"

Joe Barton, TX asshole, apologizes to BP for the extra-legal $20B shakedown by the WH. TX is really full of Repug/conservative/redneck assholes that do much more damage than all the illegal aliens combined.

DarrinS

06-17-2010, 10:14 AM

You want an irresponsible company being responsible for fuel supply to our military? You want to reward them with that type of business? Those are just two relevant thoughts stemming from that fact.

Rewarding them? :rolleyes

Do you want to punish them? You don't need to answer.

MannyIsGod

06-17-2010, 10:22 AM

I don't want to give them any contracts Darrin. For several reasons. Do you?

DarrinS

06-17-2010, 10:24 AM

I don't want to give them any contracts Darrin. For several reasons. Do you?

Sounds like they already have contracts.

DarrinS

06-17-2010, 10:26 AM

Actually, I would hope contracts would go to the companies that can do the best job at the most reasonable cost.

MannyIsGod

06-17-2010, 10:37 AM

:lol

Yes, all evidence points to BP being the company best able to do the job safely and efficiently.

MannyIsGod

06-17-2010, 10:39 AM

Sounds like they already have contracts.

What contracts are those? How long do they last? Are we able to leave them under evidence of gross negligence?

Are you in favor of giving corporations responsible for large scale disasters like this government contracts?

RandomGuy

06-17-2010, 10:42 AM

btw, can' find it now, but BP is apparently the largest supplier of fuel to the US military.

They supply the jet fuel, but not the deisel, to my understanding.

RandomGuy

06-17-2010, 10:48 AM

What contracts are those? How long do they last? Are we able to leave them under evidence of gross negligence?

Are you in favor of giving corporations responsible for large scale disasters like this government contracts?

Hard question.

As long as they man-up and accept responsbility, yes.

The second they try to be weasels, gank the contracts.

We have a LOT of leverage over them in that regard, although the jet fuel contracts are comparatively not a big segment of their business.

DarrinS

06-17-2010, 11:00 AM

More oil spilled in Niger delta every year than has been spilled in the Gulf of Mexico.

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/06/14/more-oil-spilled-in.html

boutons_deux

06-17-2010, 11:16 AM

So?

Since when do right-wing dumbfucks measure the USA against a disastrous, corrupt African shithole?

Sportcamper

06-17-2010, 11:34 AM

After hearing BP Execs voice concern for “Small People” …I am feeling a lot better about this oil disaster…

“We care about the small people." Carl-Henric Svanberg

RandomGuy

06-17-2010, 12:05 PM

More oil spilled in Niger delta every year than has been spilled in the Gulf of Mexico.

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/06/14/more-oil-spilled-in.html

You mean the true costs of oil production are actually higher than what we are paying for at the pump, pretty much what I have been saying all along?

Thanks for making my point for me Darrin.

boutons_deux

06-17-2010, 04:22 PM

""I got a lot of pressure from the lead engineers and from the managers saying, 'Don't do that; don't push so much; we don't want to mess with that.'" Abbott told Huffpost in an interview Wednesday. "I feel like the real reason I was fired was because I was trying to raise a safety issue, and you know BP has a long history of getting rid of people who try to raise safety issues. I was one of those victims."

"Management sets the tone," Abbott added. "If they think that production is more important than safety, then that's the tone of the company, and that was the tone at Atlantis.""

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/17/bp-engineer-fired-for-exp_n_616400.html?view=print

Parker2112

06-17-2010, 10:49 PM

More oil spilled in Niger delta every year than has been spilled in the Gulf of Mexico.

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/06/14/more-oil-spilled-in.html

Who the fuck wants to live in Niger? What a bitch-ass excuse.

We live in America. I want my kids to grow up in America. If you want to move to Niger, go right the fuck ahead.

Parker2112

06-17-2010, 10:54 PM

Actually, I would hope contracts would go to the companies that can do the best job at the most reasonable cost.

Actually, when it comes to deep water, we already know that no oil company is prepared for a major malfunction.

Parker2112

06-17-2010, 10:58 PM

I don't recall that thread. Who claimed coal-industry lobbyists literally wrote public policy. But, more germane to the current issue, to what catastrophic disaster did it lead?

Take a look at the air quality in most major cities. You cant even take a picture of a city skyline anymore without the haze obscuring your view.

Sportcamper

07-06-2010, 11:00 AM

Just wondering how that clean up effort is going? Is the well capped & beaches all back to normal?

LnGrrrR

07-06-2010, 06:31 PM

More importantly, would the oil spilled fill the Superdome yet? That apparently is when this thing hits "crisis", per DarrinS.

Nbadan

07-07-2010, 02:12 AM

I wonder what happens to Darrin when the oil can fill TX stadium..

http://www.salon.com/ent/comics/this_modern_world/2010/07/06/this_modern_world/story.jpg

Winehole23

07-07-2010, 02:13 AM

More importantly, would the oil spilled fill the Superdome yet? Any lesser amount would apparently be de minimis (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/De+Minimis).

boutons_deux

07-07-2010, 03:58 AM

This is the NYTimes, so it's all a liberal lie or an Act of God, but nice graphics

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/05/27/us/20100527-oil-landfall.html?ref=earth

Sportcamper

07-07-2010, 12:12 PM

I am just grateful that B.P has saved all of those walruses…The heck with shrimpers & other people whose lively hood depends on the gulf waters…

Nbadan

07-31-2010, 05:43 AM

Since the BP Macondo well responsible for the largest oil spill in US history was temporarily capped on July 15th, media attention has been focused elsewhere. But like a cat that can’t be trusted in the same room with a mouse, BP may have used the closed eyes of the media to hide what Daily Kos Well watchers are calling - a problem. “The Skandi feeds, which have shown the wellhead virtually full time for weeks, are now blank.”

Three days ago, the BP live feed of the wellhead disappeared without explanation. At the same time, reports were beginning to surface that claimed there was practically no oil to be found floating in the Gulf, and that the crisis had been exaggerated. In other words, everything was just fine, even though more than 300 million gallons of oil and 1,8 million gallons of toxic chemical dispersant had been set loose in the Gulf of Mexico.

. . .

“I doubt this is some oversight or mechanical malfunction; the feed has been intentionally cut with no explanation. What's really irritating is that the press is more focused on how the oil is "disappearing" and how many birds have been released than the damn well,” Cavnar said.

When questioned about the disappearance of the BP live video at his briefing this afternoon, Gulf Oil Spill Incident Commander, Thad Allen had no answer. A few hours later, the live feed suddenly returned to reveal the leaking wellhead.

. . .

This crisis is not over simply because BP and the media have had little to say about it in recent days. With BP’s reputation for lack of transparency, the less information shared might really mean there is more to be deeply concerned about.

Examiner (http://www.examiner.com/x-33986-Political-Spin-Examiner...)

If the well starts gushing again, any bets the media will just ignore the issue? They've moved on.