# BP Finally Stops Oil Flowing



## Pong (Jul 15, 2010)

Well, according to BP they cut off the flow of oil into the Gulf. After 200 million barrels of oil. 200. Well at least we can begin the very long cleanup process and no more oil is going into the Gulf.

BP Chokes off the oil leak; Yahoo! News

So I will quote this line from Band of Brothers: _"About damn time."_

-Arlo


----------



## BombTaxi (Jul 15, 2010)

It is good news. Bad news is, the sharks are still circling for BP themselves. As well as talk of a hostile takeover, several US politicians are now accusing BP of pressing the UK govt into releasing the Lockerbie bomber from prison in Scotland. 

I think the environmental, social and economic fallout from this disaster will be equally toxic and equally difficult (if not impossible) to repair...


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 15, 2010)

200 million gallons, dam........

I think you're dead on about being a toxic environment


----------



## BombTaxi (Jul 15, 2010)

By all accounts the ecosystem of the Gulf, and the economy it supports have been totally devastated, if not destroyed. A recent report I saw suggests that rising pockets of methane have been killing fish far from the spill itself, as the water is deoxygenated by the rising gas.

The media here also seem to have totally lost sight of the fact that in addition to the thousands, if not millions, of people affected socially and economically by the disaster, 11 people also lost their lives in the first moments of this catastrophe. They should not be forgotten...


----------



## Glider (Jul 15, 2010)

I strongly suggest that people hold fire on all sides. Its a good move and one that reflects well on the people fixing the problem (but the ones who caused it, who should have the book thrown at them). As for the damages lets wait and see. Theres a huge effort going on and if the example of the Exon Valdis is anything to go on it might only might not be as bad as everyone fears. The figures seem to vary between 60 up to 184 million gallons no one really knows, it frankly doesn't matter, what matters is the damage.

I am not trying to downplay it but suggest that peaple try to avoid the understandable emmotion and stick to facts


----------



## B-17engineer (Jul 15, 2010)

It could erupt into politics....thats why I didn't post this.


----------



## BombTaxi (Jul 15, 2010)

I'm not getting political or emotional, merely stating the situation as I have seen it reported. The fact is that the coastal industry of the affected area, based on fishing, has ground to a halt.


----------



## Vic Balshaw (Jul 16, 2010)

Bloody fantastic and about bloody time.


----------



## evangilder (Jul 16, 2010)

IIRC, the engineers said they want to see it hold for 48 hours before they declare it done. Understandable, considering the length of time it has taken. I also think that there are unknowns that they are concerned about. Sometimes pressure builds slowly that can lead to another blowout.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 16, 2010)

The comparison is *Ixtoc I* - the PEMEX spill in 1979 that lasted almost a year.

Worth reading. 

The lost legacy of the last great oil spill : Nature News

B-17 engineer ... this *is *political.

MM


----------



## Thorlifter (Jul 16, 2010)

I'm currently doing I.T. work at a field office for a major competitor to BP. Talk around the office from people who have been in the industry for 30+ years is BP has a HORRIBLE reputation in the industry for safety.

They have a very large plant in Texas City, Texas, just outside of Houston. If you have never been there, imagine an entire city of oil refinery's. Accidents are so common at their plant, the news doesn't even report them any more because it's too common. Several years ago they had an explosion there and 11 of our employees were killed, plus however many other people from other companies.

And don't let the reports of them doing "everything they can do to clean up and make this right." BP flat doesn't care about about this. They will make up all their money they will have to pay out within a year, plus some.


----------



## Wayne Little (Jul 16, 2010)

Let's hope it's fixed and stays that way....


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 17, 2010)

The coasts of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida are in real bad shape guys.... Oil is everywhere, dead fish and mammals washing up everyday... No tourists, which during the summer is the mainstay of these communities....

I see lines all over the place of blacks and hispanics standing around in flouresant yellow vests, waiting to go clean up...

To use the word devastating for the Gulf waters is tame, but whats happening to the peoples of the Gulf Coast region is debilitating...


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 17, 2010)

Heres two recent pics from a barrier island called Horn Island, right off the coast from me... Ive fished and surfed right off this very beach...

Never again...


----------



## Wayne Little (Jul 17, 2010)

Man...that does not look good.....


----------



## evangilder (Jul 17, 2010)

It's good they stopped additional oil from flowing into the gulf, but the cleanup is going to be a long process. And as Dan's photos show, the effect will be around for a long time.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 17, 2010)

The future of fishing/shrimping/crabbing/oystering here in the Gulf is destroyed fellas.... The true severity of it hasnt even publically been realized yet...

The worst is yet to come, thousands on the unemployment lines... Im so bummed out about it that we are considering a move to Durango Colorado....

Gonna have to see if its gonna be as bad as I think it is...


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jul 17, 2010)

Not a pretty picture Dan. Gonna take many years. 

TO


----------



## evangilder (Jul 17, 2010)

Between Katrina and this, I can't imagine it looking real bright for that area. The gulf recovered after the spill in 1979, but it took quite a while. I think the same will happen now, and it will take a while to recover.


----------



## Hop (Jul 17, 2010)

> Theres a huge effort going on and if the example of the Exon Valdis is anything to go on it might only might not be as bad as everyone fears



After the Exxon Valdez 25,000 dead, oiled birds and over 1,000 dead oiled mammals were recovered. The total for the GoM so far is 814 dead oiled birds and 3 dead oiled mammals.

A lot more oil has been released in this spill, but it's far offshore, lighter oil (so evaporates faster), in warmer water (which also helps evaporation) and there is a much larger clean up operation underway. BP are currently paying for over 45,000 staff to work on the clean up, and they've chartered over 6,000 ships and boats.



> Not a pretty picture Dan. Gonna take many years.



The Sea Empress tanker spill off south Wales dumped a smaller amount of oil (about 500,000 barrels) over a short section of coast line. Within the area covered the spill was more intense:






Tourism and fishing both suffered in the year in which the spill occurred. The reduced fishing in that year meant record catches of fish, crab, lobster and shellfish in the following year, and fishing has continued to improve in the following years. Some migratory sea birds saw smaller numbers arrive for a few years, but they too recovered.

In all the long term effects were far less than had been predicted by experts and the media. I suspect the same will be true of the Gulf. Spills are commonly compared to the Exxon Valdez, and that was an exceptionally damaging incident.


----------



## BombTaxi (Jul 17, 2010)

With all respect Hop, this isn't a small spill on the Welsh coast. The area affected has a massive fisheries industry which is closed down until further notice. People are losing their livings already. And as I mentioned above, methane rising from the well has killed unknown numbers of fish even where there is no oil on the surface. Add to this the fact that part of the effected area was still trying to recover from Hurricane Katrina, and that the local economy is already somewhat depressed due to global trading conditions, and you have a massive human tragedy which goes far beyond 800 dead sea birds.


----------



## Glider (Jul 17, 2010)

I don't believe that anyone is trying to underestimate the scale of the incident. However its important not to overstate the impact either. I know its easy to say but its important that people focus on the damage not the emotion. Clearly this is a major inident but Hop is right about the type of oil, the depth of the spill and the temperature which should help. Its also true to say that the fishing ban for all the right reasons, covers an area considerably larger than the area of contamination.

The pollution in the area is already pretty poor, Every year, a massive oxygen-starved region known as the "dead zone" develops off the coast of Louisiana in which nothing can live. Last month, the US government's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said it expected this year's "zone" to be between 6,500 and 7,800 square miles, the 10th largest ever. 
No one knows yet how the oil spill may affect it, many believe that it will make it worse, some it may even help in a unexpected way. By suspending fishing for 12 months it might, just might, give the fish a chance to recover their numbers. Thats what happened in the Exon Valdis spillage and history might repeat itself.

The blunt truth is that no one knows. Everyone needs to concentrate on what happens, not what might happen, as might could be too optamistic or too exagerated.


----------



## Hop (Jul 17, 2010)

> With all respect Hop, this isn't a small spill on the Welsh coast.



No, it's not. It's about 5 times the size, but it's out to sea, in warmer weather, which means the oil will evaporate much quicker.

Being out to sea, they can deploy resources against it that they can't do as easily when it's right on the coast. For example, they've been burning oil on the surface of the Gulf, about 250,000 barrels worth. They've removed about 800,000 barrels of "oily liquid" with surface skimmers.

They've also deployed nearly 600 miles of boom.



> The area affected has a massive fisheries industry which is closed down until further notice.



Some fisheries are closed, others aren't. According to the NOAA 35% are closed, 65% open (as of last Tuesday). It's worth remembering that not only is BP paying massive compensation, it has chartered thousands of fishing boats to help with the clean up. 

I think tourism is going to cause a much bigger impact. Sadly the media have given people the impression the gulf is one long oil slick from Texas to Florida. 



> And as I mentioned above, methane rising from the well has killed unknown numbers of fish even where there is no oil on the surface.



There's no evidence of that. Until there is, I'd file it with the huge underwater "oil plumes" that the NOAA haven't been able to find emanating from the BP spill.

As Glider posted, there is always oxygen depletion in the Gulf in the summer, caused largely by fertiliser run off from farms. Tests show it's no worse this year than any other.

This is from yesterday's Guardian:



> When BP's chief executive, Tony Hayward, said in May that the Gulf oil spill was a drop in the ocean – "tiny in relation to the total water volume", he was pilloried by Barack Obama and the US press, but he was technically correct.
> 
> In the 85 days of the leak, the worst oil disaster in history, nearly 184m gallons of crude oil is estimated to have gushed into the Gulf of Mexico, the ninth largest body of water in the world. That is a lot, but no more than Americans burn every five hours and 10 minutes. Indeed, in the 24 hours since BP temporarily capped the Deepwater blowout, Americans have used over 840m gallons in their cars, planes, kitchens and factories which will have soiled the air, land and sea.
> 
> ...



The media has exaggerated the effects of this oil spill.

Edit: the wildlife death figures they quote are of all animals found dead, not just those killed by oil.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 17, 2010)

The Gulf of Mexico is not a Sea and does not behave as one... The number of boats employed by BP is nothing compared to the numbers that are sitting around wishing they would be employed by BP.... The loss of the local fishing has been devestating, SO FAR.... U think its gonna get better???

STOP ****ING DOWNPLAYING THIS MASSIVE ****ING OIL SPILL THATS IN MY ****IN BACKYARD HOP, AND STOP DEFENDING THOSE COCKSUCKING MOTHER****ING EXECUTIVES AT THAT WORTHLESS PIECE OF **** COMPANY WHO COULD GIVE TO SHITS ABOUT SOME STUPID ****ING AMERICANS!!!

I suggest u shut the **** up and find another thread to kick sand around in pal...


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 17, 2010)

I have not read in any post where anybody was defending BP, Hop is only stating for the most part facts and data as reported on the NOAA site.

Deepwater Horizon / BP Oil Spill Response | Recent and Historical Incidents | Emergency Response | NOAA's National Ocean Service Office of Response and Restoration


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 17, 2010)

Hop is quoting from sources far from the source - Les lives right in the backyard of this disaster. I suggest for those who are thousands of miles from the area to listen to those who live in the area.

His own words...

*"The media has exaggerated the effects of this oil spill."*


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 17, 2010)

I have to disagree about the NOAA being 1,000 miles away as the NOAA is also very much on-site.

NOAA ship _Delaware II_ is collecting tunas, swordfish and sharks, to gather data about the conditions these highly migratory species are experiencing in waters around the Gulf of Mexico spill site.

NOAA ships_ Pisces _and _Oregon II_, are in the midst of surveys of reef fish, bottom-dwelling fish, and shrimp in the eastern and western Gulf of Mexico to sample for seafood and water quality and species abundance as part of the oil spill response.

NOAA ship, the _Gordon Gunter_, is surveying marine mammals through August 5. Researchers are taking biopsy and water samples for analysis, and placing satellite tags on some animals to learn more about how they move between oiled and unoiled waters. The ship is also placing underwater listening devices on the ocean floor in the survey area. These will be left for up to four months, recording the vocalizations of marine mammals so researchers can better understand which species are present.

NOAA ship _Thomas Jefferson_, and a previous mission by NOAA ship _Gordon Gunter _from May 27 through June 4 hosted teams from NOAA, universities, marine science institutions, and other federal agencies collected water samples and employed advanced methods for detecting submerged oil while gathering oceanographic data in the area.

NOAA survey vessel, _Nancy Foster_, is on a mission to better understand the loop current and how it may change over time, as well as to sample planktonic animals potentially affected by the spill.

The charter ship _Beau Rivage _is working for NOAA in the closed fishing zone in the eastern Gulf, using bottom long line gear to catch fish for seafood safety samples. 

NOAA Mississippi lab vessel _Gandy_ is conducting a vertical line survey in the eastern Gulf, collecting seafood safety samples.

NOAA Mississippi vessel_ Caretta _ is doing trawling and plankton work in the oiled area off Mississippi.

In addition, they also have folks on the ground and are using aircraft in the area.

In regards to Hop posting his opinion about "_The media has exaggerated the effects of this oil spill." _, the media does have a history of doing just that.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 17, 2010)

In this case, the media is actually downplaying the damage being caused, and will be caused in the near future... Normally a drive down the coast of Mississippi there are people/tourists on the beach, everywhere, with boats and waverunners all over the place, too many boats to count...

Know how many u see now???

ZERO..... 

And that aint because of the media, its because of BP and they're complete disregard for safety and the enviornment....

U have any idea how much BP is gonna pay me and my family for the time and memories lost that we could be spending on/in/near the beaches on the Gulf of Mexico???

ZERO....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 18, 2010)

vikingBerserker said:


> I have to disagree about the NOAA being 1,000 miles away as the NOAA is also very much on-site.
> 
> NOAA ship _Delaware II_ is collecting tunas, swordfish and sharks, to gather data about the conditions these highly migratory species are experiencing in waters around the Gulf of Mexico spill site.
> 
> ...


And does this show the end result of this spill and how it affected the local community and people who have lost their livelihoods over this mess?* NO!!!*


vikingBerserker said:


> In regards to Hop posting his opinion about "_The media has exaggerated the effects of this oil spill." _, the media does have a history of doing just that.


And do you think this is the case now??? By the numbers shown this spill is going to make the Exxon Valdez look like a minor spill. I know people as far north as central Alabama who are effected by this by the lack of tourist dollars spent by those going to gulf waters. BP not only is responsible for one of the worst environmental accidents in history but they have committed one of the worse acts of criminal negligence in history as well. I'm usually pretty pro-oil and pro-drill anywhere, but these ****tards need to be taught a big lesson.


----------



## BombTaxi (Jul 18, 2010)

Latest reports suggest the 'skimming' ship deployed to the are is not going to work, putting a significant dent in the cleanup operation 

I totally agree that BP need to be taught a major lesson. This doen't happen enough. Several years ago, the Buncefield fuel depot in Hemel Hempstead, about half a mile from where I work, exploded. I have spoken to many colleagues who say that if it had happened at any time other than 6am Sunday morning, the carnage would have been massive. As it was, many businesses were critically damaged. Today, fines were announced for the companies involved, and they collectively total... £5.35 million. That's barely a slap on the wrist for the oil giants, and it is typical of the lax regulatory approach taken. These guys need a wake up call - realistic fines for the businesses and custodial sentences for those who had the sign-off on safety processes. If they want to play in the big leagues, they need to learn to deal with the consequences of their screw-ups.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 18, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And does this show the end result of this spill and how it affected the local community and people who have lost their livelihoods over this mess?* NO!!!*



Not to the fullest extent but that's not their mission. Irregardless this was not what was being discussed. No doubt it has greatly effected a number of people there and all the facts and data don't mater to the guy who just lost his job over this.



FLYBOYJ said:


> And do you think this is the case now??? By the numbers shown this spill is going to make the Exxon Valdez look like a minor spill. I know people as far north as central Alabama who are effected by this by the lack of tourist dollars spent by those going to gulf waters.



Traditionally Companies and Governments under reports and the Media over reports (Bad news makes for great headlines). Is it possible they are under reporting? Yes, but I would be shocked. 

The instances I know they have over reporting are:
This is will be the worst oil spill in history (it's only #3 and 1/3rd of the worst )The Worst Major Oil Spills in History,
It was reported oil would reach Myrtle Beach SC in June (no where near) 
Gulf seafood is not safe to eat
Worst Ecological disaster ever.
BP would cease to exist as a company - that one is still open.

IMO the reason why tourism has taken such a hit is due to the exaggerated reporting by the media.



FLYBOYJ said:


> BP not only is responsible for one of the worst environmental accidents in history but they have committed one of the worse acts of criminal negligence in history as well.


 No argument there, personally I think they should shoot both the BP Rep who told them to replace the mud with seawater in the well and the Rig Master that agreed to do it. Add on the idiot who forgot to change the battery in the kill switch.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 18, 2010)

BombTaxi said:


> These guys need a wake up call - realistic fines for the businesses and custodial sentences for those who had the sign-off on safety processes. If they want to play in the big leagues, they need to learn to deal with the consequences of their screw-ups.



I think you are dead on. Start sending CEO's and other Executives to jail.


----------



## BombTaxi (Jul 18, 2010)

It's already done in UK law. There is a crime of 'corporate manslaughter' if the negligence of a business leads directly to the deaths of employees, and line management are jailed for their part. It has been applied in the case an accident where four railway workers were killed by a runaway wagon. A line manager and senior manager were jailed as a result. Details here:

Tebay rail accident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Taking several people out of a business and jailing them has a marked effect on the behaviour of their colleagues, as you might imagine. With 11 workers being killed in the initial explosion, I think several people should go away for a pretty long time...


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 18, 2010)

NICE!!!!

Wooden chocks for a rail car??????? Now that was a dumb*ss decision.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 18, 2010)

One of the key issues here is setting up that robust regulatory framework that Viking is talking about. The Govt agency responsible for ensuring standards was at best asleep at the wheel, at worst in cahoots with big oil. I'm sure BP has learned its lesson from this disaster but what about the other oil companies? Requiring oil companies to contribute to a safety fund that provides immediate-response disaster relief capabilities would be a start, closely followed by more rigorous inspection criteria and procedures and some form of disaster response practice, probably on an annual basis. Of course all of that costs money which, like it or not, will be passed on to the consumer resulting in higher fuel costs...and that's where consumers need to recognize that higher per-gallon costs for extracting this stuff are inevitable. Ideally, I'd also like to see greater emphasis on setting challenging fuel efficiency targets for vehicles so we can reduce our dependency on oil.


----------



## BombTaxi (Jul 19, 2010)

Problem is, that the oil companies are massively powerful lobbyists. Although BP denies any involvement in the release of the Lockerbie bomber, they have admitted to being involved in discussions with the Foreign Office regarding other Prisoner Transfer Arrangements. BP were mainly lobbying for the rapid repatriation of Libyan prisoners to secure contracts in Libya. When oil companies have that kind of clout in foreign policy, you won't legislate against them .

Also, you have a small but vocal group on the right of American politics decrying the safety fund as yet more White House socialism, and a larger group on the right and centre-right calling for BP's liability to be limited and for unrestricted drilling to continue. Especially in the current climate, these will prove formidable obstacles to any group trying to get graeter accountability out of the oil companies...


----------



## Glider (Jul 19, 2010)

The Blame game will have to wait until a proper investigation has taken place. BP rightly are in the firing line but three other major participants should be concerned:-

i) Transocean
They owned and operated the rig. If asked to do anything that was risky they had a duty to refuse as the workers whose lives were at risk were there workers and they had a duty of care
ii) Hallyburton
I believe that they manufactured the blow out preventer that didn't work.
ii) The US Government
Their monitoring of the activities in the waters around the USA was lamentable.

My guess and it is only a guess that the biggest resistance to as proper independent investigation are ii and iii.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 19, 2010)

I cannot argue with that. Nicely said.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 19, 2010)

Glider said:


> The Blame game will have to wait until a proper investigation has taken place. BP rightly are in the firing line but three other major participants should be concerned:-
> 
> i) Transocean
> They owned and operated the rig. If asked to do anything that was risky they had a duty to refuse as the workers whose lives were at risk were there workers and they had a duty of care
> ...




Add to the above list the penchant for gas-guzzling SUVs in the States and the perception that cheap gas is a God-given right. 'Fraid the pressure to reduce costs within the oil industry will remain a central issue as long as these 2 elements remain a powerful force in motor vehicle design and the thinking of the populace, and both are harder to change than any of the above.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 19, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> Add to the above list the penchant for gas-guzzling SUVs in the States and the perception that cheap gas is a God-given right. 'Fraid the pressure to reduce costs within the oil industry will remain a central issue as long as these 2 elements remain a powerful force in motor vehicle design and the thinking of the populace, and both are harder to change than any of the above.



Oh, because there are some in the states who choose to drive these gas guzzlers shifts the blame?!? Hogwash!!! For that matter anyone who uses any type of petroleum product should take blame as well. Let's face it, all that black stuff that comes out of the ground (and the sea) isn't all used for gasoline!!! 

BP is responsible for this, end of story. You can try to throw in Hallaburton, Transocean and blame a lack of oversight on the US government, but bottom line, the buck stops with BP. 

Let me ask some of you folks who live across the sea this - what if a major US oil company did this somewhere in Europe - how do you think the reaction would be?


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 19, 2010)

"...what if a major US oil company did this somewhere in Europe - how do you think the reaction would be?"

FlyboyJ you don't have to speculate - we already know. The Occidental Petroleum north sea blow-out of the coast of Scotland, July 6, 1988 -- killed 167. Google Piper Alpha, my friend.

Margaret Thatcher was the PM - and there was no "race baiting" or name calling. She didn't threaten the Chairman of Occidental Petroleum - the estimeed American, Mr. Armand Hammer. She didn't spout on about an EVIL American Oil Company with a spotty track record on safety. Instead - the matter was handle professionally - and not played out on the nightly TV.

I'm surprised at your lack of perspective on this - but agree that this isn't just about gasoline.

MM


----------



## Glider (Jul 19, 2010)

I believe that we would be looking at it in the manner outlined in my previous e'mail. I did say that rightly BP are in the firing line so I wasn't trying to evade the blame. However the other three are groups who have valid reasons to be concerned.

Its important for the people hit by this oil spillage that one authority or group takes the lead in the payment of claims to speed up the process and that with the Government and BP seems to have been done. 

My claims team was involved in the processing of claims for the Piper Alpha rig which didn't have the oil leakage but had a much heavier loss of life. In that instance the blow out preventor worked so we aoly had to deal with companies which made the process much easier and without any of the complexities of this event.

What is tragic is that the lessons of this incident which were enforced in the the North Sea by the British and Norwegian Governments, were not learnt or applied in the rest of the world. I think you will find that the design of the well head used in this disaster would not have been allowed in the North Sea. 
*If* this is the case then who is to blame?
i) BP for asking for a design they knew would not be allowed in the N Sea
ii) Transocean who were also aware that it would not be allowed as they operate in the N Sea and they had duty of care to their employees
iii) The US Authorities who did not learn the lessons of the past 
Of course the situation is that I and no one on this forum knows.

As I said the blame game should wait for a proper investigation. BP need to and are rightly taking the hit as the lead organisation, but I would urge everyone to recognise that there is a bigger picture involved.

The Post Piper Alpha work has continued to this date ensuring that Safety Standards are continually updated. In a paper that was prepared in 2004, I found the following paragraph:-

_As was observed during Phase 1 of the joint industry project, so also now it is clear that commercial considerations put damper on wide rapid know-how dissemination -and this leads to inefficiency. There is widespread knowledge within the circle of those specifically involved in post Piper sponsored project work, JIP Phase 2 etc., but were the new knowledge available to the worldwide scientific community, considerable “gearing” might be achieved with other researchers moving the knowledge forward too._

This would seem to point to a lack of rigour in other areas of the world in applying lessons.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 19, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Oh, because there are some in the states who choose to drive these gas guzzlers shifts the blame?!? Hogwash!!! For that matter anyone who uses any type of petroleum product should take blame as well. Let's face it, all that black stuff that comes out of the ground (and the sea) isn't all used for gasoline!!!
> 
> BP is responsible for this, end of story. You can try to throw in Hallaburton, Transocean and blame a lack of oversight on the US government, but bottom line, the buck stops with BP.
> 
> Let me ask some of you folks who live across the sea this - what if a major US oil company did this somewhere in Europe - how do you think the reaction would be?



Flyboy, I wasn't trying to shift the blame. Per my previous posts on this thread, BP are firmly (and rightly) in the firing line. You will note I said "add to the list" that glider generated, not replace the list with another. My comments are more associated with the unwillingness of many to accept that burning fossil fuels generates a massive, but largely unseen, ecological disaster on a global scale and that the only way to tackle it is to reduce consumption. That applies across the board to all consumers of petroleum and other oil-based products but the US is far and away the biggest consumer and hence will have the largest adjustments to make.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 20, 2010)

michaelmaltby said:


> "...what if a major US oil company did this somewhere in Europe - how do you think the reaction would be?"
> 
> FlyboyJ you don't have to speculate - we already know. The Occidental Petroleum north sea blow-out of the coast of Scotland, July 6, 1988 -- killed 167. Google Piper Alpha, my friend.
> 
> ...



How much coastline or local industry was destroyed by the Piper Alpha incident? Over 160 people died because of a snafu changing a safety valve. It was a gas rig, not oil. The loss of life was terrible but show me how it even remotely compares to the Gulf disaster???



buffnut453 said:


> Flyboy, I wasn't trying to shift the blame. Per my previous posts on this thread, BP are firmly (and rightly) in the firing line. You will note I said "add to the list" that glider generated, not replace the list with another. * My comments are more associated with the unwillingness of many to accept that burning fossil fuels generates a massive, but largely unseen, ecological disaster on a global scale and that the only way to tackle it is to reduce consumption*. That applies across the board to all consumers of petroleum and other oil-based products but the US is far and away the biggest consumer and hence will have the largest adjustments to make.



I think your comments are a given but again has nothing to do with the negligence behind this disaster. If the world was able to immediately stop using fossil fuels, there would still be a need for petroleum products and lubricants, these rigs won't vanish that quickly unless we want to start killing whales for lubricating oils.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 20, 2010)

Glider said:


> As I said the blame game should wait for a proper investigation. BP need to and are rightly taking the hit as the lead organisation, but I would urge everyone to recognise that there is a bigger picture involved.


There is, but the size or type of motor vehicles being used by a country or countries has nothing to do with it.


Glider said:


> The Post Piper Alpha work has continued to this date ensuring that Safety Standards are continually updated. In a paper that was prepared in 2004, I found the following paragraph:-
> 
> _As was observed during Phase 1 of the joint industry project, so also now it is clear that commercial considerations put damper on wide rapid know-how dissemination -and this leads to inefficiency. There is widespread knowledge within the circle of those specifically involved in post Piper sponsored project work, JIP Phase 2 etc., but were the new knowledge available to the worldwide scientific community, considerable “gearing” might be achieved with other researchers moving the knowledge forward too._
> 
> This would seem to point to a lack of rigour in other areas of the world in applying lessons.



I can agree there...


----------



## Glider (Jul 20, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> There is, but the size or type of motor vehicles being used by a country or countries has nothing to do with it.



I totally agree with you on this point its totally different and nothing to do with this whatsoever. By bringing it up Buffnut 453 only confused the issue.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 20, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> Add to the above list the penchant for gas-guzzling SUVs in the States and the perception that cheap gas is a God-given right.



1. SUVs and our Gas Guzzling Vehicles have nothing to do with the problem.

2. Europeans would drive the same vehicles if they could afford the gas. Those Europeans saying they don't because of the environment is bullshit and hogwash and nothing but a lie. Of course there are some that do not for the environment, but they are not the majority.

3. Not our fault that gas is so heavily taxed in Europe. Thank god I don't have to pay European prices even though I live in Germany, that way I can keep driving my Gas Guzzling Jeep.

4. Do you know how many people in the United States rely on these kind of vehicles. If you look at where the populace lives you will see a trend in what kind of cars are driven. Those that live in the cities or in rural areas typically drive smaller more gas efficient vehicles. Those that live in remote areas or areas with lots of snow and unpaved roads typically drive the SUVs and trucks. 

Come up to Alaska and try and get around with a fricken VW Golf or Ford Prius in the winter outside of the city.

Now for me to get to the topic at hand:

I understand that accident happen. What I don't understand is how this was handled. It was piss poor from the very beginning. How the hell do you own and operate a rig and not have the ability to contain accidents? How the hell do you sit on it for so long? I think BP should be fried for this. 

I am also very disappointed in how the Obama administration (they are not to be blamed however for the accident and the oil leak) has handled the whole situation. I believe they sat it on it way to long as well.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 20, 2010)

I do have to give BP Credit however, one of their disaster protocols for the Gulf was to ensure the Seals, Walruses, and Penguins would be saved, and I don't think anybody has found a dead one yet. [/sarcasm]


----------



## Erich (Jul 20, 2010)

yep BP is doomed even if this comes out to be a positive outcome.

now wonder if the admin is going to blame BP or another oil rich firm for another leak they are finding 2-3 miles away from the cap/pipe ?


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 20, 2010)

".... How much coastline or local industry was destroyed by the Piper Alpha incident? Over 160 people died because of a snafu changing a safety valve. It was a gas rig, not oil. The loss of life was terrible* but show me how it even remotely compares to the Gulf disaster???*"

That's easy Flyboy1 - one word - POLITICS. Gas well - oil well - end of the day - *DISASTER*. Mrs. Thatcher didn't focus on the fact that the operator was AMERICAN. Your esteemed President did just the opposite - from the get-go this has been nasty, *foreign* BP. The oil business is international - and its a very successful business - it funtions because it's PROFESSIONAL.

This oil spill has been and is about politics.

And I can tell you - sitting North of the 49th with centuries of oil sands oil reserves to draw on and watching BP advertising on prime time American TV (60 Minutes, Meet the Press, The Week etc.) - BP is getting its message out more clearly and more passionately than the US President.

Mr. Obama made this disaster political and it was a mistake.

And Flyboy1, my answer to your question about "coastline" is also straight forward - PEMEX, Gulf, 1979. (my full reference link posted at the outset of this thread). It isn't pretty but it does show you what La. can expect for the next 10 -15 years - and the coastline (very similar to La.) DOES HEAL BY ITSELF - just don't eat the oysters quite yet. 

Would this story have been any different if the "oil company" had been Chevron, Total, Citgo, Exxon or Shell ...? Really.

MM


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 20, 2010)

michaelmaltby said:


> ".... How much coastline or local industry was destroyed by the Piper Alpha incident? Over 160 people died because of a snafu changing a safety valve. It was a gas rig, not oil. The loss of life was terrible* but show me how it even remotely compares to the Gulf disaster???*"
> 
> That's easy Flyboy1 - one word - POLITICS. Gas well - oil well - end of the day - *DISASTER*. Mrs. Thatcher didn't focus on the fact that the operator was AMERICAN. Your esteemed President did just the opposite - from the get-go this has been nasty, *foreign* BP. The oil business is international - and its a very successful business - it funtions because it's PROFESSIONAL.
> 
> ...


 I can agree about the politics - so with that said but I can tell you from this side of the 49th, all the BS BP is selling is not working, at least in my part of the country. There are staunch conservatives where I live who would love to see BP's North American operations broken up into little pieces and scattered into the wind. Aside from what Obama said or didn't say, there is enough public opinion against BP that any elected official who wants to stay in office, no matter how connected they are to the oil industry will ensure that BP pays for this crap until they are bled dry.

BTW - I do hope you enjoy your oil sand reserves - where I live we have more shale oil reserves in our state than all the current oil reserves in Saudi. Thanks to environmentalists we won't see any (I wonder what's worse - making large chunks of land look like the face of the moon or an off shore oil spill?)



michaelmaltby said:


> And Flyboy1, my answer to your question about "coastline" is also straight forward - PEMEX, Gulf, 1979. (my full reference link posted at the outset of this thread). It isn't pretty but it does show you what La. can expect for the next 10 -15 years - and the coastline (very similar to La.) DOES HEAL BY ITSELF - just don't eat the oysters quite yet.


 Gee a great relief to those who live in the area, the tourist industry and the general environment. Sorry but we (the US, Americans) shouldn't and won't put up with 15 years of environmental healing. 

As far as the oysters - we'll just send them to the Maritimes and let them co mingle them with good Canadian Oysters - its the least you guys can do for us! 


michaelmaltby said:


> *Would this story have been any different if the "oil company" had been Chevron, Total, Citgo, Exxon or Shell* ...? Really.
> 
> MM



YES - some of their upper management would already be in jail!!!!


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 20, 2010)

"... I wonder what's worse - making large chunks of land look like the face of the moon or an off shore oil spill?"

Don't buy it if you don't like it . We're just cleaning up the largest oil spill that we're aware of.

"... in jail!!!!". *That* really works well doesn't it Flyboy. Enron, WorldCom all those other nasties.

"... As far as the oysters - we'll just send them to the Maritimes and let them co mingle them with good Canadian Oysters - its the least you guys can do for us! "  you're *funny* Flyboy.

MM


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 20, 2010)

michaelmaltby said:


> "... I wonder what's worse - making large chunks of land look like the face of the moon or an off shore oil spill?"
> 
> Don't buy it if you don't like it . We're just cleaning up the largest oil spill that we're aware of.


Actually if it was up to me, large parts of my state would have truckloads of the stuff coming out daily.


michaelmaltby said:


> "... in jail!!!!". *That* really works well doesn't it Flyboy. Enron, WorldCom all those other nasties.


It does when CEOs are singled out and this has been going on a lot more here since Enron.


michaelmaltby said:


> "...
> "... As far as the oysters - we'll just send them to the Maritimes and let them co mingle them with good Canadian Oysters - its the least you guys can do for us! "  you're *funny* Flyboy.
> 
> MM


----------



## evangilder (Jul 21, 2010)

Most people in the US know that BP is not a British company, per se. About half of the ownership is in North America. And as with a lot of large companies, it is multinational. 

Do I look at this as the fault of a British company? Absolutely not. Even if BP was wholly British owned, I still wouldn't call it a problem from Britain, but a problem from a corporation. Part of a free-market economy is private ownership. 

Do some companies do bad things? You bet, but blaming Britain for BP is like the idiots that boycotted Arizona Ice Tea over the Arizona immigration law. Arizona Ice Tea is brewed in Brooklyn, New York!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 21, 2010)

evangilder said:


> Most people in the US know that BP is not a British company, per se. About half of the ownership is in North America. And as with a lot of large companies, it is multinational.
> 
> Do I look at this as the fault of a British company? Absolutely not. Even if BP was wholly British owned, I still wouldn't call it a problem from Britain, but a problem from a corporation. Part of a free-market economy is private ownership.
> 
> Do some companies do bad things? You bet, but blaming Britain for BP is like the idiots that boycotted Arizona Ice Tea over the Arizona immigration law. Arizona Ice Tea is brewed in Brooklyn, New York!



Ditto on all accounts. Unfortunately I see BP getting away with this (as all big corporations would, you can enter the name of any of them in here).


----------



## Hop (Jul 21, 2010)

> I understand that accident happen. What I don't understand is how this was handled. It was piss poor from the very beginning. How the hell do you own and operate a rig and not have the ability to contain accidents? How the hell do you sit on it for so long? I think BP should be fried for this.



A blowout is supposed to be contained by the blow out preventer sitting on the sea floor. If that fails, there is no easy way to stop it. The Ixtoc 1 spill in the GoM took 10 months to contain. That was in 1979. Last year a well blew out off the coast of Australia. They finally managed a top kill 74 days after the accident.

Governments around the world, including the US government, approve oil drilling plans knowing that in a worst case scenario the oil will continue flowing until a relief well can be drilled, and that takes months. In their disaster plan for this field BP said a worst case scenario would be a leak of over 100,000 barrels a day. The US government approved drilling based on that plan.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 21, 2010)

evangilder said:


> Most people in the US know that BP is not a British company, per se. About half of the ownership is in North America. And as with a lot of large companies, it is multinational.
> 
> Do I look at this as the fault of a British company? Absolutely not. Even if BP was wholly British owned, I still wouldn't call it a problem from Britain, but a problem from a corporation. Part of a free-market economy is private ownership.
> 
> Do some companies do bad things? You bet, but blaming Britain for BP is like the idiots that boycotted Arizona Ice Tea over the Arizona immigration law. Arizona Ice Tea is brewed in Brooklyn, New York!



Agree



Hop said:


> Governments around the world, including the US government, approve oil drilling plans knowing that in a worst case scenario the oil will continue flowing until a relief well can be drilled, and that takes months. In their disaster plan for this field BP said a worst case scenario would be a leak of over 100,000 barrels a day. The US government approved drilling based on that plan.



That seems extremely high, do you have proof of that? It is said that the Gulf Spill was as high as 100,000 barrels a day.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126809525


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 21, 2010)

"...."... I wonder what's worse - making large chunks of land look like the face of the moon or an off shore oil spill?"

Before and After, Flyboy1:


----------



## Hop (Jul 21, 2010)

> That seems extremely high, do you have proof of that? It is said that the Gulf Spill was as high as 100,000 barrels a day.



The official estimate was 35 - 60,000 barrels a day. Most of the reputable media seems to interpret that as "60,000 barrels a day", the more alarmist sources list much higher figures. The official figure would be midway between 35,000 and 60,000 barrels a day, or 47,500. 

I knew the BP plan for the worst case spill for the well was over 100,000 barrels a day, I couldn't remember the exact figure, but it was was actually 162,000 bpb:



> The representations show that BP overestimated its ability to control an oil spill in waters where it’s the biggest player in a Gulf energy extraction industry worth $52 billion a year, said Bob Deans, a spokesman with the Natural Resources Defense Council in Washington.
> 
> “BP has obviously overpromised and underdelivered,” Deans said. “They told us they had a plan that could deal with the consequences of a worst-case scenario. They don’t.”
> 
> The plan was posted on the Minerals Management Service website and was incorporated by reference into BP’s application with the agency for a permit to drill the Macondo well. The company said in that application that a worst-case blowout from that well could spew at most 162,000 barrels a day.


BP Had Prepared for Oil Spill 10 Times Gulf Disaster, Permit Plans Say - Bloomberg

There seems to be a huge disconnect between what the oil companies and government regulators expected and what the press and public expects. The oil companies plans, and the government approval of them, is based on "dealing with" a spill by using dispersant, booms, skimmers and clean up crews. Exactly what BP have been doing. The press seem to think "deal with" means stopping oil spilling. 

The truth is if you lose control of a well the emergency systems are supposed to prevent a fire and explosion. They didn't. If there's a fire and explosion the blow out preventer is supposed to close the well. It didn't. If you then get a blow out, and this isn't the first or last such event, then you have various ways you can _try_ to kill the well, but the only sure fire way is to drill a relief well, and that takes months.

You either accept that risk or you stop drilling.

The safety standards certainly need improving. Apparently the blow out preventer on the Deepwater Horizon was last inspected in 2000. US safety standards say it's supposed to be inspected every 5 years. Much of the safety equipment failed when it was needed, despite supposedly passing inspection weeks before the explosion.

I suspect the investigation will show that like catastrophic aircraft accidents, it won't be 1 failure, it will be a string of them, by BP, Transocean and the US government agencies responsible for regulation and inspection.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 21, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> 1. SUVs and our Gas Guzzling Vehicles have nothing to do with the problem.
> 
> 2. Europeans would drive the same vehicles if they could afford the gas. Those Europeans saying they don't because of the environment is bullshit and hogwash and nothing but a lie. Of course there are some that do not for the environment, but they are not the majority.
> 
> ...



For the record, I live in DC and a large percentage of the population drive around in pristine SUVs (ie never seen a dirt road in their lives) that are larger than a bloody minivan. Then there's the problem of larger vehicles requiring more natural resources (raw materials etc) in the production process than a smaller vehicle (including those nice plastic dashboards). Also note that most saloon cars made by US manufacturers are much larger than their European rivals. The Audi A4 is considered a large vehicle in the UK but in the States it looks tiny on the roads 'cos everything around it is so much larger. Fuel consumption is a function of vehicle size and hence drives demand for petroleum. Look at the adverts for "gas efficient" saloon cars - 35mpg is considered excellent. We can and must do better than that - 50-60mpg should be an absolute minimum for saloon cars. 

All I'm suggesting is that individuals should also look to themselves. The consumer drives the demand for cheap oil-based products. We have to get beyond the disposable culture and strive for better husbandry not just of the Gulf of Mexico but the entire planet. We're killing it and we just don't care. In the mid-20th Century, the USA led a moral crusade to free colonial peoples around the world and give them freedom of self determination. I'd love to see America taking the lead again on this issue, take the moral high-ground and say to the world "Look, we're changing our ways - now you need to follow suit". Just because we can buy cheap gas and drive huge cars does not mean that's the right thing to do.

Whilst I continue to state that BP is primarily at fault, demand for lower gas prices to sustain these urban behemoths provides at least some impetus for corner-cutting within the oil industry to keep costs down. Does everyone really think BP is the only company that has made dubious engineering decisions? Remember NONE of the oil companies in the Gulf of Mexico had anything remotely approaching a worthwhile disaster plan - it was all about managing the news media not about tackling the problem. There has to be a more robust regulatory framework to ensure that all oil companies, globally, are using best practice and have the safety procedures and capabilities in place to deal with problems if they arise. However, we the consumer need to understand we have a part in this. We buy the gas, we provide the oil company profits. If we don't like things the way they are then we need to recognise the need for change, starting with ourselves and with the legal framework within which these companies operate.

Cheers,
Mark


----------



## Njaco (Jul 21, 2010)

From what I've read and seen including an interview with one of the workers who was on site, Transocean had its hands tied at times by BP reps who disregarded problems or over-rode decisions. An andular/gasket was blowing rubber bits through the line days before and it was ignored. One of the key computers failed and wasn't corrected. Among other things.

Among the oil industry, BP had a reputation for safety gaffs. As stanch a conservative as I am, I have no problem when someone makes a profit but when the greed becomes so dangerous (such as Wall St) I say cut the umbellical cord.


----------



## Hop (Jul 21, 2010)

> From what I've read and seen including an interview with one of the workers who was on site, Transocean had its hands tied at times by BP reps who disregarded problems or over-rode decisions.



As the vast majority of the workers on that rig worked for Transocean, they are naturally going to blame BP. Transocean probably couldn't survive the fines the politicians are talking about imposing.

The man in charge of that rig was the captain, who is a Transocean employee.



> In the high-stakes world of offshore drilling, there was in-built conflict between oil companies, such as BP, and rig operators, such as Transocean, the commission was told on the opening day of public hearings at a New Orleans hotel.
> 
> "There is natural friction between safety and caution and meeting schedules," said Larry Dickerson, who is the chief executive of Diamond Offshore Drilling, Transocean's main rival. "Our customers push us."
> 
> But he said the rig operator – in this case, Transocean – should have exercised its power to shut down BP's well operation before the blowout. "The drill company is sitting there with its hands on the brake," he said. "They have the responsibility to do that."


----------



## Njaco (Jul 21, 2010)

I'll agree with that.


----------



## BombTaxi (Jul 21, 2010)

Transocean are just trying to avoid their share of the pain by blaming BP. End of the day, if they knew there were safety-critical failures occurring, they should have shut the rig down. Simple as that. 

On the BP-bashing front, I am only aware of one well-known Alaskan suggesting the disaster was somehow made worse by BP being 'foreign', and wouldn't have expected anything less from that individual. As for Tony Hayward, no doubt a few folks hate because he's British, but most people (including a lot of British people), hate him simply because of his stunning incompetence, complacency and flexibility with regards to the truth. 

There will be a small proportion of foolish people on both sided of the Pond who will try to make this an issue of nationality. The real issue for the UK is that BP pays £1 in every 7 paid out annually by UK private pension funds, and if they go under or are taken over, our already stricken pensions market will be more or less doomed.


----------



## Hop (Jul 21, 2010)

> From what I've read and seen including an interview with one of the workers who was on site, Transocean had its hands tied at times by BP reps who disregarded problems or over-rode decisions.



Just to further expand on that, one of the most repeated allegations from the hearings in May:



> Meanwhile, at an official inquiry into the blowout in Kenner, La., the Deepwater Horizon chief mechanic Doug Brown said he had witnessed a dispute between a BP official and rig workers. The dispute, Mr. Brown said, was over whether to replace heavy drilling fluid in the well with lighter seawater. He said rig workers didn't want to, but the BP "company man" overruled them: "This is how it's going to be."
> 
> Mr. Brown said the top Transocean official on the rig grumbled, "Well, I guess that's what we have those pinchers for," which he took as a reference to devices called shear rams, emergency equipment on the blowout preventer that can slam a well shut.



Report from a few days later:



> According to Doug Brown, the Chief Mechanic of the Deepwater Horizon, on the day of the accident, Transocean's Harrell was arguing with BP over procedures and after being overruled by BP, said, "Well, I guess that's what we have those pinchers for," referring to the blowout preventer's shear rams, devices designed to slice through the drill pipe and close off the well to prevent catastrophe.
> 
> Harrell explained his comment, if he had made it, would refer to the chance that the nitrogen-infused cement BP decided to use to reinforce the well could cause problems. (Nitrogen-infused cement is supposed to bond faster and prevent the drilling slurry from getting into the rock formation.) Harrell testified that the cement was a relatively new Halliburton product, and he had heard it caused problems at other rigs. The Deepwater Horizon had never used cement with nitrogen in it at great depth before. Testimony Friday confirmed that the nitrogen cement was used in the deepest part of the well.
> See full article from DailyFinance: Oil Spill Hearings: BP's Actions Before Disaster Look Problematic - DailyFinance



This wasn't a case of BP overruling on procedures, it was BP following the advice of the Halliburton cementing contractors. 

Of course the original story got a lot of coverage, Harrell's explanation didn't get anything like as much attention.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 21, 2010)

Very interesting, its' the first I've heard about the nitrogen cement. Thanks Hop.


----------

