BP Finally Stops Oil Flowing

[michaelmaltby]

"...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]

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]

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]

"...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

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???

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

".... 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]

".... 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.

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?)

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!

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]

"... 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]

"... 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.

"... 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.

"...
"... 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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

"...."... 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]

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]

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.

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