BP oil disaster: Who made it that way?
in [Technical]
|
Prev: 2000 Mazda Protege ES: Might need air conditioner clutch. Remove AC instead
Next: Toyota recalling, halting sales of Lexus HS250h in US
From: Bob Jones on 27 Jun 2010 12:27 "jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m(a)mwt,net> wrote in message news:Jrmdnf-g1ofhP7vRnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d(a)bright.net... > > > Tegger wrote: >> >> What author Lawrence Solomon is alleging amounts to >> criminally stupid behavior by US-government regulators. >> >> <http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/06/25/lawrence-solomon-avertible-catastrophe/> >> > > It is BP's responsibility to clean up the spill. > > On May 23 Bp purchased 3 of the Dutch skimmer's and those are in > operation. Bp has ordered six more for immediate delivery and the Dutch > company is in the process of fabricating those skimmers. Norway has > sent skimmers also. I thought BP has already bought many purification machines from Kevin Costner. See the first 2:30 minutes of this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46lSslZe6Pk That is our only hope of sucking all the seafood gumbo out of the gulf.
From: hls on 27 Jun 2010 15:14 "jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m(a)mwt,net> wrote in message news:3b6dnfmeHskK6rrRnZ2dnUVZ_h-dnZ2d(a)bright.net... > > > hls wrote: >> >> "jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m(a)mwt,net> wrote in message news:Eaudnf- >> > You and Pallin have raised self contradictions to a new level. So which >> > is it... are you for off shore drilling or against? Are you for >> > limiting >> > torts or are you against Tort limits? Or is it a new day and you >> > haven't >> > picked which way to flip flop yet? >> >> BP made the mess, and they should pay for it. I tend to agree with tort >> limits, but the $75 million that the government established is clearly >> not >> enough for cases like this. > > The $75 million is already irrelevant. The total cost to BP may end up > being more like $100 Billion (depending how long it takes to stop and > how much oil is ultimately involved). BP probably won't pay the total > cost because eventually they will split off the US operations/holdings > and put them into bankruptcy. The sale of those assets will be used to > pay for the remaining cleanup. And the taxpayers will pik up the tab if > the liquidation of assets isn'gt enough. > The whole purpose of corporations is to limit liability. It is > extremely unlikely that any change in the law could have made the > economic cost to BP any greater than it already will be. unless it would > first abolish the whole concept of a corporation. > > It is also worth noting that the states of Louisiana, Texas, > Mississippi and Alabama are receiving millions in oil company revenues > for their share of the oil leases, as well as the tax revenues and jobs > from hosting the oil companies infrastructure inside those states. > Other states like Florida and California and those along the Atlantic > coastline don't have exploratory drilling offshore because the people in > those states are less willing to take the risks. > If you remember just about every candidate or potential candidate in > the last election was falling over each other trying to be perceived as > the candidate that would best promote exploratory oil drilling inside > the US boundaries. If you want to blame somebody, why not blame the > American people. Where exactly do the voters think this oil will > disappear to if we don't get it out of the ground and burned as fast as > possible? And what do people think future generations are going to use > for their energy source if we use up all that is easily available as > fast as we possibly can? It is after all the vast wasteful consumption > of energy that is main driving force behind pushing the technology to > its limits. > > -jim *** First, corporations are juridical persons, and the risk is not limited where a corporation is concerned, except in some cases. The biological people who set up a corporation or own part of a corporation are protected to a higher degree. I believe BP will be found guilty of pretty massive negligence in this particular case. Perhaps another company might have successfully completed this project. BP paid for an option to exploit part of this nation's wealth, and instead of exploiting the wealth to the benefit of their corporation and to the owners of these resources (namely the citizens of the USA), this company was involved in the loss of million dollars of revenue, AND the damage and destruction of even more resources. There is no reason not to drill for deep water oil. There is reason to demand that it be done safely and by companies and personal who have the technology and determination to do it safely and effectively. We have no meaningful energy policy. If we did, we would be moving full speed to try to find better and more replaceable sources of energy which are needed to drive our economy. Our economy is in one heck of a mess, and there are but a couple of courses: either we try to bail out the boat and move forward, or we deteriorate into a thirdworld status. Our citizens are not too good at squatting in the dust, swatting flies from their faces, and starving to death. BP has a job to do.. They have to pay rather dearly for the terrible cockups that caused this. And it is a good time for all such companies to learn that you cant just give lip service to safety, especially when you are working in a highly hazardous industry and area. Have you EVER worked for a company in which the HSE group could shut down an activity, such as drilling an oil well, if they sensed a problem? Not likely, but this may come in the future.
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 27 Jun 2010 15:44 On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 11:27:14 -0500, Bob Jones wrote: > > "jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m(a)mwt,net> wrote in message > news:Jrmdnf-g1ofhP7vRnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d(a)bright.net... >> >> >> Tegger wrote: >>> >>> What author Lawrence Solomon is alleging amounts to criminally stupid >>> behavior by US-government regulators. >>> >>> <http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/06/25/lawrence-solomon-avertible-catastrophe/> >>> >>> >> It is BP's responsibility to clean up the spill. >> >> On May 23 Bp purchased 3 of the Dutch skimmer's and those are in >> operation. Bp has ordered six more for immediate delivery and the Dutch >> company is in the process of fabricating those skimmers. Norway has >> sent skimmers also. > > I thought BP has already bought many purification machines from Kevin > Costner. See the first 2:30 minutes of this video. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46lSslZe6Pk > > That is our only hope of sucking all the seafood gumbo out of the gulf. ROFLMAO. Good one...
From: jim on 27 Jun 2010 18:43 hls wrote: > "jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m(a)mwt,net> wrote in message > news:3b6dnfmeHskK6rrRnZ2dnUVZ_h-dnZ2d(a)bright.net... > > > > > > hls wrote: > >> > >> "jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m(a)mwt,net> wrote in message news:Eaudnf- > >> > You and Pallin have raised self contradictions to a new level. So which > >> > is it... are you for off shore drilling or against? Are you for > >> > limiting > >> > torts or are you against Tort limits? Or is it a new day and you > >> > haven't > >> > picked which way to flip flop yet? > >> > >> BP made the mess, and they should pay for it. I tend to agree with tort > >> limits, but the $75 million that the government established is clearly > >> not > >> enough for cases like this. > > > > The $75 million is already irrelevant. The total cost to BP may end up > > being more like $100 Billion (depending how long it takes to stop and > > how much oil is ultimately involved). BP probably won't pay the total > > cost because eventually they will split off the US operations/holdings > > and put them into bankruptcy. The sale of those assets will be used to > > pay for the remaining cleanup. And the taxpayers will pik up the tab if > > the liquidation of assets isn'gt enough. > > The whole purpose of corporations is to limit liability. It is > > extremely unlikely that any change in the law could have made the > > economic cost to BP any greater than it already will be. unless it would > > first abolish the whole concept of a corporation. > > > > It is also worth noting that the states of Louisiana, Texas, > > Mississippi and Alabama are receiving millions in oil company revenues > > for their share of the oil leases, as well as the tax revenues and jobs > > from hosting the oil companies infrastructure inside those states. > > Other states like Florida and California and those along the Atlantic > > coastline don't have exploratory drilling offshore because the people in > > those states are less willing to take the risks. > > If you remember just about every candidate or potential candidate in > > the last election was falling over each other trying to be perceived as > > the candidate that would best promote exploratory oil drilling inside > > the US boundaries. If you want to blame somebody, why not blame the > > American people. Where exactly do the voters think this oil will > > disappear to if we don't get it out of the ground and burned as fast as > > possible? And what do people think future generations are going to use > > for their energy source if we use up all that is easily available as > > fast as we possibly can? It is after all the vast wasteful consumption > > of energy that is main driving force behind pushing the technology to > > its limits. > > > > -jim > > *** > First, corporations are juridical persons, and the risk is not limited > where a corporation is concerned, except in some cases. The biological > people who set up a corporation or own part of a corporation are > protected to a higher degree. If BP liquidates its US operations, that is the maximum dollar amount BP will pay. > > > I believe BP will be found guilty of pretty massive negligence in this > particular case. Nah this is at most just ordinary lack of care. The probability of something bad happening will only increase as you go after the more difficult to obtain oil. The Deepwater Horizon had just completed a well for BP that was far more risky than this one. They had received accolades for pulling that off. > > > Perhaps another company might have successfully completed this > project. BP paid for an option to exploit part of this nation's wealth, > and instead of exploiting the wealth to the benefit of their corporation > and to the owners of these resources (namely the citizens of the USA), > this company was involved in the loss of million dollars of revenue, > AND the damage and destruction of even more resources. Do you think this was intentional? > > > There is no reason not to drill for deep water oil. There is reason to > demand that it be done safely and by companies and personal who > have the technology and determination to do it safely and effectively. Up until this happened that description fits the Deepwater Horizon to a tee. > > > We have no meaningful energy policy. If we did, we would be moving > full speed to try to find better and more replaceable sources of energy > which are needed to drive our economy. We have an energy policy. The policy is to promote the use of petroleum by keeping the price of oil as low as possible and the supply of oil as a stable as possible and to build infrastructure that facilitates the consumption of oil. Future generations may look back at that policy and say it was misguided, but nobody is going to say the policy didn't exist. > > > Our economy is in one heck of a mess, and there are but a couple of > courses: either we try to bail out the boat and move forward, or we > deteriorate into a thirdworld status. Our citizens are not too good at > squatting in the dust, swatting flies from their faces, and starving to > death. Nobody is good at that. > > > BP has a job to do.. They have to pay rather dearly for the terrible > cockups that caused this. > > And it is a good time for all such companies to learn that you cant just > give lip service to safety, especially when you are working in a highly > hazardous industry and area. Don't worry there will be lots of consequences when it is done. But at the moment the primary concern is to deal with controlling a runaway gusher. We may be still talking about how that is going to be stopped a year from now. > > > Have you EVER worked for a company in which the HSE group > could shut down an activity, such as drilling an oil well, if they sensed > a problem? Any number of people could have shut down the operations on the Deepwater Horizon if they had safety concerns. But nobody thought the well was about to blow, or that the whole rig would be almost instantly engulfed in flames, or that the BOP would fail. If you listened to the testimony at the MMS-USCG hearings everyone thought they were going to be packing up and to leave for a new drilling location in a couple of days. -jim > Not likely, but this may come in the future.
From: hls on 27 Jun 2010 21:40
"jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m(a)mwt.net> wrote in message > > Any number of people could have shut down the operations on the Deepwater > Horizon if they had safety concerns. But nobody thought the well was about > to > blow, or that the whole rig would be almost instantly engulfed in flames, > or > that the BOP would fail. If you listened to the testimony at the MMS-USCG > hearings everyone thought they were going to be packing up and to leave > for a > new drilling location in a couple of days. > > -jim And this is pure bullshit, Jim. Schlumberger moved off this rig several hours before the blowout because they KNEW and they COMMUNICATED that this was excessively risky. They, according to my information, were not ferried off by BP paid helicopter services but instead had to call their land office and order their own helicopter services. (There is more, and much more explicit information, that may come out about this) Any mud engineer could tell you the problem of circulating salt water when you were already taking kicks in a high pressure zone. It is, and was, suicide. It cost several people their lives. Keep reading, and I think you will be amazed at the incompetence that caused this. It is maybe worse than incompetence..It is hubris. The only entity that could have arrested this chain of events was BP, not Hayward, but the local "company man". Had ALL the service companies (the true experts) walked off, this disaster might never have happened. |