36
   

Spill baby spill, slippery politics

 
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 05:16 pm
Quote:
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 13, 2010; 3:27 PM

Transocean, owner of the drilling rig that caught fire and sank in the Gulf of Mexico three weeks ago, has asked a Houston federal court to limit its liability for the resulting oil spill to $26.8 million, a small fraction of the anticipated damages from the accident.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/13/AR2010051302007.html?hpid=topnews

SHOCKING!*sarcasim*

You can bet your very last dollar that BP will do everything possible to discourage/deny claims as well.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 05:35 pm
@hawkeye10,
Seeing as they have admitted that they knew there was a problem, but refused to shut the pipeline down, and then it blew up a few hours later, I'd be surprised if BP survives this as a company. Especially as the problem now seems to be exponentially worse than originally anticipated.

Cycloptichorn
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 06:15 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:

Seeing as they have admitted that they knew there was a problem, but refused to shut the pipeline down, and then it blew up a few hours later, I'd be surprised if BP survives this as a company. Especially as the problem now seems to be exponentially worse than originally anticipated.
I took note that Halliburton said that BP told them to remove the heavy mud. We need to wait and see if Haliburton did the concrete right, and if they fouled the BOP with concrete. The full liability here could easily run $20-30 billion (though the most the "experts" are saying at the moment is $13 billion), depending upon how this plays out in the courts any of the three could be put under by this. Given the size of BP ($150 billion market cap)I think the worst that could happen to BP is that this so damages them financially and politically that they might need to sell the company. Exxon came away from the Valdez more or less OK, but Exxon had and has a much better reputation than BP has or has had in a long time. BP has had many "accidents" over the last ten years, and its management has mostly been shitty.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 06:25 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

I suggest they jamb a cork tree into the hole.


You ain't gonna believe this, but it's been done. One of the early gas wells in the San Juan Basin blew out and they hacked a tree stump to fit and stuffed it into the pipe. Do keep in mind that while we have more wells in the basin than the entire mideast, none of them are really big, and NONE are under water.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 07:52 pm
@roger,
It looks to me as though the oil will flow until the relief well is completed.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 May, 2010 03:25 am
Quote:

Scientists fear BP spill far worse than thought

Updated 4 hours 0 minutes ago
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/201005/r562843_3417080.jpg
The scientists say the plumes are depleting the oxygen in the gulf. (AFP: Mark Ralston)

US scientists say they have discovered enormous plumes of oil in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico, suggesting that the leak from the blown-out well operated by BP could be far worse than previously estimated.

They are quoted in the New York Times as saying one of the plumes is 16 kilometres long, nearly five-kilometres wide and 91 metres thick.

The scientists say the plumes are depleting the oxygen in the gulf, prompting fears that the process could eventually kill much of the nearby sea life.


The Interior Secretary Ken Salazar says the public has a right to know that the leak will be capped soon.

"That cancer has got be stopped and so we have been working relentlessly in... [assembling] the best group of scientists around the world, working with Secretary Chu and myself, that are providing an oversight to BP and making sure that everything that can be done that holds the well down is being done," he said.

But BP earlier said it was confident it would soon be able to stop the flow of oil.

The US government has now approved the use of dispersants under water near the source of the leak and BP says they are starting to work.

Engineers are also using underwater robots in an attempt to reinsert a tube surrounded by a stopper into the broken pipe.

They hope this will help them siphon the oil to the surface. ...<cont>


http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/16/2900684.htm
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 May, 2010 03:35 am
A worrying article from the Guardian (UK) last week:
Quote:
Oil spill: US failing to tighten ecological oversight, say activists
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Environment/Pix/columnists/2010/5/7/1273230177115/oil-spill-from-the-Deepwa-006.jpg
Engineers are considering a 'junk shot' " shooting debris into the well as high pressure " to seal the Deepwater Horizon wellhead. Photograph: Daniel Beltra/Greenpeace

The Obama administration waived environmental reviews for 26 new offshore drilling projects even as the BP oil disaster spewed hundreds of thousands of gallons of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico, environmental activists said today.

The charge came as hopes for a quick fix to the Deepwater Horizon spill were dashed when a build-up of crystallised gas blocked pipes in a huge metal containment box that had been built to cap the well. Engineers are now considering a "junk shot", shooting a mix of debris " including shredded tires and golf balls " into the well at high pressure to clog it, said Thad Allen, a US coast guard commander.

With the spill still unchecked and spreading to Alabama's beaches, there was renewed focus on oversight procedures that allowed BP and Transocean to drill without backup plans in place.

The Centre for Biological Diversity said that even after the disaster, the Obama administration did not tighten its oversight of offshore drilling. An investigation by the respected environmental group revealed that since 20 April, when an explosion the Deepwater Horizon rig killed 11 workers, 27 new offshore drilling projects have been approved by the Mineral Management Service (MMS) the regulatory agency responsible for overseeing extraction of oil, gas and other minerals.

All but one project was granted similar exemptions from environmental review as BP. Two were submitted by the UK firm, and made the same claims about oil-rig safety and the implausibility of a spill damaging the environment, the centre said.

"This oil spill has had absolutely no effect on MMS behaviour at all," said Kieran Suckling, the director of the centre. "It's still business as usual which means rubber stamping oil drilling permits with no environmental review."


The charges were the latest in a string of revelations about lax oversight of offshore drilling that, while dating back to the George Bush era, have also damaged the Obama White House. "I don't know where the regulators were on this. They certainly were asleep," Richard Shelby, a Republican senator from Alabama, told CNN today. "This reminds me of a big truck speeding along the Los Angeles freeway with no brakes."... <cont>


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/09/oil-spill-ecological-review-environment
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 04:15 am
BP says the latest "fix" is working extremely well. But if they reduce the leak by 90% is the remaining 10% still too much? (and I don't even know if they have achieved a 90% decrease in flow yet)

I hope their goal is 100% closure/capture.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 06:14 am
@rosborne979,
I dont believe that Purdue professor who said that the daily load is 50000 barrels a day. The risers in an oil well are usually 7.5 to 9" ID and thats too small for 2.5 million gal a day.Thats about 1500 gallons a minute nd thats waay too much for that size riser. (theres also a lot of gas coming out too)
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 09:12 am
@farmerman,
I'm curious what percentage of the leak they think they are capturing at this point.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 09:34 am
@rosborne979,
maybe theyre only missing several thousand gallons a day? I dont know. I hope its all temporary cause the entire plume , based on laser scanning , has been determoned to be almost 300 feet thick. JEEZUS, I hope theyere busy sopping that up with a deep skimmer setup.

SOunds like theyere making it all up as they go.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 10:08 am
@farmerman,
you'll notice that they are not telling us how much oil the pipe is getting. If it was good news BP would be shouting it. Until and unless we have evidence to the contrary this should be assumed to be a stunt.

It is a 4 inch pipe, it is a mile long, oil is thick and the temp is cold...and the BP guess of 5K barrels a day pouring into the gulf looks to be an extreme low ball number, you do the math.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 10:17 am
@hawkeye10,
I see that they are now saying 1K barrels a day being recovered.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 11:27 am
The 60 minutes piece on the explosion last night, with interviews from people who were on the rig and from investigators who have been looking into it, is incredibly damning for BP.

To sum it up, they knew the safety equipment was damaged and didn't give a ****, and they rushed the extraction of the drill - in order to make it cheaper to start getting actual oil out of.

Cycloptichorn
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 11:52 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
To sum it up, they knew the safety equipment was damaged and didn't give a ****, and they rushed the extraction of the drill - in order to make it cheaper to start getting actual oil out of.
I think the rush was to save the $500K a day that the rig cost to use, and becuase they wanted a fast drill time to brag about.

I am more interested in why they decided to take the heavy mud out, and if they bothered to test the concrete. I am also wanting to know what they did about the bad pressure readings they got in the morning on three different tests, why the last five hours of data from the rig was never sent to shore and is thus lost when it was supposed to be instantly transmitted, and why BP officials told the workers that the bad pressure readings were not a problem,....that they should finish as planned.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 02:18 pm
@farmerman,
They are now speculating that this may be a "brand new" type of oil spill which nobody has ever seen before (sounds like a "duh" statement to me). They seem surprised that there is a giant underwater plume of "oil-like" material hovering around in the lower depths of the gulf. I don't know why they are surprised by that. It doesn't seem too surprising to me that a thick gooey material spewing out at freezing temps in a high pressure environment might not all go rushing to the surface, but instead, stratify into layers based on composition, salinity, temperature and pressure. Estimates of the leakage range from several thousands of barrels per day all the way to a million barrels a day. I'm not convinced that anyone has a clue how much goop is down there right now. But I bet we're going to find out (over the next decade).
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 02:26 pm
@rosborne979,
what I cant get is how the right wing talk hosts are assuring their dittoheads that this is just being made a big deal of by the liberal media. I think that a 300ft thick mass of oil will get our attention soon.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 02:27 pm
@rosborne979,
Quote:

They are now speculating that this may be a "brand new" type of oil spill which nobody has ever seen before (sounds like a "duh" statement to me). They seem surprised that there is a giant underwater plume of "oil-like" material hovering around in the lower depths of the gulf
I am thinking that what is different is that they put chemicals on the oil as it came out. The idea was to break it up, which they did. So now we have the oil spread out instead of in a mass that can be collected, plus we have all of the chemicals poisoning the gulf.

BP wanted to keep the oil off of the shores for political reasons, and they have accomplished that so far, but at what costs we don't know. Right now they are talking about the gulf turning into a giant dead zone because oxygen levels are plummeting, and it seems only a matter of time till the oil/chemical mix gets to the great national treasure, the reefs off of the Florida keys.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 02:32 pm
@hawkeye10,
It's like a "stealth disaster" lurking just out of sight... for now.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 02:33 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
what I cant get is how the right wing talk hosts are assuring their dittoheads that this is just being made a big deal of by the liberal media. I think that a 300ft thick mass of oil will get our attention soon.

I assume they want to minimize the political hit that offshore drilling will take from this. But that's just a guess.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 11/22/2024 at 07:42:43