BP Claims Gulf Well Has Been Stopped 601
An anonymous reader writes with word that BP has announced the Gulf oil spill has been stopped.
Another reader adds more detail: "The last valve on the new cap has been closed, and the flow of oil and gas into the sea has stopped. That doesn't mean it's over. It is unclear whether the steel casing deep in the well can contain the pressure. The risk is that it could burst, which would eventually cause a rupture on the sea floor that would make things much messier to deal with. However, they're monitoring the pressure buildup carefully and if the pressure holds over the next 48 hours (indicating there is no leak below the sea floor), they'll assess what to do next. If it doesn't hold at the expected readings, then they'll re-attach the pipe used for producing to the surface and start collecting again. Regardless of what happens the relief well still has to be completed to permanently plug the well with cement, which could take a couple more weeks."
Picture or it didn't happen! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Whew (Score:5, Interesting)
The primary reason it took a long time is that they had no contingency plan for BOP failure. They had to invent the plan, invent the needed equipment and then build the equipment.
(They had a notion that they would build a relief well if it blew, but that isn't a short term containment plan, it is a hole in the ground plugging plan).
So if you want to be outraged, be outraged that they were drilling outside of their technical depth (they clearly did not have a reasonable contingency plan in place, nor a sufficient amount of equipment), there is no need to foment anger about their motivations since the blowout.
Re:Whew (Score:1, Interesting)
They wanted to extract the oil instead of plugging it so the oil wouldn't start leaking elsewhere.
There is a certain amount of pressure down there pushing the oil up. If you just plug it up and have no ability to relieve that pressure, something else will break.
The explosion in April created weak spots all around the area, hence BP's desire to extract the oil and relieve the pressure.
Of course they also wanted to recoup some of their losses on this thing, but don't pretend that that's the only reason.
Re:How long (Score:3, Interesting)
Remarkable how these anti-government types only got this shrill after Obama was elected, isn't it?
Re:How long (Score:2, Interesting)
How long until a conservatard tries to bring Obama up in regards to this...
Oh wait.
Please. You probably used to mock people who said things like this when Bush was President. Don't be naive.
Re:Whew (Score:5, Interesting)
The scary thing is that basically everyone out there is assuming that the BOP will never fail and they don't need any contingency plans. I've done one or two studies with these people (not BP) and whenever anyone raises the question, "What if the BOP fails?" the answer is always, "it won't."
Re:Whew (Score:5, Interesting)
I never said everyone at BP was a sociopath. The problem with corporations is diffusion of responsibility. [wikipedia.org] No single employee or officer has to be sociopathic in order for the emergent behavior of the corporation to be sociopathic.
Re:Whew (Score:2, Interesting)
in fifty+ years of drilling and extraction do you know how many of them have ever failed?
one. inclusive of this event.
designing a fail-back plan for a BOP failure is like designing a plan for what to do if North America suddenly sank into the ocean. though important to think about, no amount of prep is ever going to make it a smooth operation.
Re:How long (Score:2, Interesting)
It's hard to figure out what's going on in his head. One of his big problems is how he comes off as a passive observer, watching things happen around him. As president, he needs to at least appear to be on top of things, and all the golf trips don't help (even Bush believed that he shouldn't be golfing while troops died in Iraq).
Unreadiness for Spills (Score:5, Interesting)
Any success that BP may or may not have in this endeavor does not change the fact that they should have had methods to cap a blowout ready before they started drilling. The fact that this well has been gushing for months is simply unacceptable. The keystone cops spectacle of Top-Hat, Hot-Tap, Junk Shot (tm) is strong evidence that BP didn't devote any significant resources to dealing with a deep water blowout. Strong regulation of these rogue corporations is needed. They should not be able to drill without having capping equipment and emergency tankers ready at dock.
People can be as bad as corportations. (Score:5, Interesting)
I've known individuals who ran their own small, unincorporated, business that were the most amoral people I know.
If you've ever tried to collect money that you are legally owed, even with a judgment, you will probably know what I mean.
The notion that "corporations are bad" and that individuals are better (showing more empathy, morality, ethics etc.) is largely a fantasy IMHO.
Re:So, can we confirm that? (Score:2, Interesting)
Being wrong. ;) As they discovered more, their estimates went up, and up, and up. The information has always come from them - there were no investigative reporter's in SCUBA gear taking their own flow readings. As the realisation of the issue scope increased, so did the announcements in the volume of the leaks.
Your problem is the media - if initially BP say that they estimate 5,000 barrels are leaking, then that gets played for 24 hours. Then, 2 days later, when BP increase that estimate to 10,000, the media starts replaying the quote about 5,000 and starts complaining about how incompetent "British Petroleum" is. Then, a week later, when they get cameras down there and BP increases their estimate to 30,000 barrels, the original estimate of 5,000 barrels is still being played, and BP now being labelled "liars", who have been "intentionally misleading the public and the government all along".
Whether it's 5,000 barrels or 15,000 barrels, lying about it wouldn't reduce BP's cleanup costs. Being wrong doesn't make someone intentionally malicious. Either way, they still have to stop it and pay for it. All the media is tricking you into doing is demonising an enemy because there always has to be a "bad guy" or else how will those same media corporations ever make a movie about it? ;)
For Slashdot, its surprising how many people side with the media on this one, simply because being able to label it with a decades-old British name makes hating it a Patriotic issue..
Re:Unreadiness for Spills (Score:1, Interesting)
BP had the industry standard blind shear ram installed on the well. this device cuts through the drill pipe and seals off the well for good - as long as the 2 blades meet. when the blow out came, the operators found they couldn't control the pressure so they hit the fail safe and the jaws on the shears started to close, but stopped short of sealing the well.
the reasons for why this failed are unknown, and it's probably a valid critisism that BP should have had 2 fail safes not just one, though i'd make the point everyone is an expert in hindsight.
but to say BP had no safe guards and to call them a rogue corporation is just plain bullshit, and makes you more dishonest then the company your attacking.
having emergency tankers "ready" at the dock (whatever that is supposed to be) is a useless idea. whats the tanker supposed to do after it arrives? not to mention that it'll take days for a tanker to get there at best anyway.
it's also an outright lie to say BP haven't invested significant resources in dealing with the blowout. they have spent over 3 billion and deployed 22,000 people to try contain the spill, and they are still up for billions more. i'm not sure what circles you travel in but i'd consider billions of dollars significant.
Re:Whew (Score:3, Interesting)
Large corporations are profit generating machines. That's it. They don't try to do good (for its own sake). They don't try to do evil (for its own sake). Everything they do is based on the (perceived) impact on the bottom line
Okay, if that's always the case, how do you explain things like this [google.org]? Is that the exception that proves the rule? Or is it really just a very sneaky and roundabout way of (eventually) generating more profit by generating good will? And if it is the latter, does it make any difference? After all, one could argue (and some do) that even individual acts of altruism are nothing more than disguised self-interest... but in all cases, either some good is done, or not, and any secret underlying intentions are irrelevant to the result.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Whew (Score:5, Interesting)
Wow, how many ways can you be wrong in a single post???
First, you're wrong about this being the first ever BOP failure. As another poster has already noted, the IXTOC disaster in 1979 was also (at least partially) the result of a BOP failure. Furthermore, BOP failures are evidently not such a rare event. Apparently, they fail frequently enough during routine tests that at least a couple studies have been done on BOP failure. From this article [yahoo.com]:
And from this article [cnn.com]:
So although BOP failures may indeed be rare events, and full-blown catastrophes resulting from BOP failures may be even rarer, they still do fail frequently enough to merit some serious consideration, especially given the possible consequences when one does fail.
The probability of a massive catastrophe caused by a BOP failure is dozens of orders of magnitude greater than the probability of North America sinking into the ocean. It's much more akin to the probability that your house will burn down, and although having one's house burn down is an extremely rare event, it happens frequently enough, and the consequences are severe enough, that it absolutely justifies taking preventative measures and having contingency plans. That's why most of us have smoke alarms and at least one fire extinguisher in our homes.
Anecdotally speaking, I'm 37 years old, and my house has never burned down (or even caught fire), but in that same time there have been TWO major catastrophic oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico caused by BOP failures.
Having a real contingency plan (complete with actual equipment, materials and personnel in place) when you're drilling 5000 ft. under the ocean is not like trying to plan for North America sinking into the ocean. It's a necessary and prudent safety measure.
When you're talking about contingency plans for an accident that has the potential to cause large-scale ecological AND economic disaster, it's not a question of whether or not it will be a "smooth operation". Your implication is that if we don't have a contingency plan that is guaranteed to go off without a hitch, then we shouldn't bother having one at all. That's the dumbest thing I've heard all day.
Re:Whew (Score:4, Interesting)
Wrong. Well, partially. The main reason it is/was so cheap for the USA, was that the US were such a big client, that they could tell the sheiks: Either you sell below what it’s worth, or we will not buy from you anymore. :D (you know, they always smile ;)
But then China came, and said: Jolly good! Then we’ll buy it!
And the USA thought: Well fuck you! We’ll have our own oil source! With black jack! And hookers!
That’s why all the drilling and calls for “independence” started. (Well, if you did see that segment from the Daily Show: Not really “started”. Since every president since the 60s already did promise that independence.)
I know that at least one trollerator will now go: “Hey, you got nothing to back that up, and you’re just insulting my beloved USA! USA! USA!” But really, I’m not. So it’s not very nice to assume I’m a dick. :)
And really, I know this, because of an interview (also Daily Show) with someone who studied the whole stuff. It’s more his words than mine. I bet you’ve even seen the interview.
Re:Whew (Score:3, Interesting)
Nobody forces you to buy gas.
*snerk*
Gasoline? No. I suppose not. Assuming you live close enough you can bike to work. Like to see you get by without buying anything petrolium-based, though. "Nobody's forcing you" is absolutely the WORST cop-out argument to use when someone's bitching about something. Usually because in some fashion, you are being forced, or at least aren't fully free to do otherwise.
Re:Whew (Score:3, Interesting)
heya,
Absolutely, I agree with you.
In Australia, we've got Bob Brown, leader of the Greens Party.
Now, ideologically, I've got a lot against extremist environmentalists like him.
However, I admire and respect the guy for standing up for what he believes. Last time I checked, I believe he lives on his own (or with his male partner) in Tasmania - which is as remote in Australia as you can get =). And I think I read in an interview that he lives quite simply, in a shack-ish sort of place, close to nature, no utilities etc.
Either way, I think he's wacked off, but I can respect that he's prepared to stick to his guns, and suffer for what he believes in (in this case the environment).
You compare that against the idiotic faux-greenies we have here in Sydney, driving their over-sized 4WD's, living in their McMansions, and sipping their $6 lattes - and complaining about OH GOSH, WE MUST DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS ENVIRONMENT ISSUE. IT'S JUST TRAGIC, I TELL YOU.
About the only thing they do is lobby about airport noise, or about building new roads through their areas, because it'll decrease the value of their property.
Cheers,
Victor
Re:Whew (Score:3, Interesting)
The dirty little secret however is this. We as a modern society cannot maintain our current way of life, progress, and technological advancement without the Corporation.
Nice religion you have there.
Such social collective apparatuses are necessary to manage the many abstract layers of social interaction.
Sure, collective social apparatus are needed, but that doesn't imply the 'such' part.
It's pure, calculated, and with complete disregard for the individual. But, from the stand-point of another corporation on the receiving end, such behavior is completely and totally acceptable.
No, from the point of anyone allowed to externalize their costs. If they were billed for the human and environmental damage they inflicted they wouldn't disregard it.
We could avoid most of the problems with corporations if we'd treat them like any other social organization. Instead of diffusing blame, they amplify and share blame.
Currently if you're mad at BP we act like there's nothing to do but complain to the corporate HQ. But if you're mad at the KKK, or the democrats, you direct your ire at the entire organization.
If we fined every element, management, workers, stockholders, equally we'd establish a requirement for good governance. Instead people shove responsibility one thinly veiled step away but expect to share the profits.
Re:Unreadiness for Spills (Score:4, Interesting)
The impact of the oil and automobile industries are small concerns in comparison [scientificamerican.com]. If you want to help the planet, eat less (ideally no) meat.
Re:How long (Score:1, Interesting)
But they refused the help of those who did (the Dutch). Their boats could only get out something like 98% of the oil and EPA regulations say you can't discharge water back into the Gulf that's less than 99.998% pure or whatever...
That republican talking point has long since been discounted as a myth. Just lookup "dutch skimmers myth". Just because a radio talk show host said so does not make it so.