BP's Final "Top Kill" Procedure For Gulf Oil Spill 593
eldavojohn writes "So far every attempted fix has resulted in failure to contain the Gulf of Mexico oil spill with the exception of the riser insertion method that appears to be little more than a mile-long tube sucking up oil. After attempting many options to allow the continued collection of crude oil, BP is finally considering a 'top kill' option that will kill the well. A vessel at the surface will use 30,000 horsepower pumps to slam kill mud and clay into the well's bent riser, allowing them to cap the well off with two relief wells (which won't be ready for several months). If that fails, the vessel will move on to a 'junk shot' that involves spewing larger debris like shredded rubber and golf balls into the lines to gum up the flow and stop it. Government officials acknowledge that while this may provide a solution, it may also worsen the situation if the resulting pressure causes the lines to blow or fail at other points. While this is likely one of the worst environmental disasters to hit the gulf, BP's debacle has caused Shell to pre-build cofferdams into seven wells that it is currently drilling in the gulf. These would drop into place in the event of such a catastrophic failure of a riser under the well."
This is horse shit (Score:3, Insightful)
Why didn't they just do this in the first place? Why muck about with wholly unproven methods? They should have sealed this thing up weeks ago. They greed and attempts to keep the well usable are a fucking disgrace.
Re:This is horse shit (Score:5, Insightful)
I think a lot of people forget this (Score:5, Informative)
While you can come up with all kinds of theoretical methods for dealing with something like this, it isn't the sort of thing you can test. I mean it is unfeasible (not to mention irresponsible) to build an oil rig and then break it just to test and see how fixes might work. So pretty much everything is unproven, untested and you just have to try shit and see what works.
Now this isn't to say BP is blameless here, there are remediation measures they should have taken, but didn't. The biggest would be having enough booms ready to contain a well disaster (it would take a lot, but really not cost all that much) and training their people in proper booming. That is a proven method for reducing the spread.
However it is just to help deal with the spread, it doesn't actually fix the problem. The problem fixes, well you just don't know since it cannot be tested until an actual disaster happens.
Re:I think a lot of people forget this (Score:5, Insightful)
this is why the doctrine of reasonable prevention would have gone so much farther here. the oil industry doesn't have much experience drilling these super-deep wells, they certainly have no experience dealing with problems in them.
going down there with a known not-properly-functioning BOP and untested cementing was blatantly stupid. now they have to try to fix the problem with stuff that's essentially untested and could make the whole thing worse.
Re:I think a lot of people forget this (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And, pray tell, what proven method is there of stopping an oil leak a mile underwater?
Re:This is horse shit (Score:4, Insightful)
There isn't a proven method. Everything that they are trying is something that they are trying for the first time. The well is so deep that it is beyond crush depth for many subs. There aren't any manned subs that can even go down that far, and less than half a dozen robotic / remote ones that can. Nobody has ever dealt with a catastrophe of this magnitude before. There were supposed to be safety precautions taken to prevent this kind of thing. Those safety precautions were there to insure that nobody would ever have to go through what is currently being gone through. Those precautions were ignored and diluted by "regulators" who were subserviant to the interests they were supposed to be regulating.
The obviously solution is to plug the well with the pulped bodies of everyone who was responsible for allowing the problem to occur in the first place. As others have stated, there are safety mechanisms being used RIGHT NOW in places like Brazil that are SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to prevent the kind of cluster fuck that took place. The problem is that greed won out, and Congressional representatives are cheap. It's easier to donate money to a re-election campaign than it is to spend money on fail safe devices.
2 things (Score:4, Interesting)
2) Good on Shell for being proactive, to bad it took a major disaster to get a more comprehensive disaster plan.
Re:2 things (Score:5, Insightful)
Does it have something to do with enabling the microorganisms in the ocean that are capable of consuming hydrocarbons to consume them?
Wrong summary (Score:5, Informative)
The mud or junk will not be inserted through the riser pipe.
There are access pipes on the BOP itself for this kind of stuff.
The mud or junk will therefore be inserted BEFORE the riser pipe.
Blocking the riser would be useless given it's bent, cracked at the BOP and could potentially rip off due to the blockage.
What KILLS me is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Privatized profits. Socialize losses!
BP wont ever end up paying much of the real cost involved in this. Any fines they do face will be a tiny percent of their yearly profit.
And they will go on to do this again in the future.. Saving a buck or two on safety to make some money. Just like they did 20 years ago for their last major disaster.
Yeah know, we really need the oil.. But i'd say we need someplace to live way way more.
Someday we're really going to have to hold corporations accountable in a REAL way for the lives and things they destroy.
Major oil spill cuz you skiped on some safety that we have invented already? Shoot the CEO in the head.
Sooner or later companys will stop doing things that endanger the environment or peoples lives... Or we'll run out of CEO's. either way... it would be an improvement.
Re:What KILLS me is... (Score:4, Informative)
What does that have to do with anything?
You think Phillip Morris should be allowed to kill babies since cigarette taxes are so high?
Re:What KILLS me is... (Score:5, Informative)
You think Phillip Morris should be allowed to kill babies since cigarette taxes are so high?
Look, it's not like they use the whole baby during the manufacturing process.
BP makes 93 mil a day (Score:5, Informative)
Except that the government makes more off taxes on oil and it's downstream products than companies like BP make in profit on oil.
I don't have the tax numbers at my fingertips, but it seems that BP posted $93,000,000 USD profits per day [thinkprogress.org] for the first quarter of 2010.
Re:BP makes 93 mil a day (Score:4, Informative)
Where did you get $13 billion?
I looked up BP's 2009 revenue [wikinvest.com] and came up with $246.14 billion
Also I think your confusing and/or commingling taxes and royalties
The government collects production royalties to compensate the general public for the market value of the resources that businesses remove from public lands.
It's not BP's oil, it the people of the United States oil. We agreed to let them take it out of our ground and sell it, if they give us a share. That's not a tax.
top kill (Score:5, Funny)
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Filter error: Please use fewer 'junk' characters.
Lameness Filter is stupid. I have to add a bunch of regular characters to add "code characters" to a technical page? LAME.
Already in progress (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope everyone who chanted "drill baby drill!" during the last election cycle is willing to go down to the gulf coast and help with the cleanup. What a mess!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I hope everyone who chanted "drill baby drill!" during the last election cycle is willing to go down to the gulf coast and help with the cleanup.
That would mean they'd have to admit they were wrong.
No, what they're now doing is trying to already downplay the spill and its effects. See, it's just those hippie liberals that think spilling 10s of millions of gallons of oil a couple hundred miles from shore is bad for the environment. I mean, there's already millions of gallons of oil released over the entire
Re:Already in progress (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Everyone who knows how to deal with an oil well at this depth works for the oil companies. Other oil companies are assisting.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Still saying 5,000 barrels a day....a blatent LIE (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes MUCH better (Score:5, Funny)
We will solve this horrible situation by dumping shredded tires and golf balls into the ocean until the problem is solved!
"But perhaps...
I said until it was solved!
Re:Yes MUCH better (Score:5, Funny)
We will solve this horrible situation by dumping shredded tires and golf balls into the ocean until the problem is solved!
"But perhaps...
I said until it was solved!
I agree. What we should be doing is dumping a bunch of shredded oil executives in the hole until the oil stops flowing.
Re:Yes MUCH better (Score:4, Funny)
What if we use Torgo's Executive Powder?
Not a simple problem (Score:5, Interesting)
With the pressures and temperatures involved this is actually a very difficult problem to solve.
You can't just put a cork in the damaged pipes - the pressures are on the scale of being unbelivable. I believe it is around 150,000 PSI. Virtually nothing is going to withstand that sort of pressure without a lot of help.
Similarly, I keep seeing posts about how TransOcean should have "fixed" the blowout preventer when it was apparent that some seals were breaking down. Or when one of the redundant controllers failed. The problem is, it was a mile underwater. I do not believe anyone in the area had a means of working at that depth. Also, you can't just turn a valve under the blowout preventer - it is pretty much the bottom valve. So replacing this isn't an option - you are pretty much stuck with it unless you are prepared to do something drastic.
On land, you could (possibly) remove everything from the well head and accept the massive leak that would occur. I do not believe there are many land-based wells where the outflow pressure is anywhere near 150,000 PSI. So changing the blowout preventor is nasty, going to spew oil everywhere but is at least possible. At 5000+ feet of water and with the entire Gulf squeezing the oil out through that pipe changing the blowout preventer is simply not possible.
You folks do understand that the weight of the water above the well is what is causing this problem, right?
Another silly point people seem to be hung up on is that BP is working on this and the government isn't. Well, the government as a regulator has some involvement but about all they can do is make rules. There is no government oil well rescue service. The facilities do not exist within the US government, and probably for good reason - it doesn't happen all that much. The US could, I suppose, nationalize BP because of this. The problem with that idea is that a lot of other companies, oil and otherwise, would take this as an immediate indication that any US presence was no longer safe. The same thing happened in a lot of Central and South American countries upon nationalizing companies. The reason a lot of companies are in the US is because it is convenient to be close to a large market and a well educated labor force. Make noises like assets aren't safe from being nationalized and a lot of companies will take their assets elsewhere.
You folks also understand that this well is in international waters, right? The US can drill there or any other country. The US has attempted to claim 200 mile nautical boundaries before, but that is pretty much a joke today. The fact that the oil is there means it will be taken out by someone. We get to choose whether it is the US or someone else. I'd say Venezuela or Mexico are likely candidates if we abandon drilling in the Gulf. At this point I would say complete abandonment of US offshore drilling is likely, regardless of the economic consequences.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
With the pressures and temperatures involved this is actually a very difficult problem to solve.
Obviously. That's why BP has billions of dollars to hire as many of the world's best engineers as they need.
Also, you can't just turn a valve under the blowout preventer - it is pretty much the bottom valve. So replacing this isn't an option - you are pretty much stuck with it unless you are prepared to do something drastic.
You know what you can do when the bottom valve partially fails? You can stop whatever you're doing and wait for the engineers to figure something out. Maybe you add another safety system that makes up for what the BOP can no longer do. Maybe you abandon the well and make a not to not fuck up the BOP next time.
What you can't do is rush the remaining work, increasing the odds of something catastrophic h
Petroleum "engineering"... (Score:4, Interesting)
...is something of a misnomer. A lot of what passes for "engineering" is actually processes proven empirically, through years of experience, rather than grounded in solid theory. Petroleum engineering is taught based upon what has worked for 80+ years. And petroleum engineers sit in office cubicles, not the rigs. Rigs are supervised by workers who are very experienced at what they do, but really have no way to handle situations "outside the box" because there isn't a drilling manual to consult when things go wrong. Rig workers depend upon the initial calculations of the engineers, and their own experiences of successful drilling operations. I suspect things on the BP rig happened so quickly, and were so outside the norm of crew experience, that there wasn't much chance of recovery. Like they used to teach us in the oilfield, if the mud comes out of the hole, you've got a problem. If the mud disappears in the hole, just wait: you've got an even bigger problem.
And yes, IAAPE.
Summary (unsurprisingly) misstates TFA (Score:5, Informative)
The summary:
The article:
The kill line is part of the BOP. Nothing is being forced back down the riser (the bent, broken, patched, leaking mile long pipe now laying on the ocean floor).
Here's [blogspot.com] nice graphic showing what they seem to be trying to do.
The myth that they want to "collect the oil" (Score:5, Insightful)
"After attempting many options to allow the continued collection of crude oil, BP is finally considering a 'top kill' option that will kill the well."
Why are people coming up with this fantasy that BP wants to keep the hole viable, and wants to continue collecting or be able in the future to collect oil from this hole? Some people have developed the misconception that the only reason BP hasn't tried to plug the hole is that they want the oil to flow -- i.e. $$$$$$. It's total nonsense. Why?
A) the hole at depth and the equipment on top of it is damaged. It would be foolhardy and inconsistent with industry practice in a situation like this -- especially if instability in the hole due to melting hydrates is an issue at depth in the well -- to try to keep the hole operational. The plan was, and always will be, to stop the flow from the hole and then cement and abandon this hole once it is stopped. To produce this field they will have to drill new holes. That was and always will be the case, and BP said that was the case from the start;
B) they deployed various collection devices earlier because they are faster to deploy and do not depend on being certain about the state of the deeper borehole or the blowout preventer (BOP), both of which had to be thoroughly assessed before attempting techniques that would plug the well, especially when it was known that the BOP failed to perform the way it was supposed to and the hole was unstable. You don't fiddle with things like this when they are in an "unknown state". If they proceeded to try a "top kill" without that assessment they would run the risk of making things worse if a subsurface blowout occurred when pressures built up (i.e. the pipe failed below the sea bottom) or something failed in the BOP;
C) the oil coming out (even with upward-revised numbers) is a piddling amount compared to normal oil production rates in these types of wells when they are working properly, and the value of the oil is dwarfed by the costs of collecting it like this. Even if it were flowing at 10000 barrels a day and they collected it all, that's a "mere" $700000/day (10000 * ~$70 USD/barrel), which wouldn't cover half the daily costs of all the vessels and other gear they have on-site trying to fix the problem ($500k/day is routine for ONE rig when you add in all the materials, personnel, and support. Here are costs for just the rig contract alone [rigzone.com] -- the Semisub 4000'+ WD is the relevant one at $411k/day). Usually a rig or subsea production system in this setting will be producing from multiple holes simultaneously -- that's the only way it is economic. It would be economically stupid to try to produce from the well in its current state and with the setup they have on site. Get a clue, people!
Anyone who thinks the delay in resorting to a "top kill" solution is due to some kind of ulterior financial motive on the part of BP doesn't understand the technical challenges of doing any of this stuff at extreme depths or what the real economic situation is. They're resorting to a "top kill" now because they've finished the X-ray and gamma-ray studies of the damaged BOP that give them confidence the whole thing isn't going to blow up in their face when they try to plug it. The other techniques were worth trying in the interim. That's the whole explanation for what they've done. It's nothing nefarious.
Hold BP and other oil companies responsible for accidents. Remember that they are drilling at the ends of the Earth to satisfy *your* demand for this resource, so perhaps try to cut back a bit. Beef up safety regulations and inspections. Diligently work on alternative energy sources. But for god's green Earth's sake, leave the stupid conspiracy theories out of it. This "they haven't plugged it because they want the oil to flow so they can make money" one doesn't make a speck of technical or economic sense.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a fantastic comment, but it leaves something important out. I've also been very impressed with BPs actions after the accident, they've been trying everything anyone can think of and aren't skimping. Before the accident, it's another story.
They acted absolutely appallingly which allowed this to happen in the first place. Always putting speed above safety and a culture of shifting blame is the real cause of this. Watching the 60 minutes episode on this, it's absolutely disgusting how they acted. I hop
New solution (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How many blunders will the American gov't allow (Score:5, Insightful)
The question is, though, will the government be able to do any better? I say let a disinterested (disinterested in the collection of the oil, that is) tackle the problem. Get BP out of the equation completely (aside from paying for the 3rd-parties services).
Re:How many blunders will the American gov't allow (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you know WHY governmental regulation has been so bad in the last dozen or so years? It's because presidential administrations and Congress have NOT ALLOWED it to be good. They have purposefully put people in those political jobs knowing that they weren't going to regulate on purpose. The Bush administration did this more than anyone else. The Clinton administration was 2nd only to Bush, and Bush, Sr. was a close 3rd.
Do you think government can't get the experts it needs to professionally oversee these companies? Are you kidding? They could in a second. It's that the politicos don't want to put competent people without conflicts of interest in these positions. And we're paying the price for it now and he gulf cost will be paying the price for the next century or so....
Re:How many blunders will the American gov't allow (Score:4, Insightful)
In all fairness, we still have no idea what went wrong. I want BP to be dragged across the coals for this as much as the next guy, but the truth of the matter is that we still don't know why the BOP failed, given that it was designed and certified to protect against this very sort of disaster.
As others in this thread have mentioned, several aspects of this accident are unprecedented, and although the oil industry should be faulted for pushing too hard too quickly, this accident may simply have to serve as a learning experience, given that it's entirely possible that BP, Transocean, SLB, and Halliburton were all following the established safety protocols in conformance with past experience.
Re:How many blunders will the American gov't allow (Score:5, Informative)
Designed? Possibly. Certain safety standards that are mandatory for offshore drilling near other countries were not used on this rig. Certified? Not really. If someone did certify the safety precautions, they should lose whatever authority they have to certify anything. How many reports of safety precautions and features being overlooked, ignored, or just plain not done properly do we need before we can consider that this well was not being built with adequate safety precautions?
Yeah... you might want to read up on that some... it is quite clear to anyone who has read any of the reports out there that safety protocols and industry best practices were not followed.
Re:How many blunders will the American gov't allow (Score:4, Insightful)
If someone did certify the safety precautions, they should lose whatever authority they have to certify anything.
Certifying a process and making sure the process is performed are two very separate acts. I would investigate how much of each were to blame before going nuts.
From what I can tell, there are hugely involved and expensive processes in place to prevent this sort of disaster. Could the procedures be better? Probably. Were the procedures followed to the letter? I seriously doubt it.
Re:How many blunders will the American gov't allow (Score:5, Interesting)
From what I can tell, there are hugely involved and expensive processes in place to prevent this sort of disaster.
In the last three months of 2009, BP posted $3.45 billion in profits [bbc.co.uk]. That isn't gross income, that's PROFIT.
I think they can afford a few million to make sure their shit is set up correctly and safely.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Agreed. But when the process that was certified does meet the industry best practices (such as acoustic triggers), there is a problem with the certification.
Severe problems with the blowout preventer (Score:4, Insightful)
* There was a leak in the hydraulic system that provides power to the shear rams.
* The BOP had been modified in unexpected ways. The underwater control panel had been disconnected from the bore ram, and instead connected to a test ram. Drawings of the BOP provided by Transocean to BP do not correspond to the structure that is on the ocean bottom.
* The BOP's shear ram is not powerful enough to cut through joints in the well pipe. It is only effective on the body of a drill pipe. Since 10% of the drill pipe is threaded joints, the BOP is expected to succeed on only 90% of the drill pipe.
* Emergency control to the BOP may have failed in multiple ways. Cameron, the BOP's manufacturer, has stated that the explosion may have severed the communication link so the BOP never received the instruction to engage. Before the backup dead man's switch will engage, communications, power and hydraulic lines must all be severed; Cameron, has stated it is possible BOPs hydraulic lines were intact after the explosion, in which case the unit would not engage. Of the two control pods for the deadman switch, the one that has been inspected so far had a dead battery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill#Investigation [wikipedia.org]
Obviously in your case "as far as I'm aware" isn't very far at all. You have been arguing a false position for multiple posts without bothering to check your facts in even the most cursory way.
Re:How many blunders will the American gov't allow (Score:5, Interesting)
True, though why did we allow them a month of spilling millions of gallons of oil into the bay while attempting to save the well in a way that it could be re-used? Maybe I'm just old and jaded, but rescuing the bay should have been priority 1 over rescuing the financial investment.
Also, shrimp has been terrible for the past month. Thanks, BP!
Re:How many blunders will the American gov't allow (Score:4, Interesting)
From the early days of the disaster, BP has (I think) said they were going to permanently cap the well with "concrete" via the relief wells. They started drilling the first relief well very quickly - I was surprised how soon they had a drill rig out there, those things aren't stocked on the shelf at WalMart.
Re:How many blunders will the American gov't allow (Score:4, Informative)
The Development Driller III [rigzone.com] is the semi submersible that BP brought in to drill the first relief well. This was already under contract [rigzone.com] to BP - but it may have been in use (probably making the contract issues easier, but possibly requiring shutting down another drilling operation safely). Note this is not your "fathers" drilling rig. It was on site on April 27 [rigzone.com] - about five days after the rig collapsed on April 22. Unless it was close by and not in use (and, obviously, these things are not bought/leased to sit around idle), that's pretty good in my book. Note [rigzone.com] that, unsurprisingly, BP doesn't have a lot of suitable idle rigs in the Gulf (note that the Mad Dog [rigzone.com], for example, isn't suitable -- if nothing else because its rated water depth is inadequate).
Also, getting a less capable rig in two days earlier, for example, would make no sense if that rig would require four days more to drill the relief well (because, for example [deepwater.com], it used 93-foot-long stands of pipe rather than 135-foot-long stands of pipe or had longer setup time).
And, how exactly, would you get a semi-sub "anywhere in the world" in 24 hours? The Discoverer Enterprise [deepwater.com] (which I believe is being used to drill the second relief well) weighs more than 75 million pounds, is 835 feet long, and 418 feet tall. The only way I know to move ANYTHING halfway around the world in less than 24 hours is by air -- and I'm pretty sure this beast won't fit in a First Class seat, let alone a Coach seat. Come to think about it, even the Antonov An-225 [wikipedia.org] comes up a bit short (by about 74.5 million pounds in weight capacity, about 414 feet in height, and at least 560 feet in length). Oh, and since there would be insufficient time to deliver it from land via traditional oceangoing tugs and the An-225 can't land in the ocean (well, at least not more than once), one would have to do an airdrop. Building the world's largest (to put it mildly) parachute to set this the Discoverer Enterprise down at the right place would be challenging to say the least. And, I don't know of any existing rockets that could be successfully used to slow its descent.
And this is why we'll never fix the system. (Score:5, Insightful)
You have no idea what you're talking about.
First, it's not a bay. It's the Gulf of Mexico.
Second, no attempt was made to "save the well". If you knew anything about drilling (or even if you'd even of bothered to read the freaking summary) you'd know that the reason drastic measures like injecting a plug into the well have not been tried is that there's a very real possibility this might do further damage to the well and make the spill significantly worse, possibly to the point of not being able to stop the leak at all. Every step of this process (from remotely activating the blowout preventer, placing the "dome" on top of the break, and syphoning off the oil as it comes up) has been done with meticulous care specifically to prevent making the situation worse, as we still don't even know why it happened!
Do you know why we don't have "disinterested" parties regulating this industry or overseeing the cleanup? Because they're people like you, who don't know what the hell they're talking about but are perfectly happy to act like the solutions are obvious and simple.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Except that's just the latest theory based on anecdotal evidence. It may very well be that it's the truth, but we won't know if it is until a proper investigation is done.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If they actually proceeded knowingly with a broken BOP I don't think additional regulation would have prevented this. That's already criminal.
It's only criminal if they get caught and end up being punished for it. Good regulations generally try to prevent bad things from happening rather than simply punishing the responsible parties after the fact. The evidence is mounting that BP knew damned well the risks they were taking and pushed Trans Ocean to take risks they were uncomfortable with. An onboard inspector could have prevented that.
These extra costs would be reflected in the prices we pay at the pump...
Honestly, the US economy would benefit greatly from consistently seeing more of these costs in the prices pai
Re:How many blunders will the American gov't allow (Score:5, Informative)
In all fairness, we still have no idea what went wrong. I want BP to be dragged across the coals for this as much as the next guy, but the truth of the matter is that we still don't know why the BOP failed, given that it was designed and certified to protect against this very sort of disaster.
There's at least one survivor who claims that the BOP was punctured weeks before the blast [timesonline.co.uk], but that they were pressured in continuing operations regardless because they were running behind schedule and "time is money".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
they were pressured in continuing operations regardless because they were running behind schedule and "time is money".
In another post, someone mentioned that BP is making about a billion dollars per month in profit.
Somehow I doubt this one well would have made a big difference in their overall take. And truth be told, they lost the whole thing, and took a big hit to their rep as well.
Funny thing about greed, it's when you actually lose sight of the bottom line.
Re:How many blunders will the American gov't allow (Score:5, Informative)
Uh, yes we do. The BOP failed because the gasket that was in it sheared off and came back up the pipe. Despite this, BP executives told them to push on and not worry about it because they were already behind.
"...during a test, they closed the gasket. But while it was shut tight, a crewman on deck accidentally nudged a joystick, applying hundreds of thousands of pounds of force, and moving 15 feet of drill pipe through the closed blowout preventer. Later, a man monitoring drilling fluid rising to the top made a troubling find.
"He discovered chunks of rubber in the drilling fluid. He thought it was important enough to gather this double handful of chunks of rubber and bring them into the driller shack. I recall asking the supervisor if this was out of the ordinary. And he says, 'Oh, it's no big deal.' And I thought, 'How can it be not a big deal? There's chunks of our seal is now missing,'"
And there you have it. They were being pushed too hard, and made huge mistakes. BP needs to pay dearly for this, maybe even be put out of business completely, so that all the other companies can witness what happens to them if they do the same thing.
Let them factor that in to their actuarial tables..a big fat "closed for business" if a mistake like this takes place.
Here you go: (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/16/60minutes/main6490197.shtml?tag=contentMain;cbsCarousel [cbsnews.com]
Re:Here you go: (Score:5, Interesting)
The lengths you go to, to defend BP, are astounding. Are you a stakeholder in the corporation? The article does not say they successfully tested the preventer, it says they claimed to have tested it. Funny you question the worker's word, but not BPs. They also skipped plans to acoustically check the concrete of the plug. The list of criminally negligent activities by BP continues to mount. Surviving rig workers are claiming they were held incommunicado for forty hours and forced to sign false testimony. The Coast Guard, at the behest of BP, has been removing reporters from affected beaches.
There is a cap of $75 million on damages in cases like this. But that does not apply in cases of criminal negligence. BP is attempting to cover up their negligence, I wonder why? But what really gets my goat is all the people who bitch and moan about 'personal responsibility' when it comes to things like health care and social programs, but excuse the most egregious lack of personal responsibility by corporate executives. Why do the rich and powerful get a different set of standards? Its not as though they are going to thank you for defending them by letting you into their little sociopath's club.
Re:Here you go: (Score:4, Interesting)
When have I defended BP? When everything comes out in the end we'll (hopefully) know WHY this happened and then we can find out who (if anyone) was responsible for the bad decisions being made. The point I was making is that people are taking evidence of misbehavior by Transocean and using it as an argument that BP should be punished. We don't even know for sure how this accident happened. Now is not the time for figuring out how exactly we want to crucify those involved, now is the time to concentrate on fixing the damn leak and then once everything is calmed down we can figure out what went wrong and who gets the bill.
Yeah I wouldn't be surprised to find out BP execs put pressure on Transocean, but at the end of the day it wasn't BP's rig. Even as a government contractor, I have a responsibility to not do something dangerous/illegal if my customer (the Federal Freaking Government) tells me to do it. Even blaming BP for pushing the limits does not absolve Transocean of primary responsibility.
Are you a stakeholder in the corporation?
Thankfully, no. I have family in the old field, but last I checked they worked for BP's competitors.
It's not BP's word they tested the preventer, it's Transocean's! THIS IS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT! People can't even keep the companies involved in this disaster straight and yet they think they're qualified to decide what needs to be done to whom!
When did I say I didn't believe the employee's story as to what happened? I *DO* believe him, but that doesn't mean what happened had any bearing on the accident because WE STILL DON'T KNOW WHY THE ACCIDENT HAPPENED!
I'm not willing to believe EITHER a BP exec's word (who is looking out for his bottom line) or the word of a Transocean employee as to what happened at this point in time. I will believe the word of some independent, third party investigative body as to why the accident happened when a thorough and open examination of the evidence has been conducted. Until such a time finger pointing and witch hunts are POINTLESS.
And yet people like you are trying to heap blame on BP and ignore the fact that Transocean was in charge of the drilling! Who exactly is trying to excuse corporations of responsibility here?
Re:Here you go: (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh. My. God. You just can't stop, can you? Now it's Transocean's fault, not BPs. Transocean said to check the concrete, BP said "No way, that'll take too long!"
BP board members also sit on the board of the company that produces the more toxic, less effective dispersant that was used.
BP executives were on the rig and countermanding Transocean's directives. Not that Transocean is off the hook, they cut corners too. There is MORE than enough blame to go around, but that is NOT what you were doing. It looks to me like you were trying to absolve BP of all responsibility. Stakeholder much?
All the public wants is some accountability. BP is going to pay, Transocean is going to pay, Halliburton is going to pay (didn't know they were in on this little fiasco?) But the real question is, will the corporate executives who made the criminally negligent decisions be held accountable? I'm sure you want that as much as the rest of us, right? You want those who are responsible to be held accountable, right?
Everything I've read points to BP overriding Transocean's safety concerns. And BP stalling, and covering up, and hiding evidence their plans time to work and to give the oil time to disperse. It's much harder to find out who was at fault after months have passed.
We have another entity to blame as well here, namely the Federal Government and specifically Obama. He demonstrated his ability to move quickly and decisively in the face of natural disaster in Haiti. Yet he has been strangely absent when he hasn't been openly kowtowing to Big Oil. He has more than likely let BP off the with his delays and inaction. By the time any real investigation takes place, the evidence will be gone. And WE will be stuck with the bill, not whoever was at fault.
Re:How many blunders will the American gov't allow (Score:5, Informative)
According to this 60 minutes report [cbsnews.com], the BOP was possibly damaged weeks before the incident but not fixed and one of the two control modules of the BOP wasn't functioning properly but this condition was not investigated fully and corrected.
Also Transocean wanted to finish the well by inserting 3 concrete plugs with finishing mud in between them to close off the pipe. BP didn't want the mud. This would sped up the next phase of production but it removed some of the effectiveness of the plugs to seal the pipe. BP got it's way.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, once again the design wasn't really that bad. It was the humans running the equipment that screwed it up. Hearing stuff like this, especially when you bring up rubber seals, reminds me of the Challenger disaster.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How many blunders will the American gov't allow (Score:5, Informative)
Related link [harpers.org] from Harpers.org April 2009:
On Friday, the New York Times reported that the federal Minerals Management Service (MMS) repeatedly violated environmental requirements when approving oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, ignoring and overruling scientists who noted the risk of potentially catastrophic spills. In the April 2009 issue of Harper’s Magazine, Bryant Urstadt discussed the “culture of ethical failure” at the MMS and its wasteful Royalty-in-Kind program.
It's not very long (a few pages), but a shocking read.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is *not* easy to gather up the oil in the water and it is definitely *not* easy to just stick a cap in the tube.
Also, you speak of waste (and other people speak of BP being greedy and wanting solutions that gather the oil rather than stop it)...I saw evidence somewhere that the total amount of oil expected to spill was on the order of magnitude of 7.5 minutes worth of the worlds consumption. Believe me, this is not significant waste a
Not on my dime (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe the government should step in and put and end to this situation themselves.
So long as they send the bill to BP and not the taxpayers, I'm for it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe the government should step in and put and end to this situation themselves.
So long as they send the bill to BP and not the taxpayers, I'm for it.
I would think that at this point (and before..) the cost to taxpayers is greater if the oil continues to spill than if your government manages to do something about it. Hell, ask EU countries to fix it for you, I'm willing to pay my fractional piece of the cost.
Although I find it doubtful that there's any suitable equipment nearby. This costs talk is just pissing me off. Punish BP all you want afterwards, but please just fix the situation.
[/rant] Sorry about that.
$75 million damages cap (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless we prove they were criminally negligent, the most BP will pay is $75 million. Those are the laws we passed when we opened the Gulf up to drilling. Because, you know, oil companies make so little profit off of all this, there's no way they could afford to pay for their mistakes. And this is America, land of the free! We don't hold corporations accountable for their mistakes here, that would be infringing on their FREEDOMS!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You don't need a manned mini sub to handle satchel charges - the ROVs could do it just fine. While I realize the male Geek driven drive to Just Blow Things Up is quite strong, it doesn't always work that way. Engineering takes time and reality is quite often quirky, bitchy and hard.
Re:How many blunders will the American gov't allow (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems to me that the last thing that one would want to do in this case is blow up the BOP - it's routing, and apparently choking off much of, the flow. If a failed explosive attempt were to destroy/disconnect the BOP yet not seal the well I think we would be looking back at the current flow nostalgically. Given the apparent lack of experience using explosives to deal with a situation like this it seems likely too risky to attempt -- given that the relief wells are eventually expected to solve the problem.
Re:How many blunders will the American gov't allow (Score:5, Funny)
By passing a bill outlawing oil spills, naturally.
Re:How many blunders will the American gov't allow (Score:5, Insightful)
On what basis do you claim that the dispersant has been effective in reducing the impact? I have to say I trust the judgment of the EPA on that more than I trust J. Random Slashdotter or BP, but I'm willing to look at expert opinion if you can cite some.
When corporate criminals are fouling the planet, I'm all for government agencies interfering with them.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Obama isn't being reamed on this because of ideology. It's the Republican ideology of "Drill Baby Drill!" and it's the Democrats who have been against off-shore drilling. This disaster could only have helped Obama.
Re:How many blunders will the American gov't allow (Score:4, Informative)
Obama is getting a pass because the other side uses "Drill, Baby, Drill" to taunt him for his lack of enthusiasm for domestic oil production. His position on offshore drilling was pretty moderate: allow it after some environmental impact studies. But that wasn't enough for the right. This makes it a little awkward for them now, and I think they'd rather pretend the whole thing has gone away.
And, yes, Fox News was pushing the "this is Obama's Katrina" meme for a while.
Re:How many blunders will the American gov't allow (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama hasn't "taken charge" because he knows that BP is going to catch the blame when none of these other "fixes" work. That's smart. Contrast this with the actual Katrina: there were known things that could have been done to relieve the disaster situation in New Orleans, that were actually the responsibility of the Federal government to do, that did not get done. Bush actually failed to act when there was work to be done, whereas there is not much here for Obama to do.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:to cap the spill. (Score:5, Insightful)
They do, it's called an uncontained oil leak.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The leak is not uncontained. The BOP and (partially-destroyed) riser stack are providing resistance against the flow of oil. The concern is that this proposed solution could cause enough pressure to build up inside the BOP that the entire apparatus fails completely, which could then increase the flow of oil by at least an order of magnitude.
Re:Environmentalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Accept car accidents don't kill of entire ecosystems.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Accept car accidents don't kill of entire ecosystems.
The scale changes, the ethics remain unchanged.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No true. The ethics in dealing accidental bumping someone mail box and leaving a scuff mark is not the same as knowingly driving an unsafe vehicle and then slamming into a group of kids.
Re:Environmentalism (Score:5, Funny)
Accept car accidents don't kill of entire ecosystems.
OK, I accept.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Environmentalism (Score:4, Insightful)
Well that's not the standard of care they're supposed to follow.
Re:Environmentalism (Score:5, Informative)
if we get into a car accident, we're quick to shrug it off as just that: an accident. Nobody's fault. We pick up the pieces and move on.
I would just like to say that, as a former mechanic, I've been blamed for accidents caused by a completely unrelated item I worked on.
"You worked on my car, and I got in an accident three days later! It's your fault!"
"Sir, I replaced your air filter and both O2 sensors."
"And now my car didn't stop in time!"
"Sir, what happend exactly"
"I was texting my wife, and next thing I knew I had run into someone! I tried to stop but I couldn't!"
(What I wanted to say): "Sir, life isn't like Mechwarrior, you can't stop instantly."
(What I actually said): "Sir, why were you texting and driving?"
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
::shrug:: my manager thought it was funny :p
For those who are curious, the guy actually tried to take me to court...and the case was thrown out almost instantly, due to there being no correlation between chaging his air filter and O2 sensors with his brakes "not working".
The fact that we never even took the tires off his car, and the fact that his car stopped fine even after the accident occured, was all the judge needed to hear.
Re:Environmentalism (Score:4, Insightful)
It sure isn't fair to the fishermen who may very well be watching their livelihoods disappear. The real disaster here might not even be the beaches, but the salt marshes.
BP should be made to pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay until every last solitary nickel of economic and physical damage is fixed, even if it takes fifty years and a trillion dollars. That's the risk side of the equation, my friend.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, interesting. So because they want cheap gas, it's okay for BP to wipe out their livelihood, right? I mean, what's the point of your post other than to be a rather shameless immoral apologetic for ecological destruction.
I'm coming into your yard next week to crap on your lawn. Don't bother to thank me, just give me $50.
Re:Environmentalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Accidents are rarely accidents, someone fucked up. I sure blame the person who backed into my last car. Guess what she did not even come close to risking death zones in the gulf. Her insurance paid the for everything and got me a rental while my car was fixed. That is all we ask here, they fix their mess. If that means they go out of business collecting every last drop of that oil, too fucking bad for them.
These assholes cut corners, you can read all about on the news sites. The simple fact is they did this to make a quick buck and now thousands of folks are screwed, fishermen with no fish to sell, property owners with ocean front property ruined, the list goes on and on.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Accidents are rarely accidents, someone fucked up.
How exactly does someone fucking up preclude it from being an accident? In fact, so far as I know, someone fucking up is pretty much inherent to the term, 'accident.' It's very rare that someone fucks up intentionally. It's very rare that accidents just spontaneously happen without someone dropping the ball somewhere along the way. To use a car analogy, even if a tire blowout causes an accident, that often is due
BP did screw up intentionally (Score:5, Insightful)
Link [nola.com]
Criminal Negligence.
Re:Environmentalism (Score:5, Insightful)
But when it's a large corporation, we somehow think they should be held to a higher standard?
Because the large corporation is posting billions of dollars in profits because of their drilling?
Because some people are implying that BP engaged in several salvage operations before looking to actually lose the well?
Because a car accident puts the occupants of your vehicle and the other vehicle at risk, not entire countries, their economies and endangered animals in the surrounding environment?
Because (as the article noted) we're about to let Shell start drilling in the Arctic where the seas are rougher and the location more remote to create delays in response times?
I think at this point we could reopen the debate on the effects of a nuclear plant failing compared to an oil line failing. And how much easier and effective it is to drop a cofferdam on a nuclear core than a well miles below the surface of water.
Your argument of it being a one time thing that is unprecedented does not sit well with me when we look to expand on the number of wells we have. Precedent has now been set. Either tighten regulations so that your point (a) doesn't happen and point (b) is actually true. Care to prove point (c)?
When bad things go wrong to corporations making lots and lots of money, then they should be held accountable, girlintraining. Why you rush to BP and the oil industry's rescue, I'll never know.
Re:Environmentalism (Score:5, Insightful)
> But when it's a large corporation, we somehow think they should be held to a higher standard? No, I don't think they should.
Why the hell SHOULDN'T they be held to a higher standard? They are a huge corporation that has a huge amount of money therefore they are hold a huge amount of power. They should be at a MUCH higher standard. As an individual I have the power and money that I could probably ruin the environment for my neighborhood... in this case BP holds the money, power, and equipment to ruin an entire coastline.
This statement is fairly typical of American thinking right now: let corporations have all the benefits and none of the responsibilities. It's the individuals that had nothing to do with the bad decisions and cut corners that are paying in our current corporate dominated culture and government.
Re:Environmentalism (Score:4, Insightful)
Your comment juxtaposes itself. Many people HAVE acknowledged that this was an engineering failure. And yes, mistakes are eventually made. Thats why we hold THAT to the same standard as a car accident. Accidents happen, they are sometimes preventable, but they will always happen.
Its the aftermath we're upset about. It's how BP is trying to fix the problem: They are trying to recover as much of the oil as possible, or try to recover as much of the well as possible. They are not viewing it from the point of ecological concern, they are trying to stave off their losses. That's what pisses most of us off.
You accidentally rear end someone. You can get out, offer to pay it, give them your information, or you can back up, speed off, and do your best never to see them again. The latter is obviously going to be less expensive for you, and thats kind of what BP is doing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Does your car typically threaten all the native creatures for miles around and the livelihoods of many people after it is involved in an accident?
Re:Environmentalism (Score:4, Informative)
There are multiple accounts saying that BP cut corners when it came to oil rig safety. If this is the case then they need to be held criminally as well as financially accountable for their "accident". If this bankrupts them, so be it.
http://www.thecablevine.com/forum/showthread.php?2434-Eyewitness-Says-BP-Cut [thecablevine.com]...
http://www.blacklistednews.com/?news_id=8748 [blacklistednews.com]
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/5/17/867129/-60-Minutes:-Despite-damaged-blowout-preventer,-BP-cut-corners-immediately-before-explosion [dailykos.com]
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/30/evening-buzz-did-bp-cut-safety-corners-before-oil-rig-blew-up/ [cnn.com]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/12/bp-whistleblower-claimed_n_573839.html [huffingtonpost.com]
Re:Environmentalism (Score:4, Informative)
All of your links are to a single person, Mike Mason, an electrical engineer, making claims about equipment he doesn't service.
Now, where's my +5, Informative? Or will this be a -1, Troll for not immediately jumping to hysterics and saying we should burn BP to the ground as profiteering gluttons -- which is what's happened to all my other posts so far.
Umm...no... (Score:4, Insightful)
There is more than one Mike in them there links.
Mike Mason [huffingtonpost.com], the guy in the photo there and Mike Williams [cbsnews.com], the guy in the CBS' 60 Minutes". [cbsnews.com] The "electrical engineer".
BTW, those two Mikes talk about different cases of negligence by BP.
Also, the first link in the GPP is an analysis report by another guy called Glenn Stehle, [thecablevine.com] an engineer with "extensive experience in drilling operations".
Then there is Bob Bea, a professor of engineering at the University of California, who got the job to analyze the Deepwater Horizon accident.
That is like.. four guys and a couple of cases of "cutting corners when it came to oil rig safety" already.
Then there are couple of more guys in that second link. [blacklistednews.com]
So like... Do I now get my +5 Informative or a +5 Insightful?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Here is another one for you highlighting BPs poor safety record, but you will probably handwave this away too.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/business/09bp.html?ref=us [nytimes.com]
Accident vs. Negligence (Score:5, Informative)
I was watching a documentary on this Sunday. They interviewed one of the rig survivors. According to the survivor, pieces of the blowout prevention device had come up the pipe weeks before. They didn't bother to fix the BOP. When one of the controllers on the BOP failed, again, weeks before the accident, they didn't bother to fix the BOP. When Transocean wanted to put 3 cement plugs in the well, sandwiching the heavy drilling fluid, the BP managers said "No, use 2 plugs," so that it would take BP less time to unseal the well when they hooked up the pumping rig. According to the survivor, it was when they took the pressure off the well, with only two plugs, that the plugs failed.
This is people putting money before safety. This isn't an "accident". I would consider an earthquake ripping the BOP off the well an accident. I would consider a jet crashing on the rig and somehow managing to destroy the BOP an accident. This was people cutting corners and getting caught.
(Note well: This assumes the survivor was telling the truth.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Does not matter one bit if their risk assessment was wrong. Maybe I like to go out drinking and driving because my risk assessment says I will never hit a church van full of preschoolers, but when I do you had better bet I will be in deep shit.
You wait your couple years and see, BP will only pay but a tiny portion of these costs.
Are you so young you do not remember Exxon Valdez? Exxon paid not even pennies on the dollar for that one.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But when it's a large corporation, we somehow think they should be held to a higher standard?
No, just the safety standards they're supposed to be held to, which they felt they should not be required to have [go.com]. If you fight tooth and nail against requiring safeguards, I will blame you when your lack of those safeguards cause globally catastrophic problems.
Re:Corporatism (Score:3, Interesting)
As someone else pointed out above, it seems the well was damaged weeks before the explosion - and it was the explosion safety equipment that was damaged. Despite this, TransOcean (working for BP), decided to carry on with the drilling.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7129225.ece [timesonline.co.uk]
If this is true, then BP is to blame for not watching over TransOcean sufficiently but TransOcean should be charged with criminal misconduct or whatever the equivalent legal term would be.
The reason:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
since when did "dump a bunch of shit on it and hope that plugs it up" become a formal strategy?
About a week ago, if I recall correctly.
Before that, it was "let's slip a tube down in the middle of the hole so we can keep sucking some of the oil out of it, while we fill a couple of tankers and stall for time."
Before that, it was "let's put a funnel on top of it so we can keep sucking the oil out of it."
The "top kill" only became an option after all other options that allowed them to continue extracting at least a small portion of the oil from the well were utterly exhausted.
And, remember, the "top kill
Re:Top Kill (Score:4, Insightful)