10 Things You Need (But Don’t Want) To Know About the BP Oil Spill

ONEBADMK8

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2004
Messages
7,372
Reaction score
18
Location
Southern New Jersey.
The Deepwater Horizon disaster reminds us what can happen — and will continue to happen — when corporate malfeasance and neglect meet governmental regulatory failure.

The corporate media is tracking the disaster with front-page articles and nightly news headlines every day (if it bleeds, or spills, it leads!), but the under-reported aspects to this nightmarish tale paint the most chilling picture of the actors and actions behind the catastrophe. In no particular order, here are 10 things about the BP spill you may not know and may not want to know — but you should.

1. Oil rig owner has made $270 million off the oil leak

Transocean Ltd., the owner of the Deepwater Horizon rig leased by BP, has been flying under the radar in the mainstream blame game. The world’s largest offshore drilling contractor, the company is conveniently headquartered in corporate-friendly Switzerland, and it’s no stranger to oil disasters. In 1979, an oil well it was drilling in the very same Gulf of Mexico ignited, sending the drill platform into the sea and causing one of the largest oil spills by the time it was capped… nine months later.

This experience undoubtedly influenced Transocean’s decision to insure the Deepwater Horizon rig for about twice what it was worth. In a conference call to analysts earlier this month, Transocean reported making a $270 million profit from insurance payouts after the disaster. It’s not hard to bet on failure when you know it’s somewhat assured.

2. BP has a terrible safety record

BP has a long record of oil-related disasters in the United States. In 2005, BP’s Texas City refinery exploded, killing 15 workers and injuring another 170. The next year, one of its Alaska pipelines leaked 200,000 gallons of crude oil. According to Public Citizen, BP has paid $550 million in fines. BP seems to particularly enjoy violating the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, and has paid the two largest fines in the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s history. (Is it any surprise that BP played a central, though greatly under-reported, role in the failure to contain the Exxon-Valdez spill years earlier?)

With Deepwater Horizon, BP didn’t break its dismal trend. In addition to choosing a cheaper — and less safe — casing to outfit the well that eventually burst, the company chose not to equip Deepwater Horizon with an acoustic trigger, a last-resort option that could have shut down the well even if it was damaged badly, and which is required in most developed countries that allow offshore drilling. In fact, BP employs these devices in its rigs located near England, but because the United States recommends rather than requires them, BP had no incentive to buy one — even though they only cost $500,000.

SeizeBP.org estimates that BP makes $500,000 in under eight minutes.

3. Oil spills are just a cost of doing business for BP

According to the Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies, approximately $1.6 billion in annual economic activity and services are at risk as a result of the Deepwater Horizon disaster. Compare this number — which doesn’t include the immeasurable environmental damages — to the current cap on BP’s liability for economic damages like lost wages and tourist dollars, which is $75 million. And compare that further to the first-quarter profits BP posted just one week after the explosion: $6 billion.

BP’s chief executive, Tony Hayward, has solemnly promised that the company will cover more than the required $75 million. On May 10, BP announced it had already spent $350 million. How fantastically generous of a company valued at $152.6 billion, and which makes $93 million each day.

The reality of the matter is that BP will not be deterred by the liability cap and pity payments doled out to a handful of victims of this disaster because they pale in comparison to its ghastly profits. Indeed, oil spills are just a cost of doing business for BP.

This is especially evident in a recent Citigroup analyst report prepared for BP investors: “Reaction to the Gulf of Mexico oil leak is a buying opportunity.”

4. The Interior Department was at best, neglectful, and at worst, complicit

It’s no surprise BP is always looking out for its bottom line — but it’s at least slightly more surprising that the Interior Department, the executive department charged with regulating the oil industry, has done such a shoddy job of preventing this from happening.

Ten years ago, there were already warnings that the backup systems on oil rigs that failed on Deepwater Horizon would be a problem. The Interior Department issued a “safety alert” but then left it up to oil companies to decide what kind of backup system to use. And in 2007, a government regulator from the same department downplayed the chances and impact of a spill like the one that occurred last month: “lowouts are rare events and of short duration, potential impact to marine water quality are not expected to be significant.”

The Interior Department’s Louisiana branch may have been particularly confused because it appears it was closely fraternizing with the oil industry. The Minerals Management Service, the agency within the department that oversees offshore drilling, routinely accepted gifts from oil companies and even considered itself a part of the oil industry, rather than part of a governmental regulatory agency. Flying on oil executives’ private planes was not rare for MMS inspectors in Louisiana, a federal report released Tuesday says. “Skeet-shooting contests, hunting and fishing trips, golf tournaments, crawfish boils, and Christmas parties” were also common.

Is it any wonder that Deepwater Horizon was given a regulatory exclusion by MMS?

It gets worse. Since April 20, when the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded, the Interior Department has approved 27 new permits for offshore drilling sites. Here’s the kicker: Two of these permits are for BP.

But it gets better still: 26 of the 27 new drilling sites have been granted regulatory exemptions, including those issued to BP.

5. Clean-up prospects are dismal

The media makes a lot of noise about all the different methods BP is using to clean up the oil spill. Massive steel containment domes were popular a few weeks ago. Now everyone is touting the “top kill” method, which involves injecting heavy drilling fluids into the damaged well.

But here’s the reality. Even if BP eventually finds a method that works, experts say the best cleanup scenario is to recover 20 percent of the spilled oil. And let’s be realistic: only 8 percent of the crude oil deposited in the ocean and coastlines off Alaska was recovered in the Exxon-Valdez cleanup.

Millions of gallons of oil will remain in the ocean, ravaging the underwater ecosystem, and 100 miles of Louisiana coastline will never be the same.

6. BP has no real cleanup plan

Perhaps because it knows the possibility of remedying the situation is practically impossible, BP has made publicly available its laughable “Oil Spill Response Plan” which is, in fact, no plan at all.

Most emblematic of this farcical plan, BP mentions protecting Arctic wildlife like sea lions, otters and walruses (perhaps executives simply lifted the language from Exxon’s plan for its oil spill off the coast of Alaska?). The plan does not include any disease-preventing measures, oceanic or meteorological data, and is comprised mostly of phone numbers and blank forms. Most importantly, it includes no directions for how to deal with a deep-water explosion such as the one that took place last month.

The whole thing totals 600 pages — a waste of paper that only adds insult to the environmental injury BP is inflicting upon the world with Deepwater Horizon.

7. BP is sequestering survivors and taking away their right to sue

With each hour, the economic damage caused by Deepwater Horizon continues to grow. And BP knows this.

So while it outwardly is putting on a nice face, even pledging $500 million to assess the impacts of the spill, it has all the while been trying to ensure that it won’t be held liable for those same impacts.

Just after the Deepwater explosion, surviving employees were held in solitary confinement, while BP flacks made them waive their rights to sue. BP then did the same with fishermen it contracted to help clean up the spill though the company now says that was nothing more than a legal mix-up.

If there’s anything to learn from this disaster, it’s that companies like BP don’t make mistakes at the expense of others. They are exceedingly deliberate.

8. BP bets on risk to employees to save money — and doesn’t care if they get sick

When BP unleashed its “Beyond Petroleum” re-branding/greenwashing campaign, the snazzy ads featured smiley oil rig workers. But the truth of the matter is that BP consistently and knowingly puts its employees at risk.

An internal BP document shows that just before the prior fatal disaster — the 2005 Texas City explosion that killed 15 workers and injured 170 — when BP had to choose between cost-savings and greater safety, it went with its bottom line.

A BP Risk Management memo showed that although steel trailers would be safer in the case of an explosion, the company went with less expensive options that offered protection but were not “blast resistant.” In the Texas City blast, all of the fatalities and most of the injuries occurred in or around these trailers.

Although BP has responded to this memo by saying the company culture has changed since Texas City, 11 people died on the Deepwater Horizon when it blew up. Perhaps a similar memo went out regarding safety and cost-cutting measures?

Reports this week stated that fishermen hired by BP for oil cleanup weren’t provided protective equipment and have now fallen ill. Hopefully they didn’t sign waivers.

9. Environmental damage could even include a climatological catastrophe

It’s hard to know where to start discussing the environmental damage caused by Deepwater Horizon. Each day will give us a clearer picture of the short-term ecological destruction, but environmental experts believe the damage to the Gulf of Mexico will be long-term.

In the short-term, environmentalists are up in arms about the dispersants being used to clean up the oil slick in the Gulf. Apparently, the types BP is using aren’t all that effective in dispersing oil, and are pretty high in toxicity to marine fauna such as fish and shrimp. The fear is that what BP may be using to clean up the mess could, in the long-term, make it worse.

On the longer-term side of things, there are signs that this largest oil drilling catastrophe could also become the worst natural gas and climate disaster. The explosion has released tremendous amounts of methane from deep in the ocean, and research shows that methane, when mixed with air, is the most powerful (read: terrible) greenhouse gas — 26 times worse than carbon-dioxide.

Our warming planet just got a lot hotter.

10. No one knows what to do and it will happen again

The very worst part about the Deepwater Horizon calamity is that nobody knows what to do. We don’t know how bad it really is because we can’t measure what’s going on. We don’t know how to stop it — and once we do, we won’t know how to clean it up.

BP is at the helm of the recovery process, but given its corporate track record, its efforts will only go so far — it has a board of directors and shareholders to answer to, after all. The U.S. government, the only other entity that could take over is currently content to let BP hack away at the problem. Why? Because it probably has no idea what to do either.

Here’s the reality of the matter — for as long as offshore drilling is legal, oil spills will happen. Coastlines will be decimated, oceans destroyed, economies ruined, lives lost. Oil companies have little to no incentive to prevent such disasters from happening, and they use their money to buy government regulators’ integrity.

Deepwater Horizon is not an anomaly — it’s the norm.
 
The Deepwater Horizon disaster reminds us what can happen — and will continue to happen — when corporate malfeasance and neglect meet governmental regulatory failure......

Link?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I typed in the headline and found it here. But there seem to be other sites with it as well. Not sure which one ONEBADMK8 got it from.
 
One should note that they are also calling this the worst spill in US history officially now, saying that it has overshadowed the Exxon Valdez, and that the amounts of oil being released per day according to BP's official disclosures are far less than the actual amounts. Something to the effect of the actual amounts being 4 to 10 times the amount BP stated. I believe I heard just a little while ago on public radio that officially they are calling it 19,000 barrels an day instead of the 5,000 BP stated.
 

It's a cute idea, and it might work in a limited way.
But the spill is too large, that much hay being consumed would devastate the livestock industry. And the other problem is that most of the oil is under the surface.

But it's a nice idea, it might work along the coast line, and the idea of burning the hay for fuel after is a good way to lessen the environmental impact as well.
 
It's a cute idea, and it might work in a limited way.
But the spill is too large, that much hay being consumed would devastate the livestock industry. And the other problem is that most of the oil is under the surface.

But it's a nice idea, it might work along the coast line, and the idea of burning the hay for fuel after is a good way to lessen the environmental impact as well.

indeed indeed, it's not a global solution but yet a blue-collar guy was able to come up with this whereas the multibillion dollar company based in Switzerland (which country is known for brilliance) can't do something as simple.


and didn't Kevin Cosner come up with an idea based on the Waterworld seperation of toxins from water?
 
Some professor dude was talking about that on the news, earlier. ^^^^

He basically said that the spillage is just too big for something like that to be effective.
 
I don't understand why they can't put a larger pipe over the top of the smaller one. Shove the larger one into the soil to seal it. Then find a way to capture it at or near the surface. I'm not sure how the oil drilling works, but why does it keep coming out like it's under pressure? Is the ocean floor pushing on a cavern of oil and will eventually collapse? How far from the ocean floor is that leak?
 
I don't understand why they can't put a larger pipe over the top of the smaller one. Shove the larger one into the soil to seal it. Then find a way to capture it at or near the surface. I'm not sure how the oil drilling works, but why does it keep coming out like it's under pressure? Is the ocean floor pushing on a cavern of oil and will eventually collapse? How far from the ocean floor is that leak?

The leak is 5000 feet beneath the surface of the ocean, or nearly 1 mile.

Water pressure is 0.4333 lbs per square inch per foot of depth..... so yeah, lot's of pressure.

The oil doesn't exist in a cavern per say.... it is slightly more complicated than that. Plus, the oil exists at FAR higher pressures than the seawater, and there is pressurized deposits of methane, CO2, natural gas, and other such things all around it in little pockets, so capping it once one has opened up a well takes quite a lot.

The logistics involved in producing and placing sections of pipe that deep and a footing to hold it steady, then welding it all together, blah blah blah... yeah, there is a reason it costs so much money to set up these deep water rigs.
 
The leak is 5000 feet beneath the surface of the ocean, or nearly 1 mile.

Water pressure is 0.4333 lbs per square inch per foot of depth..... so yeah, lot's of pressure.

The oil doesn't exist in a cavern per say.... it is slightly more complicated than that. Plus, the oil exists at FAR higher pressures than the seawater, and there is pressurized deposits of methane, CO2, natural gas, and other such things all around it in little pockets, so capping it once one has opened up a well takes quite a lot.

The logistics involved in producing and placing sections of pipe that deep and a footing to hold it steady, then welding it all together, blah blah blah... yeah, there is a reason it costs so much money to set up these deep water rigs.

BP could afford it, but with a bigger pipe they have to deal with the gases and such and that would probably pose another nightmare with the larger pip.

I think if you look at #2 on the original post that the US should require those "acoustic triggers" or some other way to shut off the pipe at the source.
 
or some other way to shut off the pipe at the source.
they supposedly do. it's called a B.O.P.(blow out peventer)



http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/0...backup-systems-for-oil-rigs-sounde-30452.html

here's a little story.

It could have been a lot like the BP spill now shooting crude into the Gulf of Mexico.

Ten years ago, the pipe from an offshore drilling rig came loose and the valve that is supposed to shut off the flow of oil did not work. The drilling rig above could not control the valve, called a blow-out preventer.

There was no river of crude like that currently bearing down on the Gulf Coast. But it highlighted that the rig, a floating outfit like the now-sunken Deepwater Horizon, did not have a backup system for activating the blow-out preventer.

That alarmed Minerals Management Service officials enough to to send out a "safety alert (pdf)" ordering companies drilling in deep water in the outer continental shelf to have good backup systems.

"The MMS considers a backup BOP actuation system to be an essential component of a deepwater drilling system," the March 2000 notice said, "and therefore expects OCS operators to have reliable back-up systems for actuating the BOP."

But MMS left it up to the companies to decide what kind of backup system to have. And Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) wants to know why. Nelson has warned others about the possibility of spills for years as he fought growing pressure to allow drilling off the Florida coast. Now, he has gone from warning to pointing.

Nelson has asked the Interior Department's acting inspector general, Mary Kendall, to investigate why the service did not require drillers to use a specific type of backup system used in other major offshore drilling countries, a remote-control shutoff called an acoustic switch. He has raised the prospect that lobbying by the oil and gas industry kept regulators at bay on the issue.

"I ask that you determine in your investigation the extent to which the oil and natural gas industry exercised influence in the agency's rulemaking process," Nelson wrote to Kendall this week.

MMS's regulation of the oil and gas industry has come under scrutiny before. In 2008, then-Interior Inspector General Earl Devaney found massive misconduct at the service, saying employees rigged contracts and engaged in illegal moonlighting, drugs, sex and gift-taking from oil companies. Devaney is now the inspector general for Obama's $787 billion stimulus package.

But that scandal was more about how much oil companies would pay in royalties. In this case, 11 people are dead and the Gulf Coast is bracing for an environmental disaster. The BP well is shooting oil into the Gulf at the rate of 5,000 barrels, or 210,000 gallons, per day -- some say more. And it could keep going for three months or more until BP can drill a "relief well" to slow the spill.

In the wake of the MMS scandal, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar chose a former inspector general and prosecutor, Wilma Lewis, to oversee the agency as assistant secretary.

MMS did look at the issue of whether to require the acoustic switch. It commissioned a report (pdf) from West Engineering Services of Brookshire, Texas, that looked at "Secondary Intervention Methods in Well Control." But it found that acoustic switches were too expensive and not always reliable.

"Acoustic systems are not recommended because they tend to be very costly, and there is insufficient data available on system reliability in the presence of a mud or gas plume," the 2003 report said. "However, acoustic communication in the form of verification of system status and remote arming should be considered."

The acoustic systems cost about $500,000, The Wall Street Journal reported last week, which is about the same amount it cost for BP to lease the rig for one day from its owner and operator, Transocean Ltd., per day. The replacement cost of the Deepwater Horizon is estimated at $560 million. BP is now spending $6 million or more each day to try to staunch the spill.

And the same engineers who recommended against the acoustic switches found in 2004 that as companies move into ever deeper water, they did not always understand the risks. Some of the rigs being used in deep water, it said, could not assure that they could seal their well in the event of an accident.

"As smaller operators with limited appreciation of the risks venture into ever deeper water, the industry's risk increases," the report (pdf) said. "It appears that at least some of the rigs currently in operation have not considered critical issues necessary to ensure that their shear rams will shear the drill pipe and seal the wellbore."

BP and Transocean, though, are among the largest companies in their field.

Nelson last week called for a pause in drilling operations, advice that the Obama administration has reportedly taken, though no administration officials have publicly stated that there is a suspension of permitting activity.
 
BP could afford it, but with a bigger pipe they have to deal with the gases and such and that would probably pose another nightmare with the larger pip.

I think if you look at #2 on the original post that the US should require those "acoustic triggers" or some other way to shut off the pipe at the source.


Yes they could afford it, but when I was saying that there is a reason that kind of thing costs so much money to set up is because of the enormous amount of labor and difficulty involved. Besides, the pipes don't just come straight up out of the well..... kinda not how it works.
 
BP could afford it, but with a bigger pipe they have to deal with the gases and such and that would probably pose another nightmare with the larger pip.

I think if you look at #2 on the original post that the US should require those "acoustic triggers" or some other way to shut off the pipe at the source.


Yes they could afford it, but when I was saying that there is a reason that kind of thing costs so much money to set up is because of the enormous amount of labor, materials and difficulty involved. Besides, the pipes don't just come straight up out of the well..... kinda not how it works. Either way, not the kinda thing they could do in an afternoon. More like the kind of thing that would take several weeks to do. The well and BOP and everything else at the bottom is actually quite large. Even the pipes themselves are quite large. You should probably read up on this subject some more.
 
Who Is Really To Blame For This Blowout?

By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER Posted 05/27/2010 06:15 PM ET

ISSKrauthammerC.gif.gif
View Enlarged Image

Here's my question: Why are we drilling in 5,000 feet of water in the first place? Many reasons, but this one goes unmentioned: Environmental chic has driven us out there.
As production from the shallower Gulf of Mexico wells declines, we go deep (1,000 feet and more) and ultra deep (5,000 feet and more), in part because environmentalists have succeeded in rendering the Pacific and nearly all the Atlantic coast off-limits to oil production. (President Obama's tentative, selective opening of some Atlantic and offshore Alaska sites is now dead.)
And of course, in the safest of all places, on land, we've had a 30-year ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
So we go deep, ultradeep — to such a technological frontier that no precedent exists for the April 20 blowout in the Gulf of Mexico.
There will always be catastrophic oil spills. You make them as rare as humanly possible, but where would you rather have one: in the Gulf of Mexico, upon which thousands depend for their livelihood, or in the Arctic, where there are practically no people?
All spills seriously damage wildlife. That's a given. But why have we pushed the drilling from the barren to the populated, from the remote wilderness to a center of fishing, shipping, tourism and recreation?
Not that the environmentalists are the only ones to blame. Not by far. But it is odd that they've escaped any mention at all.
The other culprits are pretty obvious.
It starts with BP, which seems not only to have had an amazing string of perfect-storm engineering lapses but no contingencies to deal with a catastrophic system failure.
However, the railing against BP for its performance since the accident is harder to understand. I attribute no virtue to BP, just self-interest. What possible interest can it have to do anything but cap the well as quickly as possible? Every day that oil is spilled means millions more in losses, cleanup and restitution.
Federal officials who rage against BP would like to deflect attention from their own role in this disaster. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, whose department's laxity in environmental permitting and safety oversight renders it among the many bearing responsibility, expresses outrage at BP's inability to stop the leak, and even threatens to "push them out of the way."
"To replace them with what?" asked the estimable, admirably candid Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, the national incident commander.

_______________________________________________________________

oilmap.jpg

_____________________________________________________________

Unintended consequences of environmental chic are partly to blame for this accident but there has been no mention of this.
 
Unintended consequences of environmental chic are partly to blame for this accident but there has been no mention of this.
what an udder bunch of rubbish. pass the blame on to those who predicted such a catastrophe and had drilling banned in other areas before it happened there.
complete lack of safety regulations and any balls to implement them is a good start though.
 
what an udder bunch of rubbish. pass the blame on to those who predicted such a catastrophe and had drilling banned in other areas before it happened there.
complete lack of safety regulations and any balls to implement them is a good start though.

As usual you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about and are uninterested in anything but dismissing views that oppose the dogma you buy into through faith alone.
 
As usual you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about and are uninterested in anything but dismissing views that oppose the dogma you buy into through faith alone.
Well, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black.


But hrmwrm, the fact that drilling moves further offshore into deeper and deeper water does create additional difficulties and risks, making this type of problem more likely, but like you said, the lack of regulation and rigorous safety testing is mostly to blame. This type of accident was bound to happen eventually. It is only as big as it is though because the enviro-nuts make it hard to drill in the safer areas, therefore it would be wise to consider the fact that they are in a way, partially to blame for the problems we are having now.
 
Well, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black.

Not so much. But it would take objectivity to notice that and you have already demonstrated that you have no objectivity when it comes to my posts.
 
Not so much. But it would take objectivity to notice that and you have already demonstrated that you have no objectivity when it comes to my posts.

right right, I remember. Anyone who disagrees with you is lying, misrepresenting you, unintelligent, a Nazi, has no objectivity, and blah blah blah. Heard it all before.
 
right right, I remember. Anyone who disagrees with you is lying, misrepresenting you, unintelligent, a Nazi, has no objectivity, and blah blah blah. Heard it all before.

Quit trolling my posts, you ignorant child.

The term double standard, coined in 1912, refers to any set of principles containing different provisions for one group of people than for another, typically without a good reason for having said difference.

;)
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top