The Dead Zone (or, BP and the Oil Well That Keeps on Giving)

Haven't seen this subject in the Backroom yet, and it's probably the biggest story of the year.

First, and most important, what if there ain't jack-all we can do with a 5,000-foot deep oil spill?

Tomorrow BP is attempting the "top kill" maneuver -- pumping mud into the well. If it doesn't work, well ... then what? Junk shot? Top hat? Loony stuff like nukes? Relief wells will take months to drill and no one's sure if they'll work to relieve pressure. It's entirely possible, even likely, that we're going to be stuck helplessly watching as this well spews oil into the Gulf for years. Even if the flow were stopped tomorrow, the damage to marshes, coral, and marine life is done. The Gulf of Mexico will become an ecological and economic dead zone. There's no real way to undo it, no matter who's in charge.

I'm curious to see how the public's mood shifts once it becomes clear that we are powerless in the face of this thing. What if there's just nothing we can do? That's not a feeling to which Americans are accustomed.

This is pretty close to voicing my deepest fears. 5k feet is just shy of a mile, and a mile under the ocean is a supremely hostile working environment. I am appalled that shutoff valves were not required for these rigs, but what are we going to do? It's not as though we can fire up the time machine and undo Dick Cheney's energy task force. The damage is done, and it may keep on being done for some time.

It's not likely (but possible) that we have screwed up the Gulf of Mexico for a generation. Think on that for a moment.

Kal from the economist had a poke at this BP/Iceland Volcano

BP won't have as much money to fund the Climate Skeptic lobby anytime soon, that is for sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

It's not likely (but possible) that we have screwed up the Gulf of Mexico for a generation. Think on that for a moment.

---

Absolute disgrace and the level of shoulder shruging of the BP execs is sickening trying to pass the buck etc. I say it's time to break out granpappy's ole blunderbus and fire a couple of pellets up there rear ends.

I didn't think it was possible to despise both ends of an issue.

I'm seething with anger at both the administration and BP.

Here's a video of an ABC reporter diving into the toxic stew of oil and detergent-based dispersants with one of the Cousteaus. Chilling stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7MD9ldxGgQ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

I didn't think it was possible to despise both ends of an issue.

I'm seething with anger at both the administration and BP.

---

Yeah those idiots were far too chummy with the execs not a good idea I gues and the BP crowd were more interested in saving money at the risk of destroying fishing and tourism in the gulf.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Yeah those idiots were far too chummy with the execs not a good idea I gues and the BP crowd were more interested in saving money at the risk of destroying fishing and tourism in the gulf.

---

I'm beyond rationality at this point. I understand the administration needs to take an aggressive stance but all they've done is make jack-booted threats. The BP executive's testimony was pathetic.

All I really care about now are the people in the Gulf states affected by this.

As far as I am aware, there is a guaranteed fix: drilling a new shaft into the existing one and using the new shaft to seal the old one. From what I read, BP started doing this almost immediately, but it takes upwards of 2 to 3 months to drill that deep, so it's a very slow solution. Everything they've tried so far is an attempt to stop the damage earlier, since 2 to 3 months of leakage is an ecological apocalypse.

Huh, we didn't even get to the end of the first post before the Bush blaming started. The other safety measures installed? The fact that Obama's been in charge for over a year? The fact that the acoustic trigger might not have stopped anything?

Meaningless! Let's look back to blame our political enemies with the benefit of hindsight!

Now, the rig will cost upwards of $500,000,000 to replace. I doubt that something that cost $500,000 led to intense lobbying to prevent that part from being required. And where does this claim come from? A trial lawyer suing BP, being interviewed by a very liberal talk show host. Is there any proof of this, any hard evidence?

Heck, it'd be better to look at how the rig was run, if warning signs were missed or alarms ignored like Texas City. Considering what happened, such human mistakes likely have more to do with the problem than one type of safety equipment. But that requires more than political finger pointing and blaming Bush and Cheney.

The point about people demanding the government simply do something is bemusing; as though Obama can, by stomping his foot and yelling, make it all better. Or that the government should push BP out of the way and do it themselves. Luckily the administration seems to know they couldn't even do it as well, though it makes me wonder just how out of touch some people can be.

Sadly, it does seem as though the damage could be very great. And in the end it's BP's fault, and we've got to make sure they properly compensate the people and governments hurt.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

As far as I am aware, there is a guaranteed fix: drilling a new shaft into the existing one and using the new shaft to seal the old one.

---

From what I've read, even once the two-to-three months have elapsed, and the relief well is in place, there's no fixed timeline for when that will slow or stop the oil spill. Again, all of this is happening under a mile of water, so the logistics are just frightening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

The fact that the acoustic trigger might not have stopped anything?

---

Every deep sea rig in Norway has been required to use acoustic triggers since 1993. Do you think they would indulge in this expense for no reason whatsoever? I see we didn't pause to read the WSJ article, did we?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

From what I've read, even once the two-to-three months have elapsed, and the relief well is in place, there's no fixed timeline for when that will slow or stop the oil spill. Again, all of this is happening under a mile of water, so the logistics are just frightening.

---

Hmm. As I've understood it, the relief well, once dug, will stop the spill. The problem is the time - and the difficulty of hitting the old pipeline with the new well.

Quote:

---

Every deep sea rig in Norway has been required to use acoustic triggers since 1993. Do you think they would indulge in this expense for no reason whatsoever? I see we didn't pause to read the WSJ article, did we?

---

I did read the article; Britain does not require such devices. I'm not saying they're useless, only that how much they'd help, especially since the US wells in question already have back-up systems, is not clear. It shouldn't be viewed in hindsight as some sort of fix that would have solved everything. Also, I would've thought that tracking down your source for the Cheney allegations through multiple redirects had shown I did read your links.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

I'm not saying they're useless, only that how much they'd help, especially since the US wells in question already have back-up systems, is not clear. It shouldn't be viewed in hindsight as some sort of fix that would have solved everything.

---

On the other hand, it's hard to look at another failsafe system that is already in use by major oil-producing nations and not feel a little wistful, especially staring in the face of the biggest ecological disaster in a long, long time. This sort of quote really grates:

A 2001 report from the International Association of Drilling Contractors said "significant doubts remain in regard to the ability of this type of system to provide a reliable emergency back-up control system during an actual well flowing incident."

By 2003, U.S. regulators decided remote-controlled safeguards needed more study. A report commissioned by the Minerals Management Service said "acoustic systems are not recommended because they tend to be very costly."

As per usual, when we don't want to modify our behavior even slightly, we ask for "more study." This sort of thing inspires me to use language not appropriate to the Org.

Hard to say what safety features, if any, would have prevented this. Nobody planned for the type of catastrophic failure experienced. Nobody really thought anything like that could happen. We are not even certain exactly what caused the explosion as it is.

Would the trigger safety mechanism have done the trick? Unknowable.

Will handling this be a stone-cold *****? Yeppers. We have a better handle on the tech needed to make repairs while orbiting Mars than we do to effect repairs that deep under water.

I suspect the relief drill approach will work, but that won't be complete until Septemberish (they say August, but that's for spin I suspect). The Gulf will be years returning to more or less previous condition.


[Sarcasm]Blaming this on Bush is ludicrous. It is OBVIOUS that Cheney was the leading figure in this appalling attack -- nobody else has so much to gain.[/Sarcasm]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

[Sarcasm]Blaming this on Bush is ludicrous. It is OBVIOUS that Cheney was the leading figure in this appalling attack -- nobody else has so much to gain.[/Sarcasm]

---

That's who I thought of when I heard Haliburton was involved. It made me smile. Unfortunately, no one bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Huh, we didn't even get to the end of the first post before the Bush blaming started.

---

Of course, it's the Leem's SOP. If a problem can be linked to Bush/Cheney, regardless of how tangentially, he's going to bring it up. I'm thinking he's just doing his small part in the Left's pre-emptive strike against those seeking to use this against Obama.

I was tempted to wonder aloud why, after 16 months in office, nothing was done to change these horrible Bush-era practices, but that's just petty.

I actually feel bad for the president. There really is nothing he can do but give speeches acting like there is. BP, not the government, is the only entity with the expertise to fix the problem. This wasn't his fault, but the fallout is going to fall on him just as that of Katrina did on Bush, especially if the Top Kill solution fails. It seems the hopelessness of his predicament hasn't escaped him.

Quote:

---

An obviously angry President Barack Obama, meeting with senior government officials, had one view on the 36-day old oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that is becoming a monumental disaster not only for the environment and his administration.

“Plug the damn hole,” he told the meeting. “Just get it done.”

---

Well that link of Lemur's leads to a few follow up (or prequel) articles which seem to point out one thing very clearly: there was no contingency planning (apparently everyone was deferring to higher chains of command which simply does not work in an emergency), health and safety procedures were the stuff of dictionaries thrown out of the window long ago (because apparently nobody even knew how to release a few lifeboats, and nobody had the sense to shut down the system on their own), and there seems to have been a clever cost reduction programme in using sea water rather than the heavier counter-balance fluids/mud normally used (which seems to have been the cause of the whole thing).

Good thing though that BP will be required to pay for all this, similar to Exxon at Valdez. Bad thing though that the damage is apparently an order of magnitude larger and also more far-reaching.

Yikes... just noticed this bit in the latest Washington Post update:

Quote:

---

Two rigs are drilling relief wells but are not expected to complete their work until August.

---

August?! They'd better plug that thing long before August. It's still May!

All my shrimp are covered in oil :sad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

All my shrimp are covered in oil :sad:

---

You won't even need a saucepan to fry them then. Just set them on fire, and you're good to go.

To those saying that BP will have to pay for this.

Sure, absolutely. They will / should go bankrupt over it.

However, there is absolutely NO chance that BP has the cash to even remotely come close to paying for the damage. And some of the damage is not about money, but lives affected, and nature of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Of course, it's the Leem's SOP. If a problem can be linked to Bush/Cheney, regardless of how tangentially, he's going to bring it up. I'm thinking he's just doing his small part in the Left's pre-emptive strike against those seeking to use this against Obama.

---

Shall I count your ad hominems or leave that up to those who are using them for a drinking game? Troll harder, my friend, troll harder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

To those saying that BP will have to pay for this.

Sure, absolutely. They will / should go bankrupt over it.

However, there is absolutely NO chance that BP has the cash to even remotely come close to paying for the damage. And some of the damage is not about money, but lives affected, and nature of course.

---

How many lives would your fantasy affect?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

How many lives would your fantasy affect?

---

Elaborate please? I didn't quite get you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Shall I count your ad hominems or leave that up to those who are using them for a drinking game? Troll harder, my friend, troll harder.

---

It's hardly an ad hominem or troll; I consider it part of your charm. I fully expect every national disaster, calamity, and tragedy that occurs in the next four to eight years to be the fault of the Bush administration in some way or another. Upon the great octosquid invasion, I wouldn't be surprised on my last visit to the .org before going out in a blaze of glory and squid juices to find a link to a HuffPo article quoting some sketchy trial lawyer discussing Donald Rumsfeld's refusal to fund octosquid detection and destruction hardware back in '02. :nice:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Shall I count your ad hominems or leave that up to those who are using them for a drinking game? Troll harder, my friend, troll harder.

---

Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party? Remember Mr. Proto-Simian, you are under oath.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

It's hardly an ad hominem or troll; I consider it part of your charm. I fully expect every national disaster, calamity, and tragedy that occurs in the next four to eight years to be the fault of the Bush administration in some way or another.

---

And you have a charming manner of diverting every argument to the personality of your interlocutors; you're actually one of the most skilled and slippery thread derailers I've ever seen.

Meanwhile, those 5,000 feet of water continue to be a staggering difficulty.

BP officials say the best hope for stopping the oil leak this week rests on a procedure that has been used to stop countless oil leaks before, but never in deep water. For weeks, BP experts have been studying conditions, especially the intense pressure that exists at the well head 1.5 kilometers under water.

During a trip to the Louisiana coastline this week, BP chief Tony Hayward said there is still doubt about the procedure, in spite of the exhaustive preparations. "It has never been done in 5,000 feet of water. If it was on land, we have a high confidence of success," he said. [...]

In case the top kill fails, BP says it is working on other methods to stop oil from leaking into the Gulf of Mexico. Wells says the firm has designed a valve system that can be used to cap the blow-out preventer and siphon oil to a surface vessel. "We believe by doing this we will create an option that will capture more of the flow that we have been able to capture so far," he said.

The ultimate solution for the oil leak is to drill a relief well that will intersect the existing well and choke the flow of oil. Two separate rigs are drilling relief wells now, but the work may not be finished until August.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

And you have a charming manner of diverting every argument to the personality of your interlocutors; you're actually one of the most skilled and slippery thread derailers I've ever seen.

---

Don't introduce subjects into your threads if you don't want them discussed. :nice:

Initial signs are good ... although I had read that we wouldn't know anything solid for at least two days ...

HOUSTON, May 26 - BP Plc Chief Operating Officer Doug Suttles said on Wednesday it appears drilling mud, not oil, was gushing from a ruptured undersea well six hours into an effort to halt a month-old oil spill.

"What you've been observing coming out of the top of that riser is most likely mud," Suttles said at a news conference broadcast from a Louisiana command center. "We can't fully confirm that because we can't sample it. And the way we know we've been successful is it stops flowing."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

On the other hand, it's hard to look at another failsafe system that is already in use by major oil-producing nations and not feel a little wistful, especially staring in the face of the biggest ecological disaster in a long, long time.

---

Oh certainly. But we should recognize it as wishful thinking.

Quote:

---

Initial signs are good ... although I had read that we wouldn't know anything solid for at least two days ...

---

Let's hope that does the trick. From a related link from that page:

Quote:

---

BP remained cautious about the outcome of the much anticipated "top kill" procedure, as did President Barack Obama, whose credibility stands to suffer if one of the country's worst environmental catastrophes does not end soon.

---

I don't get that. He didn't cause it; only with hindsight is there any talk of the government somehow preventing this. BP and the rig operators caused it, and they're doing about all they can. Except for the people who died, of course.

This stupid reporting about Obama somehow being to blame for the long cleanup is ridiculous; worse yet it encourages more stupidity, overreactions by the government to show they're doing something.

CR

Hah, now that this happens close to home you're all complaining, but where is the outrage about this?

At least BP is trying to fix this instead of letting the local communities deal with it.

Oh and I read the soviets have used nukes before to seal such underwater leaks and that it isn't very nutty because water deals with the radiation very fast in comparison to other environments.

And I don't hope they go bankrupt, I'm indirectly working for them, I might have to work for shell then and they might just have/get a monopole then, too. I know, I'm biased, and it feels good for a change.

I don't get it, what exactly is it anyone expect Obama to do?

Threaten to hold his breath till it is fixed?

No seriously, what can be expected of him that he is not already doing? Dont get me wrong, I am no Obama fan. I just dont understand the flak he is taking.

*we can mark this as a first where I support a US president btw, hmmm, they must have changed the medication on me again, I hate it when they do that*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party? Remember Mr. Proto-Simian, you are under oath.

---

Nyet.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/us_...a/10174861.stm

It's stopped leaking.

RTE say BP could be stopping flow

Hmmm...

I will surprise even myself by saying this: but I think BP has acted rather cool in all of this.

1. About the extra-safe-thingy-that-might-have-prevented it. The US is basically a mercantile being. Blame yourself. Norway has regulations to prevent this to an added cost for the company. The US has not, why spend PROFIT money on making sure accidents like this wont happen?

I mean, what logical reason could it EVER be to spend some extra cash to prevent a catastrophe like this, when you can earn more money if you don't. *think about this next time you flame Comnadia (I take pride of having invented the newspeak Comnadia, Communist-Skandinavia).


2. BP has not gone with the American hype. They have worked with statistics, they have been as clear about what is happening as they could. They have not been all over the media trying to cover up. This operation that seem to have worked, they themselves were clear on being a long shot.


This should however teach the US a valuable lesson. If you want oil, do it the old fashioned way, bomb some country. Preferably one with territorial waters that wont hurt your wildlife.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Oh certainly. But we should recognize it as wishful thinking.

---

And here you oversell your own argument. Would another safeguard have mitigated the disaster? Impossible to say. Maybe yes, maybe no. But to classify the desire for it as "wishful thinking" moves your argument into the realm of, "safeguards make no difference, so shut the heck up," which is overstating your case by factors of ten.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party? Remember Mr. Proto-Simian, you are under oath.

---

I refuse to answer the question based on the fact that lemurs are not protosimians, but rather prosimians. The warrant has been incorrectly served. I'm walkin' free on a technicality! W00T!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

why spend PROFIT money on making sure accidents like this wont happen?

I mean, what logical reason could it EVER be to spend some extra cash to prevent a catastrophe like this, when you can earn more money if you don't.

---

One compelling reason might be that the catastrophe is going to cost BP more money than the investment for the safety measures would have been.
Avoiding to lose ~30 billion EUR in market cap. over a couple of weeks might be another good reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

One compelling reason might be that the catastrophe is going to cost BP more money than the investment for the safety measures would have been.
Avoiding to lose ~30 billion EUR in market cap. over a couple of weeks might be another good reason.

---

Haven't studied economics much, have you?

Imagine you are a company for a second or two, you have two options:

1. 1% chance of something bad happening costing you 50% profit.
2. Not care about that and save 5 billion that could have prevented it.

From a economic perspective, you would be crazy to go with option A. After all, 99 times out of 100 you would go 5 billion more plus.This is very much the American way of thinking. And yes, economy is better of for it!

However, as a Comnadian, I would argue that economic value might not be the only factor. As if you have a 50 companies, you have a 50% chance of a disaster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Haven't studied economics much, have you?

---

I assume in addition to being a language teacher, history teacher, ski instructor and special forces fighter you also studied economics?

Let's just say that I am not entirely unfamiliar with economics and the relevant industry.

Quote:

---

Imagine you are a company for a second or two, you have two options:

1. 1% chance of something bad happening costing you 50% profit.
2. Not care about that and save 5 billion that could have prevented it.

From a economic perspective, you would be crazy to go with option A. After all, 99 times out of 100 you would go 5 billion more plus.This is very much the American way of thinking. And yes, economy is better of for it!

---

The problem with your argument is that you entirely made up the numbers. Your assumption for option A are not even close to reality in this case.

Wow BP just capped a well 1.5 miles underwater and did it in record time.

Good show boys.....I mean you really shouldn't be drilling there in the first place but good show none the less

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Wow BP just capped a well 1.5 miles underwater and did it in record time.

---

Not to be pedantic, but if one mile = 5280 feet, and the well is ~5000 feet down, how does that make 1.5 miles? Not that working under a mile of water isn't plenty horrible, but still.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Not to be pedantic, but if one mile = 5280 feet, and the well is ~5000 feet down, how does that make 1.5 miles? Not that working under a mile of water isn't plenty horrible, but still.

---

oppppsssssss....kilometers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

oppppsssssss....kilometers

---

Strike is converting to metric. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

oppppsssssss....kilometers

---

Hey, are you the guy who lost that Mars probe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

I assume in addition to being a language teacher, history teacher, ski instructor and special forces fighter you also studied economics?

Let's just say that I am not entirely unfamiliar with economics and the relevant industry.



The problem with your argument is that you entirely made up the numbers. Your assumption for option A are not even close to reality in this case.

---

In Sweden you cant have only one subject, you need two. I picked history and Swedish. We have conscription in Sweden, my army time thus def should not be something to marvel at, did my 15 months (officer program) plus some UN service, but that kind of comes with the officer program. This was some 10 years ago though, but then I have been helping out with training the Nordic Battalion. Only in summer though (and some winter programs), as in Sweden ,you have 8 weeks summer vacation as a teacher, might as well do something useful. Ski instructing has always been part of my life (works great when you work as teacher too, as the weeks you have off in the winter are the weeks they need extra ski instructors!). Economy I studied extra in the evenings, as well as psychology. Why? Because I spent a whole lot of time skiing instead of studying, so to fill my required hours to get cash from the state for studying, I needed to study double hours the months I did do my studies to make a living.

Sorry for being all defensive, but this is third time in a month or so I have been accused of lying about my background. Am getting rather tired of it. If you look at what I just wrote, you will notice that there are no miraculous feats that brought me to where I am.

May I also add that I took offense to your post. I challenged your post, you challenged me. Not only is it insulting, but it is below what I would have expected from the men in red.



AS TO YOUR (actual) POINT, yes I entirely made up the numbers. It was a mathematical example with no bearing on real life situations. I never claimed anything else, and I thought that was obvious from what I wrote.

The point in the example I made still holds true though. No?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

I challenged your post, you challenged me. Not only is it insulting, but it is below what I would have expected from the men in red.

---

Excuse me, but this:

Quote:

---

Haven't studied economics much, have you?

---

is certainly far from challenging the content of my post but is simply questioning my background without you knowing anything about it.

From the "men in red" perspective this remark of your has only been one in quite a number of similar remarks in the past weeks (and which derailed threads several times) and you should not be surprised that other members regularly get annoyed by your posting style. (happy to further discuss this via PM)

On topic:

Quote:

---

AS TO YOUR (actual) POINT, yes I entirely made up the numbers. It was a mathematical example with no bearing on real life situations. I never claimed anything else, and I thought that was obvious from what I wrote.
The point in the example I made still holds true though. No?

---

The point does not hold true if the claim you originally made very much depends on the actual numbers

The point is that the cost for the safety measure in question (500k USD per rig as mentioned in on of the linked articles) in entirely neglectable compared to the profits of BP (~100 USD billions if you just add up the last 5 years) and to the damage that has been caused.
This is not an issue of cost savings, but (assuming that the equipment in question could have made a difference) an issue of poor risk assessment/management.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

This is not an issue of cost savings, but (assuming that the equipment in question could have made a difference) an issue of poor risk assessment/management.

---

I, for one, blame the Paleozoic and the tertiary period of the Cenozoic. It's all their fault for having continents of lush vegetation and oceans of zooplankton that turned into coal, gas and oil. Damn you, Paleozoic! Damn you all to hell!*

Early reports of the blowout mentioned a methane bubble that shot through the system and blew out pretty much everything. Haven't seen that mentioned lately, so I've no idea if that was valid info or early speculation.




*Of course, if you subscribe to the abiogenic petroleum origin theory, this is moot.

Methane is very prevalent in the gulf I suspect it may have been a factor

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

Excuse me, but this:

is certainly far from challenging the content of my post but is simply questioning my background without you knowing anything about it.

From the "men in red" perspective this remark of your has only been one in quite a number of similar remarks in the past weeks (and which derailed threads several times) and you should not be surprised that other members regularly get annoyed by your posting style. (happy to further discuss this via PM)

On topic:


The point does not hold true if the claim you originally made very much depends on the actual numbers

The point is that the cost for the safety measure in question (500k USD per rig as mentioned in on of the linked articles) in entirely neglectable compared to the profits of BP (~100 USD billions if you just add up the last 5 years) and to the damage that has been caused.
This is not an issue of cost savings, but (assuming that the equipment in question could have made a difference) an issue of poor risk assessment/management.

---

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The "haven't studied economics much, have you?" was as you say not very polite, I beg your forgiveness. However, you kind of brought a gun to a fist fight (I questioned your economical knowledge, you questioned my person). Let us however move on and leave that behind, shall we?

As to the point, you kind of strengthened my point.

Poor risk assessment? I do think a company that profit (your numbers) ~100 USD billions over 5 years do not make bad risk assessments. Gambling ones, sure! The US economy thrive on it. Gambling is, as I said in my previous post, not bad if you have the odds on your side. And as I said, the numbers I used was only to make an example that the average Orgah gets. The example still holds true though.

500k USD on the stockmarket is HUGE, I have totally forgot what company it was, but when X airline removed one olive in their salad the stocks went way up.

To summarize: Your standpoint is that a global company such as BP did a bad risk assessment. My point is that they did the logical choice given the factors at hand.

My second point is that the factors at hand would be different in Comnadia than the US, thus very possibly altering the risk assessment.

When these things happen, someone always comes out and says "If only we had this one more safety measure, everything would have been averted". It reminds me of the Futurama episode where the 6000 hulled dark matter tanker wrecks and Fry remarks "Oh, the fools! If only they'd built it with 6000 and one hulls! When will they learn?!?"

What happens in most instances, and I suspect we'll find here is that safety personnel get complacent and cut corners to meet a deadline or some such. If so, such people should be held criminally responsible, while BP is itself financially responsible.

On the political front, I think Obama's only mistake has been in mishandling the PR during the spill. He certainly didn't cause the spill, and probably only BP could stop it. The only missteps have been in the administration's inconsistent and sometimes conflicting statements about the spill and their role in the aftermath- beginning with their curious "boot on BP's neck" statement. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

When these things happen, someone always comes out and says "If only we had this one more safety measure, everything would have been averted". It reminds me of the Futurama episode where the 6000 hulled dark matter tanker wrecks and Fry remarks "Oh, the fools! If only they'd built it with 6000 and one hulls! When will they learn?!?"

---

The difference to your example and the one we witnessed is that other countries drilling of their coasts has regulated this.

Your example: Norway regulated for 6001 and one hulls for the off chance of anything breaking 6000.

Real example: Norway regulated a device to stop things go very bad if things go bad.

As much as I appreciate the humor in your post, it isn't really applicable in this situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

500k USD on the stockmarket is HUGE

---

You are kidding - right? Please feel free to alsó provide the airline example you mention - perhaps with real numbers instead of a mathematical example.

I stick with the poor risk assessment - be it the lack of (relatively cheap) equipment or the inability/unwillingness to enforce proper safety procedures (see Xiahou's post)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

The difference to your example and the one we witnessed is that other countries drilling of their coasts has regulated this.

Your example: Norway regulated for 6001 and one hulls for the off chance of anything breaking 6000.

Real example: Norway regulated a device to stop things go very bad if things go bad.

---

The more you compare this to Norway, the more you marginalize yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

500k USD on the stockmarket is HUGE,

---

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Wow, just wow.

BP has several refineries in the US, each one of which process 100,000 barrels of oil per day or more. Each barrel costs about $75; that's at least $7,500,000 million spent per day at least in each refinery on oil alone.

Quote:

---

Haven't studied economics much, have you?

---

I have. You're wrong and Ser Clegnane is right; the immense cost of the cleanup will provide a very compelling reason to invest in good equipment.

Now, back to politics - I have read that this rig was allowed to operate without complete review under Obama's administration. And that the federal government is reviewing permit applications from Louisiana to put up oil barriers, instead of just issuing them. So there's the possibility of legitimate blame for Obama. But the responsibility lies with BP.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

oppppsssssss....kilometers

---

Oh, gosh dangit. Texans use miles, sheesh. You'll give our swapping accounts away if you post in metric. :wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Hah, now that this happens close to home you're all complaining, but where is the outrage about this?

---

I, for one, am furious about "We couldn't locate the page."

-edit-

Well, hell. Ugh. Looks like there's a lot more pollutant hanging around deep in the water column than anyone thought.

Marine scientists have discovered a massive new plume of what they believe to be oil deep beneath the Gulf of Mexico, stretching 22 miles (35 kilometres) from the leaking wellhead northeast toward Mobile Bay, Alabama.

The discovery by researchers on the University of South Florida College of Marine Science's Weatherbird II vessel is the second significant undersea plume recorded since the Deepwater Horizon exploded on April 20.

The thick plume was detected just beneath the surface down to about 3,300 feet (1,000 metres), and is more than 6 miles (9.6 kilometres) wide, said David Hollander, associate professor of chemical oceanography at the school.

Hollander said the team detected the thickest amount of hydrocarbons, likely from the oil spewing from the blown out well, at about 1,300 feet (nearly 400 metres) in the same spot on two separate days this week.

The discovery was important, he said, because it confirmed that the substance found in the water was not naturally occurring and that the plume was at its highest concentration in deeper waters. The researchers will use further testing to determine whether the hydrocarbons they found are the result of dispersants or the emulsification of oil as it travelled away from the well.

FWIW, here's a much more technical article about the techniques used in the creation of the Deepwater well. Lots of inside-baseball comments from petroleum engineers, actually quite interesting.

The BP well "is not a design we would use," said one veteran deep-water engineer who would comment only if not identified because of his high-profile company's prohibition on speaking publicly about the April 20 explosion aboard the Deepwater Horizon or the oil spill that started when the drilling rig sank two days later.

He estimated that the liner design, used nearly all the time by his company, is more reliable and safer than a casing design by a factor of "tenfold."

But that engineer and several others said that had BP used a liner and casing, it would have taken nearly a week longer for the company to finish the well — with rig costs running at $533,000 a day and additional personnel and equipment costs that might have run the tab up to $1 million daily.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

FWIW, here's a much more technical article about the techniques used in the creation of the Deepwater well. Lots of inside-baseball comments from petroleum engineers, actually quite interesting.

The BP well "is not a design we would use," said one veteran deep-water engineer who would comment only if not identified because of his high-profile company's prohibition on speaking publicly about the April 20 explosion aboard the Deepwater Horizon or the oil spill that started when the drilling rig sank two days later.

He estimated that the liner design, used nearly all the time by his company, is more reliable and safer than a casing design by a factor of "tenfold."

But that engineer and several others said that had BP used a liner and casing, it would have taken nearly a week longer for the company to finish the well — with rig costs running at $533,000 a day and additional personnel and equipment costs that might have run the tab up to $1 million daily.

---

From the story:

Quote:

---

BP PLC spokesman Toby Odone in Houston said the London-based company chooses between the casing and liner methods on a "well-by-well basis" and that the casing-only method is "not uncommon."

---

And uhhh, a well that is being drilled at a depth of one mile under the ocean didn't qualify for sturdier containment? I mean, if you're going to go cheap on us, at least do it on a well that's easier to reach.

I've also read somewhere that records indicated irregular pressure tests during the capping process, but workers were told to proceed anyway- shortly before the explosion. I think BP is going to come out of this looking very bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

From the story:And uhhh, a well that is being drilled at a depth of one mile under the ocean didn't qualify for sturdier containment? I mean, if you're going to go cheap on us, at least do it on a well that's easier to reach.

I've also read somewhere that records indicated irregular pressure tests during the capping process, but workers were told to proceed anyway- shortly before the explosion. I think BP is going to come out of this looking very bad.

---

Very bad indeed. Heated arguement on rig hours before blast.
Oil rig workers describe safety issues in hearing.
BP decisions made well vulnerable.

Unbelievable. And rest assured BP lawyers are working to keep the company's liability cap at $75 million.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I, for one, am furious about "We couldn't locate the page."

---

Hmm, yeah, seems to have disappeared, how about this then?

And here's a related one from CNN.

I'm not an expert on that subject but ignoring the problems for years if not decades seems worse to me than having an accident and then trying your best to solve the problem.
Of course when it happens close to the US it creates more outrage than someone ruining a big region in Africa or is that just Amnesty and CNN turning a non-issue into an oil spill? :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

I don't get that. He didn't cause it; only with hindsight is there any talk of the government somehow preventing this. BP and the rig operators caused it, and they're doing about all they can. Except for the people who died, of course.

This stupid reporting about Obama somehow being to blame for the long cleanup is ridiculous; worse yet it encourages more stupidity, overreactions by the government to show they're doing something.

CR

---

There seems to be some apetite in turning this into Obama's Katrina.....the fact that this is BP's problem and not the government's like the hurricane was won´t deter the mudslingers...

like it was said above...if today's move doesn´t work there is a definite solution for this...the problem is that it will take 2 months to put into place....at god knows what price in terms of the enviroment of the area...

I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. ...It's the only way to be sure

I read a detailed article in the Wall St Journal, already linked in the thread by Hosakawa Tito, and it seems BP made a series of decisions based on reducing the time to completion that reduced the safety margin. Taking more time to put in better safeguards, it seems, could well have avoided the whole mess. So it could well be that people have died, and the rest of the oil industry that doesn't screw up will be subject to a bunch more regulations again because BP wanted to do things cheaper and faster, plus this time there's massive ecological damage.

Of course it won't be until the US Chemical Safety Board issues it's report (months from now; they write thorough reports) that we'll really know what happened and why.

CR

and people argued against regulation, when it would have prevented this happening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

and people argued against regulation, when it would have prevented this happening.

---

A prohibition on drilling would have prevented it. Regulation? Possibly, but possibly not. Remember, you can only establish regulations covering forseeable problems. I strongly suspect that coping with a major explosion such as occurred wasn't really considered and certainly wouldn't have been rated likely enough to warrant meticulous regulation.

Regulation has its place, but mostly its to prevent repeat occurrences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Loony stuff like nukes?

---

What if nuking it makes the hole bigger?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaka_Khan

What if nuking it makes the hole bigger?

---

The pressure at that depth would force good chuck of explosion down I would say the hole would be squashed flat and blocked.

Looks as though the top kill did not work. Dang it.

Typically, you know pretty quickly if a top kill works. BP has been pumping the kill since Wednesday, trying a number of tactics, including junk shots. Their announcement last night that it would be at least through the weekend before if they know the results of the kill doesn't ring true to me. Certainly they know a lot more than what they are saying.

Recall that a top kill will work only if enough back pressure can be generated in the leaking wellhead to allow the pumped mud to overcome the pressure from the well, turn the flow around, and then build enough hydrostatic head to overcome the formation pressure. The junk shot was designed to do just that, but apparently BP had decided to try just mud for the first effort. I believe that the high rate that BP pumped the mud washed out the cracks in the riser, actually reducing back pressure. The cracks in the riser are where you saw the mud flowing if you watched the live feed of the top kill the last couple of days. As a side note, I do find it interesting that the BP feed no longer includes the bent riser view of the last couple of days,and now looks like the end of the riser where the riser insertion tool had been used previously.

Because of the washed out riser cracks, the bridging material pumped in for the junk shot probably can't clog up the riser and BOP enough to overcome the flowing pressure and allow mud to go down the well, so the mud they are pumping is likely just going into the kill and chokes valves and coming out the top of the BOP.

-edit-

It's official.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

[I]t seems BP made a series of decisions based on reducing the time to completion that reduced the safety margin.

---

More info is emerging that trends toward that conclusion.

Internal documents from BP show that there were serious problems and safety concerns with the Deepwater Horizon rig [...] The problems involved the well casing and the blowout preventer, which are considered critical pieces in the chain of events that led to the disaster on the rig.

The documents show that in March, after several weeks of problems on the rig, BP was struggling with a loss of “well control.” And as far back as 11 months ago, it was concerned about the well casing and the blowout preventer.

On June 22, for example, BP engineers expressed concerns that the metal casing the company wanted to use might collapse under high pressure.

“This would certainly be a worst-case scenario,” Mark E. Hafle, a senior drilling engineer at BP, warned in an internal report. “However, I have seen it happen so know it can occur.”

Apparently the next plan is to have robots saw off part of the pipe and fit some sort of cover on. The danger, of course, is that if that fails then the whole pipe is opened up and leaking.

I wonder how BP's going to pay for all the damage. I have heard of rumors (and just rumors) going around the refining industry that BP will sell off their US refineries.

Quote:

---

More info is emerging that trends toward that conclusion.

---

In refining accidents and the like, the answer is nearly always one thing; human error.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

A prohibition on drilling would have prevented it. Regulation? Possibly, but possibly not. Remember, you can only establish regulations covering forseeable problems. I strongly suspect that coping with a major explosion such as occurred wasn't really considered and certainly wouldn't have been rated likely enough to warrant meticulous regulation.

Regulation has its place, but mostly its to prevent repeat occurrences.

---

Tougher envorimental restrictions on american cars would've prevented this, as that's the only way to get a prohibition on drilling.

If we were all driving electric cars, we wouldn't see things like this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Tougher envorimental restrictions on american cars would've prevented this, as that's the only way to get a prohibition on drilling.

If we were all driving electric cars, we wouldn't see things like this.

---

How so????? most lecky comes from dirty fossil fuels

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

How so????? most lecky comes from dirty fossil fuels

---

That's your own fault for not building enough hydro-electricity.

Here, almost all the electricity comes from hydro-electricity. Which is completely clean.

EDIT: And at any rate, even if the electricity comes from a coal plant, an electric car would still be better. It costs about a dollar for enough electricity to drive some 100km. Think you can do that with a combustion engine...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

That's your own fault for not building enough hydro-electricity.

Here, almost all the electricity comes from hydro-electricity. Which is completely clean.

---

Your clearly know nothing about Hydro-Power it's not suitable everywhere

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

EDIT: And at any rate, even if the electricity comes from a coal plant, an electric car would still be better. It costs about a dollar for enough electricity to drive some 100km. Think you can do that with a combustion engine...?

---

Petrol is still more efficient way to generate energy to drive the car, electricity will not generate enough charge to match a full tank of petrol in speed or distance

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Your clearly know nothing about Hydro-Power it's not suitable everywhere

---

Is it my fault your country didn't have the sense to get yourself some big mountains and some proper rivers....?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Petrol is still more efficient way to generate energy to drive the car, electricity will not generate enough charge to match a full tank of petrol in speed or distance

---

Depends on where you're driving. An electric car is more than sufficient for what 90% of us drive in a day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Is it my fault your country didn't have the sense to get yourself some big mountains and some proper rivers....?

---

obviously they were stolen by the Vikings so we got Brian Boru to kick your asses

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

That's your own fault for not building enough hydro-electricity.

Here, almost all the electricity comes from hydro-electricity. Which is completely clean.

EDIT: And at any rate, even if the electricity comes from a coal plant, an electric car would still be better. It costs about a dollar for enough electricity to drive some 100km. Think you can do that with a combustion engine...?

---

In Washington state the stupid hippies got a referendum passed that classified hydro-power (which we've got a lot of, but the hippies dislike it because it's harder for some fish) as a non-renewable energy source. So instead electric companies will have to invest in much less efficient wind and solar power to get the renewable energy quota.

Oh, and as for what I can do with a combustion engine; drive more than 100 miles in a day. Turns out that's quite useful in America.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Oh, and as for what I can do with a combustion engine; drive more than 100 miles in a day. Turns out that's quite useful in America.

CR

---

Most of the worlds population live in big cities, and we do not care about that.

And what's stopping you from having two cars; one electric for driving short distances, and one petrol/hybrid for longer trips...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

And what's stopping you from having two cars; one electric for driving short distances, and one petrol/hybrid for longer trips...?

---

Are you also getting free cars in Norway?