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

[Husar]

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.

[Kadagar_AV]

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*

[Pannonian]

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

Nyet.

[tibilicus]

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

It's stopped leaking.

[gaelic cowboy]

RTE say BP could be stopping flow

[Kadagar_AV]

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.

[Lemur]

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.

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!

[Ser Clegane]

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.

[Kadagar_AV]

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.

[Ser Clegane]

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.

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.

[Strike For The South]

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

[Lemur]

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.

[Strike For The South]

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

[Vladimir]

oppppsssssss....kilometers

Strike is converting to metric.

[Lemur]

oppppsssssss....kilometers

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

[Kadagar_AV]

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?

[Ser Clegane]

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:

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:

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.

[Lemur]

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.

[gaelic cowboy]

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

[Kadagar_AV]

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.

[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?!?"

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.

[Kadagar_AV]

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.

[Ser Clegane]

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)

[Vladimir]

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.

[Crazed Rabbit]

500k USD on the stockmarket is HUGE,

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.

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

[Louis VI the Fat]

oppppsssssss....kilometers

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

[Lemur]

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.

[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.

[Xiahou]

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:

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.

[Hosakawa Tito]

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.