|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Don Firth Date: 08 Aug 10 - 05:42 PM Sorry to resurrect this thread after it has slid off the bottom of the page, but there are a few things that really need to be said regarding oil drilling and fossil fuels in general. Some food for thought. "Total shut down of Alaskan oil production? I doubt that that would be all that popular, but WTF it won't affect me so fill your boots, 'cos the SUV's are going to have to stay parked and the price of "gas" is going to rocket - And when it does write and thank Don." This is Teribus, taking me to task for signing a petition opposing BP's attempting to do an end-run around President Obama's temporary ban on off-shore drilling by putting their drilling rig in the Arctic Ocean far enough off-shore to be outside the U.S.'s jurisdiction, going down two miles, and then drilling horizontally. Well, Teribus, there are a number of aspects to this. First of all, if the SUVs and the Humvees and the Ford Expeditions and other such gas-guzzling behemoths cease to be popular because of the cost of fuel, that most certain isn't the end of the world. Among other things, I am a strong advocate of efficient public transportation. Much of Europe and Japan have very fast, efficient, and relatively inexpensive public transportation systems. Rick Steves, travel advisor and writer, says that he is easily able to get anywhere he wants in Europe on public transportation, occasionally supplementing for side-trips by renting a bicycle. With the exception of a very few cities, the United States is way behind Europe for in-city public transportation, and as for national transportation, Amtrak leaves a lot to be desired compared to European rail systems. Perhaps a steep rise in gasoline prices would be the incentive necessary to get the population out of their gas guzzlers and try walking the three blocks to the grocery store. And for longer trips, get them to insist that the Powers That Be get up off their lazy butts and do something about more efficient public transportation. As to personal transportation, one hardly needs an SUV. My wife and I currently have a Toyota Corolla, purchased new in 1999. It now has about 25,000 miles on it. Contrast this with the nationwide average accumulated mileage of 10,000 to 15,000 miles per year. Before that, we drove a Honda Civic. We walk, despite the fact that I'm pushing a wheelchair, and use public transportation as much as possible (Seattle's buses are all equipped with wheelchair lifts and tie-downs). In addition to public transportation such as buses and light-rail, Seattle has a system that they call "ZipCar.' Cars parked somewhere nearby, in neighborhoods all over the city, that you can rent by the hour or by the day. One just accesses the above web site and signs up to take advantage of the system. Particularly for city-dwellers, one does not need to own an automobile! I know many people who get along perfectly well without. Think of the money you save on such things as buying a car in the first place, insurance, maintenance and upkeep, and sometimes (as in our situation) garage rental. In the light of total expenses, gasoline is a relatively small part of the cost of owning an automobile. And health statistics report that about one in three Americans is unhealthily overweight if not downright obese (and I heard on this morning's news that recent British health figures show similar statistics for the citizens of Britain), so spending less time being a couch-potato or sitting behind the wheel of an automobile and getting off one's behind and walking would be very beneficial. Simply walking is a very good exercise for general health and for burning off excess lard. If one does need a personal automobile, there are a number of hybrids with more coming out every year. There are small all-electric cars on the market, such as the Zenn. True, their speed (up to 30-40 mph) and range (25-30 miles) is limited, but for most people, this is more than enough to commute to and from work or to the local shopping center. And if you must have a gasoline-powered car, I've seen several "Smart Cars" running around. Accommodates two people (the vast majority of automobiles on the freeways and motorways carry the driver only!). The Smart Car has a top speed of 90 mph. But not as good mileage as one would probably expect for such a small car (35 to 45 mpg). But—the Smart Car also comes in an electric model CLICKY. I've seen a number of them running around town. Cute! And the driver invariably looks smug! And as far as the safety of these little cars is concerned, a Smart Car was test-crashed into a concrete barrier at 70 mph., and the passenger compartment emerged intact. But the fact that it remained undamaged is academic, because no one would have survived that rate of deceleration, even if they were in a semi-truck. #### Non-fossil fuel energy sources: Solar panels are getting cheaper to make all the time. I see rooftops here and there around town town festooned with solar panels, even in this city that has a reputation (not always earned) for cloudy skies and rain. Some people get all the electrical power their houses need from solar panels. A bit of an initial investment, but they manage to pay for themselves many times over. Wind farms. The only complaints people have about them is a matter of aesthetics. Blocking a view, and all that. But there are aesthetics and aesthetics. If you think about all the electrical power they produce without pouring carbon dioxide and other pollutants into the air, that they do not block rivers that fish such as salmon need for spawning, nor do they create a lot of radioactive waste that no one seems to know what to do with, those stately rotating turbines suddenly become quite attractive. Well, there is another complaint about wind farms: the possibility of killing migratory birds if the wind farm happens to be on a migratory bird route. Well—first, I've seen a lot of Canada geese flying either north or south, depending on the season. Classic "V" formations. But they are always at such an altitude that the idea of a bunch of them getting smacked by the slow-turning rotor blades in a wind farm seems downright ludicrous. Unless the wind farm is located in or near marshes and wetlands that the birds might use for rest and feeding stops. But that's simply solved. Don't build wind farms in swamps!! Not a good idea for several reasons. Some years back, I had an acquaintance (a co-worker) who put a wind turbine in his back yard. It supplied all his household electricity needs. In fact, Seattle City Light thought something was malfunctioning because his meter was running backwards! He wasn't taking power out of the system, he was putting it in! And it seems that, legally, Seattle City Light owed him money! City Light had a wall-eyed fit! They tried everything they could think of to have the wind turbine declared illegal. Among other things, they tried to get his neighbors to file complaints. But what he got instead were neighbors dropping by, say, "Cool! How do I go about setting up a wind turbine like yours!??" So City Light called in the Federal Aviation Administration and the Civil Aeronautics Board. Randy lived near the north end of the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. And he had a tower!! The Feds came out, looked things over, and told Randy to put a flashing red light on the wind turbine. Just a precaution, and, they admitted, essentially unnecessary. If any airliner, on its landing approach, was coming in so low that they might clip Randy's wind turbine, they were already in very serious trouble!! So—Randy gets all his household electricity, running all his light, heat, kitchen appliances, stereo system, and big-screen television for free, and Seattle City Light has to send him a small check every month for the electricity he puts back into the system. [Moral of Randy's story: the idea that "You can't beat City Hall" is propaganda put forth by—City Hall!] Tidal power. There are various ways that this can be harnessed to produce power. The regular raising and lowering of the sea level. Slow, but regular, and the effect can be greatly speeded up with a system of gears to turn turbines. And the much swifter ebb and flow of vast quantities of water through straits and channels (fifty-foot tides in the Bay of Fundy). Carrying the power of the oceans much further, I read a series of articles in the now-defunct science magazine, Omni a couple of decades ago. The article advocated placing turbines—very large turbines—in various selected places, such as the Gulf Stream, and anchoring them to the sea floor. These would be like ducted fans, and there could be a whole string of them in series, or several such strings. They would be deep enough so that they would not interfere with shipping in any way (and submarine services and other submersibles would be notified of their locations). A series of these turbines in the Gulf Stream, the article said, could easily supply electrical power to the entire Eastern Seaboard of the United States, and perhaps even further. The only complaints voiced were similar to the ones about wind farms and migratory birds: but the idea of whales, porpoises, and other pelagic creatures getting caught in, being injured by, or damaging the turbines could be easily solved by equipping them with coverings of mesh fine enough so that it doesn't impede the flow of the current, but blocks anything much larger that plankton. Not a problem. I've not heard anything about the implementation of this scheme, but considering the inexorable power of ocean currents and the fact that they are all over the earth's oceans, it would seem to be a rich and as yet totally untapped energy source. Another friend of mine came up with a scheme that sounds like it has a great deal of promise. He was thinking in terms of supplying electrical power for a base on the moon. Bury pipes under a large, flat area. This could be very large, even, say, a mile square. The pipes would be filled with fluid, and they would zig-zag back and fourth through a row of turbines. Then, place a large sheet of insulating material over half of the area, placing it on rails. The rails would allow you to periodically roll the sheet of insulation from one half of the area to the other half. Okay. Got that? Now. When the sun is shining on the area (on the moon, for a period of about two weeks), one half is absorbing heat while the other half is insulated from the heat, Then, as the sun moves to the other side of the moon, you roll the insulating sheet to the other half. Do this back and forth dance a couple of times and you have a large patch of ground growing very hot (absorbing the sun's heat), then being prevented from radiating it back out when the insulation is rolled back over it; this, while the patch adjacent to it is insulated from the sun's heat and radiates any residual heat when the sun is not shining on it. One patch grows very hot, the other patch grows very cold. Got it? The fluid, heated under one patch and cooled under the other, races back and forth through the row of turbines. Voila!! Electicity. More that enough to power the moon base. If placed in a desert area here on earth, this would not be as efficient as it would be on the moon, it would still work quite well. #### Speaking of the moon, an old friend and drinking buddy of mine is science fiction writer Jerry Pournelle. We met in the late 1950s, saw each other frequently in our favorite watering-hole (beer joint) near the University of Washington campus, the the legendary and infamous Blue Moon Tavern. Jerry moved to California in the mid-1960s, and it was there that he began writing science fiction, often collaborating with Larry Niven (The Mote in God's Eye Lucifer's Hammer, Footfall, others). But science fiction notwithstanding, Jerry is a solidly grounded scientist, has worked in the space program, has written articles in scientific journals, had a regular column on computers in Byte magazine, and during the Reagan administration, he was a science advisor to Reagan, both advocating for and supplying technical information on the projected "Star Wars" program. What all he is doing currently, I'm not sure. I last saw him in 1985 when he and Larry Niven were in Seattle promoting their latest book. Jerry's viewpoint was, and is, strongly conservative, whereas some here have accused me of being a member of the dreaded "Liberal Mafia," so Jerry and I had some fairly intense discussions (while remaining fast friends). But there are a number of points upon which Jerry and I are in agreement. One point is that he said, "Considering that there is a wide variety of relatively easy sources of energy, and considering all the essential products that are made from petroleum" (he enumerated such things as pharmaceuticals, fertilizers, plastics) "that simply burning it to provide energy is a crime against the future! Because it's not going to last forever. The remaining reserves get scarcer and more difficult to get at with each passing year." And he also opposed both Gulf Wars, on the basis that they were really all about who controls the oil reserves, and said that "We should develop some of the other readily available sources of energy and let the Arabs drink their oil!" And he was NOT talking about drilling for oil in the U. S., off-shore or otherwise. So, if anyone has the bad judgment to buy a gas-hog these days, that's his problem, not mine. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: mousethief Date: 06 Aug 10 - 12:14 AM You know it occurs to me that maybe you really think the people who make Hershey's chocolate are a separate race or class or ethnicity of people? You do know, don't you, that Oompa Loompas are fictional? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: mousethief Date: 05 Aug 10 - 11:56 PM Fookin bigot. You need a new dictionary. Somebody is not a bigot because they don't like a particular brand of chocolate. I suggest Merriam Webster's. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: GUEST,TIA Date: 05 Aug 10 - 11:31 PM No. Hershey's is not chocolate, and not a corporation. It is a people! If you got a beef with Hersheys, you are dissing the good people of Hershey PA. Fookin bigot. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: mousethief Date: 05 Aug 10 - 08:45 PM Hershey's is chocolate? It was the "Kill Rams" that failed to work on the BOP. Then it wasn't "perfectly OK" was it? Good grief. Brit man speakum with forked tongue. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 05 Aug 10 - 07:37 PM Your chocolate melted? Terrible! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: GUEST,TIA Date: 05 Aug 10 - 07:21 PM Hiking last week, my chocolate bar melted in my backpack and made a gawdawful mess. I hold personally responsible the people of Hershey, Pennsylvania. The stupid, careless bastards. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Ebbie Date: 05 Aug 10 - 06:26 PM Excellent dissertation, Don. You will find, however, that Teribus will not acknowledge the facts or respond in any way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Don Firth Date: 05 Aug 10 - 05:00 PM Man, you are really EGO INVOLVED in this! I ignore your snotty remarks because I have read the whole thing, I know what a BOP is and how at least two types of BOPs work, and what drilling mud is used for and how it is used. I read and listen to reports from people who were there at the time, and from people who have worked in and around the field (such as my Sri Lankan acquaintance, and an oceanographer friend whom I have known since college and who has been following this very closely, it being very much in his area of both expertise and academic interest—plus another oceanographer friend who currently lives in the Florida Keys and who has followed this whole thing very closely), and who have no direct, personal interest (or ego invovlement) in the matter, and whose knowledge and opinions I can trust. You did say one thing with which I agree: there is indeed plenty of blame to go around. This incident begins to exhibit the characteristics of a Three Stooges routine for sheer ineptitude. But the ultimate responsibility lies with BP, especially since this whole operation has been affected by their insisting on taking short-cuts and putting profits over safety. And as far as things like nationalism and your ego involvement are concerned, what Ebbie said up-thread is much to the point. When BP gas stations started appearing in the United States, their advertising made it quite plain that BP stood for "British Petroleum." They may have changed that later, in the same way that the heavily promoted "Colonel Sanders' Kentucky Fried Chicken" later became simply "KFC." The advertising for both "British Petroleum" and "Kentucky Fried Chicken" was sufficiently effective that these two appellations are what most people think of when the see "BP" or "KFC." I doubt very much that if, say, a whole bunch of people were to get food poisoning from eating an order to go of KFC ("Kentucky Fried Chicken"), that the the people of the State of Kentucky would be blamed or thought less of because of it. Likewise, "Esso," an international trade name for Exxon Mobile. The company used to be "Standard Oil of New Jersey." You might note that following the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound, nobody blamed the people of the State of New Jersey. Despite the fact that BP used to be called "British Petroleum," NO ONE is blaming the British people for the Gulf oil spill.. Jeez, man! Get a life!! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Teribus Date: 05 Aug 10 - 05:50 AM Coming out of the hole you withdraw the drill string stand-by-stand, drill collar and drill-bit. The mud you have been pumping down through the drill string to lubricate the drill bit continues to be pumped down to balance the pressure. By the time there is sufficient mud in the drilled hole cement is pumped down to form the first of three cement plugs. Once the first cement plug has been set mud once again is pumped down to fill a predetermined length of casing. Pressure is kept on this mud for a predetermined time to allow the cement to "go-off" (i.e. set). Once you think it has you then repeat the process to set the second and third cement plugs. Once the third plug has been set you ease off the pressure on the mud pumps and monitor the pressure between the top of the last cement plug and the drill floor. If that pressure falls as you take off the pressure you know that the cement job has been successful and you can recover what drilling mud remains flushing it out with salt water. If on the other hand you ease off on the pressure on the surface but the pressure down the hole does not drop it means that the reservoir pressure is pushing the cement plugs up the casing from down below and that additional plugs will be required. Now what stage had they reached onboard the Deepwater Horizon when the well kicked? First plug set? Second plug set? Third plug set? Were they in the process of flushing the system through? Particularly liked this bit, penned no doubt by some enthusiastic reporter at MSNBC, who has sort of half listened to what someone who may or may not have had any real knowledge told him: Blowout preventers are installed as a routine precaution. They are a bit analagous to a parachute. As long as the airplane is well-maintained and flown with competence, the parachute will not be necessary. Had the drilling procedure not been interfered with by bean-counters more concerned with cost-cutting than safety, they never would have found out that the BOP was defective. Well Don I linked you to a site that told you exactly what a BOP Stack does. You obviously did not take the trouble to read it, now why am I not surprised at that? So a BOP only serves a precautionary purpose does it? You are trying to tell me that it along with the Casing, Guide-Base, Well Conductor and Marine Riser does not form part of the integral closed circuit pressure system that allows drilling to take place? The part of the BOP that is analagous to a parachute are the things called the "Kill Rams" which are a tiny but vital part of the BOP if things go wrong. The first paragraph of the MSNBC quote is a massive over-simplification that misleads more than it informs. Move onto the second paragraph. Drilling had been completed days before the 20th April, so what drilling procedure had been interfered with? The "Bean-Counters referred to, where were they? I don't know if you realise this Don but the hole that was drilled still remains perfect to this day, nothing wrong with it, the casing, the guide-base, the well conductor and wait for it the BOP in its normal every day function are all perfectly OK. After all that is what the cap, that has successfully temporarily sealed the leak for the last two weeks, is locked onto. It was the "Kill Rams" that failed to work on the BOP. They failed to activate, or they failed to shear and seal the well. So much as MSNBC prattles on about drilling procedures and "bean counters" (Oooh don't you just hate those bean counters) to spice up the story. To anyone who has actually set foot on an offshore drilling rig and seen what goes on on a drill floor the guy who wrote that piece is talking out of his arse. Land drilling and horizontal drilling are BP pioneered proven techniques that have been in use for at least two decades as far as I am aware. What does Don Firth, "Champion of the Earth", aim to achieve in signing up to get "Liberty Island" stopped? Total shut down of Alaskan oil production? I doubt that that would be all that popular, but WTF it won't affect me so fill your boots, 'cos the SUV's are going to have to stay parked and the price of "gas" is going to rocket - And when it does write and thank Don. Comparative Safety/Performance Ratings: US Regulatory Authorities: The Minerals Management Service (renamed on 18 June 2010 to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, or Bureau of Ocean Energy (BOE)) is the regulatory and inspecting body for offshore oil drilling and rigs. According to an Associated Press investigation such examination as was performed was for the most part brief, perfunctory, extremely lax, and with "poor recordkeeping". Crucial safety documentation and emergency procedure information, including documentation for the exact incident that later occurred, was absent. The exact number of required monthly inspections varied over time, with the required monthly inspection for the first 40 months but after that around 25% of inspections were omitted, although the investigation notes this is partly expected, since there are circumstances such as weather and movement which preclude an inspection. Reports of the last three inspections for 2010 were provided under Freedom of Information laws. Each of these inspections had taken two hours or less. Hey Don that bad they had to change their name mid-disaster. BP: Following the incident, BP was criticised in the media as having a flawed culture which did not attend to safety issues as it might, and corporate ratings group RiskMetrics described BP's as having "worse health, environment and safety record than many other major oil companies". Note: Neither the media OR RiskMetrics who made these judgements have anything to do with the oil industry or any oil industry regulatory body - bare that in mind BPs recordable injury frequency rate at OSHA was 1.42 injuries for every 200,000 hours in 1999; by 2009 it was 0.34, having declined steadily year-on-year.[Within ten years the Company is four times safer] The total number of reportable incidents per 200,000 hours fell by 10% in both 2006 and 2008, was unchanged in 2007, and fell by 21% in 2009 (the last year for which figures are available). BP chief executive Tony Hayward commented that "You can't change an organisation of 100,000 people overnight, but we have made extraordinary strides in three years." The head of energy research at RiskMetrics agreed that "the company has made improvements during that time". That was big of him Constant steady improvement, acknowledged by a company that seems to be their greatest detractor (part of Investment Bank J.P.Morgan - no attempt to drive share prices down in order to make a killing later dimension to those comments eh?) Transocean: The rig owner, Transocean, also had a "strong overall" safety record with no major incidents for 7 years. However an analysts' review "painted a more equivocal picture" with Transocean rigs being disproportionately responsible for safety related incidents in the Gulf and industry surveys reporting concerns over falling quality and performance. In the 3 years 2005 to 2007 Transocean was the owner of 30% of oilrigs active in the Gulf and 33% of incidents that triggered an MMS investigation were on Transocean rigs, but in the 3 years from 2008 to 15 February 2010 it owned 42% of rigs but was the owner for nearly 3/4 (73%) of incidents. Industry surveys saw this as an effect of its November 2007 merger with rival GlobalSantaFe. Transocean "has had problems" with both cement seals (2005) and blowout preventers (2006), which are the suspected cause of the Deepwater Horizon loss,[47] although Transocean states cementing is a third party task and it has "a strong maintenance program to keep blowout preventers working". Declining safety record occasioned by a merger with another drilling Company. Hey Don does that sound familiar to you - BP merger with AMOCO?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Don Firth Date: 04 Aug 10 - 08:52 PM "Sorry folks but I am tired of agruing the point with people who haven't got a clue about what they are talking about, purely because they are looking for someone to blame, and basically that someone must not be American, because that suits the script according to St Barack Obama." In addition to being sheer B.S., that pretty well illustrates what Teribus's whine is all about—in addition to ignoring the fact that some of us know exactly what we're talking about. Frankly, I don't believe he has the expertise he claims he has. Either that, or he is trying to shine everybody on. From MSNBC: HOUSTON — Before rig workers aboard the doomed Deepwater Horizion drilling platform performed a procedure that BP says may have been a "fundamental mistake," there was a "skirmish" between BP and Transocean staff about whether to proceed, the rig's chief mechanic told federal investigators on Wednesday.(Drilling "mud" is a man-made product, a sort of viscous slurry designed to control the up-rush of oil. It is about twice as heavy and dense as sea-water. "Mud" is 1) expensive, and 2) it can be recycled and reused. BP, maintaining that the mud was no longer necessary to control the flow of oil, wanted to salvage it for re-use, so they ordered that it be withdrawn for recycling and replaced with sea water.) Speaking to a federal board of investigators in Kenner, Louisiana, mechanic Douglas Brown said that around noon on April 20, the day of the explosion, rig workers met in a room adjacent to the rig's galley and "there was an argument that took place and a difference of opinions."Blowout preventers are installed as a routine precaution. They are a bit analagous to a parachute. As long as the airplane is well-maintained and flown with competence, the parachute will not be necessary. Had the drilling procedure not been interfered with by bean-counters more concerned with cost-cutting than safety, they never would have found out that the BOP was defective. #### This came in a newsletter I received in this morning's e-mail: BP is at it again!Button to click to sign a petition to Ken Salazar. I did. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Teribus Date: 04 Aug 10 - 08:25 PM They either know what they are doing or they shouldn't be there. As far as the drillers were concerned their job was over about five days before the well blew. If it was anything to do with what they were concerned with it would have blown at the time THEY were doing it - BUT GUESS WHAT it didn't. Sorry folks but I am tired of agruing the point with people who haven't got a clue about what they are talking about, purely because they are looking for someone to blame, and basically that someone must not be American, because that suits the script according to St Barack Obama. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: mousethief Date: 04 Aug 10 - 04:18 PM Hindsight is 20/20. I'm sure none of the drillers were thinking about death as the likely outcome of their bowing to BP pressure to cut corners. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Teribus Date: 04 Aug 10 - 11:34 AM What was the mud? The mud or the absence thereof did not cause the blow-out, cement plugs had already been set when the well kicked. The blow-out preventer did not operate as it should have done automatically, i.e. it failed. Gas under tremendous pressure burst up the marine riser to the drill floor caught fire and then exploded - Note the bloody sequence. Yeah, sure, you'd give up your job in the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression. You macho dude. If it meant me staying alive bloody right I would, Nothing macho in that "Dude" it is called being sensible and standing by what you believe to be correct. If your dead it doesn't make a toss how bad the recession - TRUE?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Ebbie Date: 04 Aug 10 - 01:14 AM It's due to his cojones, MT. :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: mousethief Date: 04 Aug 10 - 01:03 AM 1. Drilling had nothing to do with the what happened, my guess is that they would have been finished drilling for about four or five days before the "Blow-Out" occurred. 2. Even if it did the "drilling" experts and specialists on the Deepwater Horizon were Transocean, NOT BP. Professionally if I am "ordered" to do something that I believe to be unsafe or unprofessional I will tell whoever gives that "order" to take a hike. 1. It was the mud. 2. Yeah, sure, you'd give up your job in the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression. You macho dude. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Teribus Date: 04 Aug 10 - 12:49 AM mousethief and Don for the umpteenth time 1. Drilling had nothing to do with the what happened, my guess is that they would have been finished drilling for about four or five days before the "Blow-Out" occurred. 2. Even if it did the "drilling" experts and specialists on the Deepwater Horizon were Transocean, NOT BP. Professionally if I am "ordered" to do something that I believe to be unsafe or unprofessional I will tell whoever gives that "order" to take a hike. 3. Don you know absolutely damn all about what you are talking about, evidenced by: A blow-out preventer (functional or non-functional) is hardly necessary if there is no blowout in the first place. Hardly necessary!!! It and its associated "Marine Riser" are absolutely vital, you cannot drill without them. Named in 2001 and 2005 eh! WOW must have had a great crystal ball if they changed their name in 2000 because of that record. Something that happened a decade ago is not something I would describe as a recent event. Safety issues in the US of A relate to assets that were formerly AMOCO facilities and businesses, same people stayed on to run them the same way as they did before that I believe was around 1997, US oil-field culture = Hire 'em, fire 'em, run their Goddam assess off to save us from havin' to pay them their completion bonuses, safety hell we'll be twice as safe on the next job to make up for it! - I've worked for them and Ebbie it wasn't BP who switched the alarms and safety systems off on the Deepwater Horizon. BP takes the responsibility because it HAS TO legally it automatically takes that responsibility when it gets the lease. But as I have tried to din into a few on this forum being RESPONSIBLE is NOT the same as being at FAULT or being to BLAME. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Don Firth Date: 03 Aug 10 - 03:26 PM Teribus, if the sobriquet "British Petroleum" were not the operative concept here, then tell me why Richard Bridge went up in flames in the opening post? And you are weighing in so heavily? As I have said a couple of times now, it makes no difference if the company is British, Swahili, or from Arcturus 12, they are ultimately responsible for what happened. If BP had not formerly been called "British Petroleum," then why are you folks having such a hissy-fit and trying to pin the blame on anybody but BP? Also, you are ignoring (trying to minimize) salient facts here. The Deepwater Horizon crew was reluctantly (due to safety concerns) following BP management's order to speed up the drilling. The blowout would probably not have happened in the first place had it not been for BP's insistence on ignoring safety margins. A blow-out preventer (functional or non-functional) is hardly necessary if there is no blowout in the first place. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: mousethief Date: 03 Aug 10 - 03:02 PM What failed was the cement job and the BOP both things controlled by American contracting service companies and they as far as can be seen have got off "Scot Free". I'm not sure how you can say they got off "Scot Free" when the lawsuits are just now starting to trickle in. I very much remains to be seen who gets off scot free. If BP are not to blame, why did they take responsibility so soon and so publicly? I think they know they're on the shit list. You seem doggedly determined to ignore all the evidence that the blowout was due to BP's insisting on certain procedures that the actual drillers cautioned against. Guess it doesn't fit your pet theory. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Ebbie Date: 03 Aug 10 - 02:02 PM BP's environmental record is pretty appalling. In 2000, British Petroleum changed its name to BP (Beyond Petroleum) and chose a yellow and green sunflower-like as its logo in a bid to highlight its interest in alternative and environmentally friendly fuels. Nevertheless BP was named one of the "ten worst corporations" in both 2001 and 2005 based on its environmental and human rights records. www.we-make-money-not-art.com Question: Is it not likely that BP changed its name because of its record? Question: If the Brits are so intent on not having BP called 'British Petroleum', why do they claim it as a British company? You are the guys primarily doing it, not us. Question: Since 'Kentucky Fried Chicken' changed its name to 'KFC', does that mean you Brits would not dream of identifying it with its former name? Question: Since when is 2000 so "long ago"? KFC changed its name in 1991. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 03 Aug 10 - 01:44 PM Teribus, Self avowed liberal 'activists' tend to go which ever way the wind blows.....themselves, being as windbags, 'Birds of a feather flock together'. Wait till hurricane season!!...Then they march in demonstrations! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 03 Aug 10 - 01:00 PM I called for tar-and-feathering of Tony Hayward. If Transocean people also were at fault, I'll add them to the list. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Teribus Date: 03 Aug 10 - 12:43 PM Q and Don Firth - Go back and read the opening posts on this thread and take a good look at the positions that you adopted at the outset. Q I believe that you were all for tar-and-feathering people, according to Don it was all BP's fault. Me? I merely pointed out that while BP was responsible it was not necessarily BP's FAULT. Correction Don it has been a long time since BP stood for British Petroleum, yet your President persistently called them that. I think I can remember you arguing about the significance of your former President mentioning the name Saddam Hussein in sentences with references to 9/11 and the impression that created in the minds of the American public. Q according to you BP were doing the drilling, not Transocean, it took me long enough but at least in the end I got an acknowledgement from you that you were in error and that it was Transocean who were doing the drilling. What failed was the cement job and the BOP both things controlled by American contracting service companies and they as far as can be seen have got off "Scot Free". I do not believe Q that any of my posts have led you to believe about inherent British flaws, you have demonstrated that point of view from the outset. What I have done is to point out to both of you where you have been in error. Unlike the pair of you I have had the experience of working for the players in this drama and my personal experience of them has been that BP were by far the best of them, both Halliburton and Transocean were cowboy outfits in comparison. And please before you start wittering on about refineries and BP's safety record in the USA, remember that those operations were all former AMOCO assets, American run with American work, maintenance and safety practices, run by the same people that ran them before the take-over. Also remember companies do not cause accidents people do, in the case of the Texas Refinery the roots of the accident that happened there go back to actions taken by personnel at the plant seven years before BP took it over. If you are going to discuss something at least get your facts right from the start. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 02 Aug 10 - 05:15 PM The more Terribus posts, the more I think there IS an inherent flaw in British character- or at least in some of the island's denizens- but that would take another dozen threads. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Don Firth Date: 02 Aug 10 - 04:32 PM I don't know why a few Brits have such a massive bug up their butts that they have to turn this into a nationalistic issue. As I said above, the idea that "BP" stands for "British Petroleum" is incidental and irrelevant to this incident. BP is a member of the oil industry in general which is notorious for following a policy of cutting corners and putting profits over safety. It's that policy that caused this disaster, not the fact that BP is a British-based multinational company. People like Teribus seem to be accusing Americans of trying to claim that this f**k-up was caused by an inherent flaw in the British character rather than the kind of reckless cost-cutting that is pandemic among oil companies in general, and then doing back-flips in an effort to try to minimize the nature and extent of the disaster. Going back to the Torrey Canyon oil spill, a lot of folks on that side of the pond were not to happy when vast quantities of oil started washing up on the beaches in the south of England, the Channel Islands, and the north of France. And who got blamed and sued? The American company that owned the ship and had chartered it to BP, and thereby had no control over the operation, especially the incompetence of the Italian captain. And if there is any connection betweent the two incidents, it is that those most responsible are trying to lay the blame on anyone and everyone but themselves. As I also mentioned earlier, I don't have a dog in this fight. As far as any kind of animosity toward Britain, none here. My ancestry is Scottish, and a number of times I have seriously considered moving to England. I love the history, the high quality of arts, music, and drama, and the people in general, and if I were to suggest moving to the British Isles, I doubt that I would get any argument from my wife. The problem is that BP is responsible for the spill, not that the company is British. What the hell is the matter with you people*? Don Firth * "You people." Not the British people in general, but the handful of people who are pissing and moaning on this thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Teribus Date: 02 Aug 10 - 03:32 PM Oil Spill damage exaggerated And Evapourating oil slick leaves America without a villain Another actor in the drama "Transocean" otherwise "Global Santa Fe" (Where the GSF comes from in the names of their rigs) Remember these paragons who Q and others tried to claim were so mercilessly bullied by big bad BP. that's right the ones whose employees by-passed, switched off and rendered useless alarms and onboard safety systems that might have saved life onboard the Deepwater Horizon. Well I received this today from someone I used to work with an offshore crane operator. The rig they are talking about is Tranocean's "GSF Jack Ryan": Subject: disaster Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 19:51:33 +0000 Hay lads the rig i am on in Nigeria the Jack Ryan today just had a major disaster i was watching as it happened, they were load testing the port aft crane when the fu..... crane boom snapped!!!!!!! also ripping the crane cab to bits throwing the crane op and the ET around a 100ft to the sea below seen the poor buggers falling they were lucky it wasnt the deck cause it was close............also the lad who was supervising the load testing is missing i.e dead, the ET is in a serious state the crane op is hurt but looks like he will make it. IT TOOK Transocean FANNIES 15 MIN TO LAUNCH THE FRC BOAT THE SMALL CRANE/HOIST WAS SPEWING OIL AND WOULDNT LOWER!!!!!!WTF!!!! AND OVER AN HOUR TO GET A FULL MUSTER....................... be safe lads 'cause disaster is never far away offshore especialy down here |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Ebbie Date: 01 Aug 10 - 02:40 PM Well, I for one, am happy that he got his life back. :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: dick greenhaus Date: 01 Aug 10 - 01:31 PM Even if--and I honestly doubt that---Hayward was right in his assessment of the environmental damage of the thee-month spill, he had no way of knowing this. How much gambling with the environment are we willing to risk? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 01 Aug 10 - 01:08 PM No problem with the first two, but have doubts about drug runners. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Jack the Sailor Date: 01 Aug 10 - 01:08 PM I don't trust anyone in a business relationship. If they are doing it for money then money is the goal. Everything else is a means to that end. That is the strength of Capitalism. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 01 Aug 10 - 03:49 AM Q: "Who should one trust? Musicians? Bartenders? Grocers?" Illegal alien, homosexual, drug runners!...At least their shit is up front! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 31 Jul 10 - 08:14 PM Who should one trust? Musicians? Bartenders? Grocers? Duhhhh |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 31 Jul 10 - 05:12 PM Q: ""Lawyers, Far from Gulf, Skirmish on Spill Claims," John Swartz; NY Times, July 29, 2010." Today's lawyers..tomorrow's politicians....can't trust any of them! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: mousethief Date: 31 Jul 10 - 12:38 AM "Choosing the right venue for the cases, to avoid any potential conflicts of interest for the judges or jurors, is essential." Pity the SCOTUS didn't think of that in Bush v Gore 2000. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 30 Jul 10 - 03:30 PM New York Times, July 30. The lawyers are meeting in Boise, Idaho, asking for decisions on which court ought to be asked for to hear the case for damages against BP. The federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation meets there this month- a different site is selected for each of these gatherings. These suits will go on for years. "Choosing the right venue for the cases, to avoid any potential conflicts of interest for the judges or jurors, is essential." E. J. Cabraser, the lawyer who represented plaintiffs in the Exxon-Valdez case. Lawyers present their case to a panel of seven judges; they will issue decisions in August. BP prefers Houston; plaintiffs mostly have other choices. "Lawyers, Far from Gulf, Skirmish on Spill Claims," John Swartz; NY Times, July 29, 2010. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Don Firth Date: 30 Jul 10 - 02:59 PM Sterling example of biased press coverage. Let your dog shit all over your neighbor's front yard, and then get snarky when the neighbor complains about it. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 30 Jul 10 - 11:39 AM What a downplay!!!!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Teribus Date: 30 Jul 10 - 10:16 AM Was Tony Hayward right after all? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Sttaw Legend Date: 30 Jul 10 - 09:29 AM Look like the shares are on the up again....maybe time to buy in!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Greg F. Date: 30 Jul 10 - 09:07 AM Well, there's profit; then there's a lot of profit, and then there's obscene profit. Was a time folks were content with a reasonable return on their investments. Now, unless they get an unreasonable return, they ain't satisfied. Talk about the "Me Generation" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 29 Jul 10 - 07:02 PM Profit is necessary for a company to grow. No one will buy shares in a company that is profitless. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: dick greenhaus Date: 29 Jul 10 - 02:03 PM 10% of a hell of a lot is still a hell of a lot. Net profit is one of the poorest metrics for a business' performance |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 29 Jul 10 - 12:56 PM Guest Patsy, the attack on BP is based on evidence of short-cuts and hasty decisions, not on size. This has been discussed over and over, and whether believed or not has little to do with size (fat cats). If one examines the balance sheets of BP, Shell, Exxon-Mobil, Chevron etc., after allotments for shareholders large and small (many of us), and expenses, the profit in good years is 10% or less; many smaller concerns do better than that. The total take means no more for the books of big companies than it does for the small local store chain with 20 employees and 3-4 premises. Of course, large concerns affecting the livelihoods of millions can yield political and legislative clout- that is another matter; better legislation is needed. This also is the subject of several threads. Regulatory bodies should see that companies play by the rules and operate safely. No one disputes that the U.S. bodies were lax and the hope is that the reorganization will help. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: GUEST,Patsy Warren Date: 29 Jul 10 - 07:40 AM As I see it the folks in Louisianna and surrounding areas are understandably very angry as any one would be who's livelyhood depends on fishing and seasonal tourism etc. If Obama attacks a big business fatcat empire like BP then so be it. All BP cares about is the profits they make at the end of the day no matter who they walk on. Having lived in an area here in the UK where tourism and fishing is the main source of income I can appreciate how devastating a disaster like that would be. As in most seaside towns the work available in the winter is minimal and generally not paid terribly well so they can't afford to lose money earnt during the summer. I remember an oil tanker spill back in the late 60's early 70's and although nowhere near as bad as the BP spill it was still devastating enough for some of the seaside towns around the Solent including the Isle of Wight. Although people assume the inhabitants are middle-class and well heeled the other-side to the island shows something completely different (that's another story). The effect on the wildlife was tragic and it had quite an effect on summer tourism for the ordinary folk who need this to make a reasonable living. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Teribus Date: 29 Jul 10 - 06:09 AM PS: In case it hasn't escaped anybody's notice the relief wells are being drilled by the same players with the same equipment as drilled the well that blew. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Teribus Date: 29 Jul 10 - 06:06 AM Drilling Operations started 7th October 2009 from Transocean Marianas. Operations halted when the Marianas was damaged by Hurricane Ida on 29th November 2009 by which time they had spudded in and succeeded in drilling to a depth below seabed of 4023 feet. Drilling operation resumed by Transocean Deepwater Horizon on 8th February 2010. As production casing was being run and the well being prepared for temporary abandonment when the "Blow-Out" occurred it would be safe to assume that drilling operations had halted before 20th April 2010 but to get to a point where the well could be handed over for production it took 3 months. BP ordered the drilling of two relief wells to kill the Macondo Well the first started 2nd May 2010 by Transocean Development Driller III and the second on 16th May 2010 by Transocean GSF Development Driller II. Estimated time to drill relief wells 3 months. The timings reported above would lead to suggest that Deepwater Horizon DID NOT drill two separate holes. Timing suggests that they did in fact kick-out from the first to reach target depth. The drilling played no part at all in the blow-out, nor was it a factor in the accident or the spill. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 28 Jul 10 - 12:12 PM BY THE WAY, Has anyone heard from Little Hawk? Are you O.K? GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 28 Jul 10 - 12:02 PM The history of the Macondo well is rather complex. It was spudded Oct. 7, 2009 from Transocean Marianas. The rig was damaged by Hurricane Ida in November, and had to leave. The Transocean Horizon rig resumed drilling February 8, 2010 when they landed the BOP stack. I am not clear of the details involved in the resumption; someone with the Oil and Gas Journal issues of that time may be able to post them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 28 Jul 10 - 11:51 AM Jeez...am I the one who needs to point out that it's gotten a bit petty in here? While it is true, that Obama has spent a lot of his time in re-recreational activities, amid the national crisis we are in, I'd prefer he just take a permanent vacation, and play lots of golf! I mean, it sounds like, "They're out of bread?..Let them eat cake!" Other than that, I don't want to engage in the 'wonders of Obama' rap. If your like him, you look the other way...if you hate him, or fear for what is happening, you'll point out every little thing. The left doesn't give a shit about what the right is saying, even when it's true, and vice-versa... We have become so polarized in this country, and most of it stems from flat out ignorance and stupidity.......but those participating don't care, they love it that way...and they hope that the bad times are here to stay! It's idiotic! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Don Firth Date: 28 Jul 10 - 01:54 AM There is a slight dirrerence here. Obama is not the CEO of BP. Tony Hayward is (was). Obama and VP Joe Biden played golf for four hours on the afternoon of Sunday, June 15th. "Father's Day" in the U.S. I know, I know, there are those who think that the poor, harried Tony Hayward needed a bit of relief from the general stress while Obama should have put on a wet suit, taken a cork in his teeth, and swam to the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico and plugged the bloody hole personally. Don Firth |
