|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Teribus Date: 28 Jul 10 - 12:38 AM I think the number of rounds of golf played by Barack Obama was seven. BP apologist GregF? No not apologist, I have always said that BP are the responsible parties because of their position as the Operator. What you lot have done is to confuse responsibility for something with fault. Instead of concentrating on solving the problem of the leak which BP HAVE DONE, and DID DO, by the way, your Government went into hyperdrive on the blame game. Barack Obama's speciality "Grandstanding" to the electorate, he is a man of great show and no substance, who puts himself and his public image before everything else. What failed onboard Deepwater Horizon was not the singular fault of BP. If you are aportioning blame then the net gets cast much wider and includes Halliburton, Transocean, posibly Cameron and definitely the US Regulatory Authorities. The legal wrangling over this will take years and make a lot of lawyers very wealthy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Don Firth Date: 27 Jul 10 - 06:57 PM "How many games of golf did your President play?" That depends on which President you're talking about. I don't know of any President who went golfing when there was a major emergency going on. With the possible exception within the past few years of George W. Bush. But as far as I know, he wasn't that much into golf. He did start a totally unnecessary and illegal war with Iraq, then hopped aboard Air Force One and flew (at the taxpayers' expense) down to his ranch in Crawford, Texas to cut brush (really essential to the good of the nation, of course. . . .). '. . . who gives a flying fuck what they do in their spare time." I believe that one of the emperor Nero's main niches in history is "fiddling while Rome burned." Whether they can do anything concrete or not, it's just plain bad PR to run out and play while something dire is going on. Shows a certain "What? Me worry?" attitude. On the two bore-holes matter: I've heard and read that from a number of sources. I'll try to find you some documentary proof—assuming you will actually accept an authoritative source or two. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Greg F. Date: 27 Jul 10 - 06:07 PM Good to see Teribus taking over as head BP apologist now they'e got Hayward out of the way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Teribus Date: 27 Jul 10 - 05:21 PM PS: The opening bit about Tony Hayward was a joke. PPS: Tony Hayward took part in one sailing race during Cowes Week - How many games of golf did your President play? As both were only ever going to be kept informed and were not required to actually do anything - who gives a flying fuck what they do in their spare time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Teribus Date: 27 Jul 10 - 05:16 PM Better than that Don, Hayward has a claim in for compensation from the 20 Billion US$ Fund for loss of earnings and top up of his pension due to the Gulf Oil Spill. Doubt if two separate holes were actually drilled. Most likely solution would be that they would have "kicked out" from the first one using a directional drill, judging by the drilling times, for them to have pulled out entirely re-spudded and started all over again would have taken months, but that is only my guess. The relief wells being drilled started in June and will not be completed until mid-August, they I believe are targeted at intersecting the existing hole again using directional drilling techniques. And in drilling those relief well holes they will be going flat out to get them drillied as quick as Christ will let them, to do that they will be using the drilling data from the Deepwater Horizon - Nothing wrong with the manner in which the operation you call "the second well" was drilled. Do I work for BP, no I do not, I did once upon a time and during that time there was not a single accident that was before Lord John Browne's time, before BP took over US Oil Company AMOCO who ran those refineries that had all the safety issues. The two ships we have there were called in from other work although I do believe they did work for BP in the GOM on "Blind Faith" and "Thunder Horse" both deep water fields that have been put into production without incident. What went wrong Don - 1) The cement job failed (Halliburton) and 2) The BOP failed (Transocean/Cameron). Only once the well has been secured and the items of equipment recovered from the seabed will there be any detailed reasons given for the cause of the BOP failure. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Don Firth Date: 27 Jul 10 - 03:50 PM Tony Hayward, CEO of BP, upset by the "inconvenience" the Gulf oil spill has caused him, complained bitterly that he "wanted to get his life back," and showed the depth of his concern over the matter by participating in a yacht race (the "J.P. Morgan Asset Management Round the Island Race"--!!???) off the coast of England. They've canned his ass and sent him to Russia. Siberia, perhaps? But I wouldn't worry about Tony. He's departing with millions in pensions and severance pay. [Man!! That's the way to do it!! If you can finagle a job as a CEO, when you figure you've had enough and would like to retire early and have a little fun, screw up bigtime, get 'em to sack you, and you walk off with enough money to whoop it up and live the rest of your life in luxury!!] But here's the kicker: they're replacing him with an American!! Oh, HORRORS!! Don (No, thanks! I don't want the job!) Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 27 Jul 10 - 01:41 PM Watched a program on the 30-year-old Alyeska pipeline. Several fines have been levied against this BP- majority-owned (47%-51%) line. No real maintenance since it was built. At least one major spill, several others. The line has become "dangerously corroded" according to news reports. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Don Firth Date: 27 Jul 10 - 01:27 AM Okay, Teribus, acknowledged But now let me cut to the chase here. What I have already said a couple of times and which you keep ignoring—either not reading very carefully or studiously avoiding, is the following: The Deepwater Horizon crew bored two holes. The first hole was well on it's way when the BP manager insisted that they "bump it up" and drill faster. Reluctantly obeying orders, and in preference to being fired, the DH crew obey the order. What they feared might happen, did. The hole shattered, the drilling mud leaked out, and they lost tools in the hole. This necessitated abandoning the hole and starting all over again. And that's when everything started going wrong. What I am saying is that if the BP manager, instead of whining about how much it was costing and ordering them to speed it up, had simply kept his nose out and let the DH crew do their job with the first hole, this whole mess would probably never have happened. So you work for BP, then? Or a least for a company under contract to BP. Ah, SO! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Teribus Date: 27 Jul 10 - 12:28 AM Where do I get my facts Don? As far as BOP's and subsea hardware goes I have worked with them for long enough. And for the last ten years have worked for the people who got the first Remotely Operated Vehicle down to take a look at the Stack after the Deepwater Horizon sank. At present two of our ships are supporting the efforts to kill the well and clean up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Don Firth Date: 26 Jul 10 - 09:15 PM Just a point, Teribus. I live thousands of miles from the Gulf of Mexico, and I don't own any American oil company stock. And, frankly, with the way this country has been going of late, I can't really say that I'm very patriotic. I just follow the news and try to keep abreast of what's going on in the world. Other than general concern for the state of the environment, I have no emotional (or financial) involvement in this matter. Obviously, you do. So fuck you very much for the pleasant discussion. I'm through wasting my time arguing with ill-tempered fanatics like you. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Don Firth Date: 26 Jul 10 - 09:02 PM Where the hell do you get your "facts," Teribus? Are you a BP stockholder? That would explain a lot. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 26 Jul 10 - 08:33 PM Don T: "Of course the second link has exposed your total ignorance, Gone from Sanity. You haven't noticed that Gordon Brown no longer has a brave new world, nor a cabinet position. In fact there's a new government over here. Still, nice try I suppose, if totally ineffective." That just shows what a short, media fed mind you have....during Gordon Brown's position, and even to the one now, wasn't there supposed to be trade sanctions on Iraq?? I guess the game of media distraction works great on you, and others of your ilk. The question is, "Who is BP that they can circumnavigate the foreign policies, of both the U.S., and of Britain??????...and set their own policy, while thumbing their nose at their 'home' country? Pretty cool trick, eh?..and why is nobody calling them on it??...Do you suppose they own the right politicians for the right price? I'm surprised you didn't bring this up, already.......well, sorta surprised. The corruption machine has you looking in the wrong direction. Interesting that Obama, who is characterized as 'anti big corporations' hasn't swooped down on this one!....Probably because Fox news isn't reporting it, either, eh?????? GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 26 Jul 10 - 07:28 PM Do the right thing? The day BP pays the cost of the spill, will be the day heaven opens its gates to gamblers, sinners, hypocrites and Tony Hayward. The Associated Press reports today that BP estimates $30 billion, Bloomberg est. $33 billion on July 7, and the cost eventualy will reach $40 to $100 billion when loss of tourist revenue, and failed businesses, are taken into account. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Teribus Date: 26 Jul 10 - 05:53 PM Turning this into a question of patriotism is just plain ridiculous. (Don Firth) What is totally unjust is scapegoating a "foreign" Company that has stepped up to the plate and offered from day one to do the right thing an let two US Companies and the US regulatory body off the hook when it was their part of the operation that failed in the first place. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Teribus Date: 26 Jul 10 - 05:49 PM "Reuter's impossible timeline" has been verified by other sources. Other sources? Name them, if they are press sources then they as ill-informed as to the set up and operation of a BOP Stack as your Sri Lankan friend "who worked on rigs". Just a logical question taking into account this "verified timeline". IF there was a fire and an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon on the 20th of April, and the Deepwater Horizon itself sank two days later on the 22nd of April, who and what determined that the BOP failed on the 25th of April? Who and what was there to monitor it? NOW READ THIS How A Blow Out Preventer Works For Dummies Relevant piece of information from above: During the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion incident on April 20, 2010, the blowout preventer should have been activated automatically, cutting the drillstring and sealing the well to preclude a blowout and subsequent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, but it failed to fully engage. Underwater robots (ROVs) later were used to manually trigger the blind shear ram blind shear ram preventer, to no avail. As of May 2010[update] it is unknown why the blowout preventer failed. Now as to the situation at the time of the blow out: At the time of the explosion, it was drilling an exploratory well at a water depth of approximately 5,000 feet (1,500 m) in the Macondo Prospect, located in the Mississippi Canyon Block 252 of the Gulf of Mexico in the United States exclusive economic zone about 41 miles (66 km) off the Louisiana coast. Production casing was being installed and cemented by Halliburton Energy Services. Once the cementing was complete, the well would have been tested for integrity and a cement plug set, after which no further activities would take place until the well was later activated as a subsea producer Then we have this from Don Firth who knows the square root of fuck all about offshore drilling: The FIRST bore-hole was going well until the BP manager insisted that the Deepwater Horizon crew "bump up" the drilling—which the drilling crew knew to be unsafe. Yet, at BP's insistence (and threats of being sacked), they did speed up the drilling. And what they feared, happened. But fortunately, no blow-out occured with THAT hole. But they had to abandon that bore-hole and start another. And that's the hole where everything went wrong and the blow-out occured! If the crew had been allowed to complete the first bore-hole at a reasonable pace, and hence, safely, the second hole would not have been necessary. Complete and utter load of crap. The rig was engaged in setting production casing every bloody report tells you that so drilling had been successfully completed, because you cannot set casing with the drill string still in the hole. They had actually started cementing so they had even completed running the casing. Drilling and the speed of drilling has, got and never did have any connection to the blow out. The cement job failed (Haliburton responsible), the BOP failed (Cameron/Transocean responsible depending upon who owned the piece of equipment), THEN there was the fire and the explosion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Don Firth Date: 26 Jul 10 - 03:22 PM By the way, would you fellows' noses be this far out of joint if it were still a British-based company, but went by the name of "Acme Petroleum?" I don't give a damn whether the company is British, American, Kuwaiti, Estonian, Indonesian, or Martian. According to all the evidence, they are the primary cause of the disaster and the ones ultimately responsible. Turning this into a question of patriotism is just plain ridiculous. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Don Firth Date: 26 Jul 10 - 02:58 PM "Reuter's impossible timeline" has been verified by other sources. And I might also remind you that Reuter's is a British news service. I knew that if I quoted an American news service, you and a few others of the British persuasion would be all over me like a tent. You folks are doing back-flips trying to shift the blame from BP to an American company, and you're making yourselves a bit ridiculous in the process. Look! Haliburton! Dick Cheney, the (thank God!) former Vice President of the United States, the man who was manipulating the hand puppet most people thought of as George W. Bush, and thus was, in effect, the real President of the United States during the Bush administration, had been the CEO of Haliburton. When he became Vice President, he was required by law to divest himself of his investments in Haliberton. He didn't. He had his investments put in trust, to be held for him until is term of office was over. In the meantime, those investments could continue to grow if Haliburton prospered. And those investments, plus the increases, would revert to Cheney when he was no longer in office! For some strange reason (!!!), during the Bush administration, Haliburton was awarded an unprecedented number of no-bid government contracts. All government contracts are supposed to be open for bids from any company that wants the work, but this was not the case under Bush (Cheney). Haliburton got the lion's share. So—if Haliburton was to be declared at fault for the Gulf blow-out (as some Brits here in this thread are trying to claim), I, personally, would not at all mind seeing Haliburton—and as a result, Dick Cheney—take it in the shorts!!! But that's obviously not the way it happened. Unfortunately~ I'm surprised at you guys!! NOW HEAR THIS!! Apparently you missed the point of what I was saying in my post above. The FIRST bore-hole was going well until the BP manager insisted that the Deepwater Horizon crew "bump up" the drilling—which the drilling crew knew to be unsafe. Yet, at BP's insistence (and threats of being sacked), they did speed up the drilling. And what they feared, happened. But fortunately, no blow-out occured with THAT hole. But they had to abandon that bore-hole and start another. And that's the hole where everything went wrong and the blow-out occured! If the crew had been allowed to complete the first bore-hole at a reasonable pace, and hence, safely, the second hole would not have been necessary. BP's profit minded micro-managers and bean-counters should have kept their big noses out of the details of the drilling operation in the first place. Up to that point, the drilling had been routine. But it's when, under BP's orders, the drilling was speeded up that it got screwed up—as the crew was afraid it might. And that necessitated abandoning the first bore hole and starting another And it was on the new bore hole that things went bad! Get it? Got it? Good!! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Les from Hull Date: 26 Jul 10 - 01:43 PM Perhaps it might increase BP's popularity in the USA if they went back to their former name: Anglo-Iranian (heh-heh-heh). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 26 Jul 10 - 01:33 PM "....BP's expertise in offshore drilling will be needed..." Hopefully, never again! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Teribus Date: 26 Jul 10 - 09:19 AM It's with Mike Williams, who was a member of the Deepwater Horizon crew, and he barely escaped with his life when the explosion occurred. Would that be in anyway due to the fact that Transocean employees had overriden and shut of the alarms that would have given Mike Williams a bit more notice of what was going on? All the rest about the drilling actually reinforces what Don T, myself and others have been pointing out - The hole was drilled. it was completed therefore what subsequently happened had nothing to do with the speed at which drilling was done. So with great reluctance and considerable apprehension, the crew obeyed the BP manager's demands. And what they were afraid might happen did. The hole split open, the drilling mud leaked out, and they lost their drilling tools in the hole. But—their ultimate fear, a blow-out, did not happen. I have a problem with the Reuters Timeline you detailed: April 20, 2010 - Explosion and fire on Transocean Ltd's drilling rig Deepwater Horizon licensed to BP Plc; 11 workers are killed. The rig was drilling in BP's Macondo project 42 miles (68 km) southeast of Venice, Louisiana, in 5,000 feet (1,525 metres) of water and 13,000 feet (4 km) under the seabed. April 22 - The Deepwater Horizon rig, valued at more than $560 million, sinks and a 5-mile (8-km) oil slick forms. April 25 - The well's blowout preventer fails. The Blow Out Preventer failed on April 20th that is why there was a fire and explosion on the rig. How the hell could anybody have expected the BOP to work according to Reuter's timeline, your pal the SriLankan who has worked on rigs should have pointed that glaring obvious error to you. Mud is pumped down through the drill string and through the bit whilst drilling to lubricate the drill bit and to balance the pressure. There are three cement plugs set, not just one, by the time the third is set the two previous ones are obviously in place, whether the last is set with counterbalancing mud or with seawater at pressure is irrelevant as after the third plug is set whatever mud is used is removed and replaced with - guess what - Yep you got it in one seawater under pressure. According to Mike Williams, what happened was that they had been ordered to test the blow-out preventer when a crewman accidentally moved a joystick, applying hundreds of thousands of pounds of force, apparently damaging the "annular," a ring of rubber. Pieces of rubber were found in the drilling fluid, which he said indicated damage to a crucial seal. But a supervisor declared the find to be "not a big deal," and to press on regardless. Transocean employee fuck-up and it would be the Transocean Supervisor or the Cameron Supervisor who would declare it to be "no big deal". By the bye at this stage in the process they are beyond the point of no return, they can only proceed. Time to test BOP's is before you start not during drilling operations. All the focus on the blowout preventer is a distraction from figuring out what went wrong with the well in the first place. Why was gas able to surge up from the well onto the platform, where it ignited into a fireball? This is obviously based upon you buying into Reuters impossible timeline of events. Go and ask your Sri Lankan pal. The BOP operates automatically, or it should do, on a surge in pressure from below. Nobody has to operate it, but it does have to be connected to the surface, however if the driller on the drill floor notices a sharp and sudden rise in pressure he can in conjunction with the mud.man increase pressure on the column of mud in the hole or he can operate "Choke" lines which also seal the well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Don Firth Date: 25 Jul 10 - 08:15 PM Don T., did you listen to the "60 Minutes" interview that I linked to up-thread? It's with Mike Williams, who was a member of the Deepwater Horizon crew, and he barely escaped with his life when the explosion occurred. He describes what happened over the weeks leading up to the blowout, and the sequence in which these things happened. If not, I suggest that you do. Here's a link to the YouTube breakout of the interview: 60 Minutes interview with Mike Williams ##### Ignoring the biases of the various news services, but paying close attention to reports and commentaries in the British press as well as others, plus discussing the matter with my aforementioned friend, who has worked on oil drilling rigs and who has been following this matter with great interest. Incidentally, he is not an American, he is from Sri Lanka, and is currently living in the U. S. He no longer works on oil rigs, he is now an ecologist, and he takes these matters quite seriously. The following has emerged: The sequence of events begins with the first bore hole that was drilled by the Deepwater Horizon drilling crew. Up to this point, it was the deepest well ever drilled. 35,000 feet. And also, up to this point, the Deepwater Horizon crew had had an excellent safety record. The job was actually on schedule according to the Deepwater Horizon crew. BP's estimated drilling time was 21 days. But this estimate was far too low. At this point, it had actually taken six weeks—42 days. BP was not happy with the fact that it was not meeting their estimate. But to do the job safely, it takes as long as it takes. They issued orders to—as Mike Williams said in the 60 Minute interview—"Bump it up." There was an argument. The BP manager threatened that if they didn't speed up the drilling job, they would replace them with a crew that would. So with great reluctance and considerable apprehension, the crew obeyed the BP manager's demands. And what they were afraid might happen did. The hole split open, the drilling mud leaked out, and they lost their drilling tools in the hole. But—their ultimate fear, a blow-out, did not happen. If the Deepwater Horizon crew had been allowed to complete the job without interference, there is every indication that nothing untoward would have happened. But because of this, they had to back off and start again, thus precipitating a whole new sequence of events. They had to drill a new hole. It should be noted that at this point, some $25,000,000 had been spent with nothing gained. All because of trying to push the job too fast. Now—with the drilling of the new hole: The timeline according to Reuters: April 20, 2010 - Explosion and fire on Transocean Ltd's drilling rig Deepwater Horizon licensed to BP Plc; 11 workers are killed. The rig was drilling in BP's Macondo project 42 miles (68 km) southeast of Venice, Louisiana, in 5,000 feet (1,525 metres) of water and 13,000 feet (4 km) under the seabed.BP's position is that something went wrong with the blow-out preventer installed at Deepwater Horizon. Perhaps it jammed against a tube-joint that it couldn't cut though, or there was something inside the tube that blocked it, like a piece of cement or other obstruction. According to Mike Williams, what happened was that they had been ordered to test the blow-out preventer when a crewman accidentally moved a joystick, applying hundreds of thousands of pounds of force, apparently damaging the "annular," a ring of rubber. Pieces of rubber were found in the drilling fluid, which he said indicated damage to a crucial seal. But a supervisor declared the find to be "not a big deal," and to press on regardless. All the focus on the blowout preventer is a distraction from figuring out what went wrong with the well in the first place. Why was gas able to surge up from the well onto the platform, where it ignited into a fireball? Shortly before the explosion that ended in the sinking the Deepwater Horizon rig, a critical series of events took place. The concrete plug, made by Halliburton, is designed to prevent gas from escaping up the pipe to the surface. Before such a plug is placed, the job of keeping underground gas from coming up the pipe is done by heavy drilling fluid inside the well, commonly known as "mud." The plug is normally put in before the mud is removed. But according to the account of Halliburton, Transocean, and the Deepwater Horizon crew, in this case, that was not done. The drilling mud was removed before a final cement plug was placed in the well. So—why was the mud removed before the final plug was in place? If a decision had been made to reverse the normal sequence of events, the order could only have come from BP. A worker who was on the drilling rig testified that Halliburton was getting ready to set a final cement plug at 8,000 feet below the rig when workers received other instructions. "Usually we set the cement plug at that point and let it set for six hours, then 'displace the well,'" said the worker, meaning "take out the mud." According to this worker, BP asked permission from the federal Minerals Management Service to displace the mud before the final plugging operation had begun. The mud in the well weighed 14.3 pounds per gallon; it was displaced by seawater that weighed nearly 50 percent less. Like BP, the MMS has declined to comment on this account when testifying before the Senate committee. As the heavy mud was taken out and replaced with much lighter seawater, "that's when the well came at us," said the worker, who was involved in the cementing process. Neither the MMS nor BP are willing to comment. Their silence raises a host of questions. Suppose BP did order Transocean to displace the mud before Halliburton set the final plug in place. What would be the reason for that? And why wasn't a current MMS official testifying before the Senate committee, to explain exactly what the role of the regulator had been on the day in question? Disavowing any direct knowledge of operational details on Deepwater Horizon, BP's McKay kept trying to gloss over what had happened by stressing the unprecedented nature of the entire disaster: "We've not dealt with a situation like this before," he kept repeating. My friend, experienced with drilling rig procedure, explained the following to me: Drilling mud is not "mud" at all. It is a man-made heavy and viscous slurry. It's purpose is to lubricate the bore hole for the drill bit and to act as a plug to prevent oil and gas from seeping up around the bit. "If you remove the mud before you place the concrete plug, it's like popping the top off a bottle of Coca Cola after shaking the bottle. The concrete plug must be placed first or you are risking exactly the kind of disaster that took place in the Gulf of Mexico!" Why did they want to remove the mud? "Drilling mud is expensive in and of itself. Companies like to salvage as much of it as they can so they can clean it and reuse it. Drilling mud amounts to a good 10% of the total cost of drilling a well, and it requires 'mud engineers' who know what they're doing. And they don't come cheap." In my friend's opinion, BP management was cost-conscious to the point of micro-managing the drilling operation when they should have left the job to the people they had hired who knew what they were doing. There's an old English expression: Penny wise and pound foolish. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Ed T Date: 25 Jul 10 - 07:24 PM "Or, in the interest of truth and accuracy, they exceed the sum so far set aside, which I believe was the amount demanded by your president". I don't know if Q is an American. But, I gather from the posts, he lives in Canada. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 25 Jul 10 - 06:39 PM ""A bill will be debated next week that would prevent BP from getting any new offshore licenses, effectively ruining their plans for the Gulf and the Arctic."" As I've said before, I don't expect American oil companies will be too upset at the removal of a major competitor. In fact I can name two companies who will be very relieved. The two that should be sharing the cost with BP, but have been given a "Get out of jail free" card by the US. The time will come when there is another spill in the gulf, and BP's expertise in offshore drilling will be needed. I wonder whether they will feel inclined to assist when that happens. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 25 Jul 10 - 06:32 PM ""From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity - PM Date: 24 Jul 10 - 08:39 PM There's this....... ..and then this...... Maybe its a new 'secret weapon'! GfS"" Of course the second link has exposed your total ignorance, Gone from Sanity. You haven't noticed that Gordon Brown no longer has a brave new world, nor a cabinet position. In fact there's a new government over here. Still, nice try I suppose, if totally ineffective. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 24 Jul 10 - 09:52 PM $20 billion in escrow would require BP to suspend dividends, according to the Financial Post. As noted, this will be a fraction of the costs of the catastrophe. BP and Shell account for 50% of dividends paid by UK companies every year. Many shares are held by small holders who live off their dividend income. If dividends are suspended, these people must sell their shares to get income. With the depressed share price, this spells economic trouble. One outcome is BP selling off holdings. Apache has acquired about $10 billion in Alaskan holdings, but that is small. Takeover is possible, both Exxon-Mobil and Shell have the resources to acquire control of the stock. Neither seems willing to do so. BP assets, on the other hand, are large. The company should weather the storm. Barclay's Bank estimates the value of the BP American Portfolio at $64 billion. There are no estimates of total costs of the spill, but $40 billion is one bottom line figure, and a top figure is $100 billion (article in the Telegraph (UK), 24 July). A bill will be debated next week that would prevent BP from getting any new offshore licenses, effectively ruining their plans for the Gulf and the Arctic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 24 Jul 10 - 08:39 PM There's this....... ..and then this...... Maybe its a new 'secret weapon'! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 24 Jul 10 - 05:42 PM ""As noted above, estimates of tourism losses alone exceed the capacity of BP to pay for them. "" Or, in the interest of truth and accuracy, they exceed the sum so far set aside, which I believe was the amount demanded by your president. BP, however did not suggest any limit, contenting themselves with stating on several occasions their intention to "Pay the total cost of the disaster". You seem to have some inside knowledge of BP's finances which allows you to judge what they can, or cannot, afford. Perhaps you will provide some evidence to back that up? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 24 Jul 10 - 05:02 PM The repair work by BP will not restore the damaged lives of the people on the Gulf, or restore wildlife destroyed, or more importantly restore the faith of seafood lovers in the safety of Gulf catches, or of vacationers trust in the purity of Gulf beaches and waters; that will drag on the economy of the region for years. As noted above, estimates of tourism losses alone exceed the capacity of BP to pay for them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: dick greenhaus Date: 24 Jul 10 - 04:37 PM Don- Legally, of course, BP had no option: they have to pay for repairs. The point of the 20 billion was to make sure that there was at least that much available. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 24 Jul 10 - 03:57 PM ""What kind of good news is in this? Especially in the early days when all the things you mention happened?"" If I have to explain my posts sentence by bloody sentence it ain't worth the effort, but just for you,..... The good news of BP remaining involved in repairing the damage, as they intend, will somehow escape the attention of your wonderfully unbiased Media, because there is no monetary gain from reporting anything positive. So, from the moment the well is finally killed, and there is no more mileage in further denigration of BP, and absolution of Transocean and Halliburton, said Media will cease to show the slightest interest in BP's efforts to ensure the damage is mitigated. I make this prediction with absolute confidence. If you want to know what BP does to that end, you will certainly have to look at the British Media for the information. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: dick greenhaus Date: 24 Jul 10 - 11:46 AM Well, BP should be attacked for hiring Halliburton, if nothing else. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: mousethief Date: 23 Jul 10 - 10:43 PM Q: And yes, the regulatory agency was derelict in its duty and the head was fired. We can hope that the reorganized agency will work. Not if the Republicans get back in office and quietly return to "business as normal" à la 2007. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: GUEST, heric Date: 23 Jul 10 - 10:34 PM Dang, George W should have gone in and finished the job. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 23 Jul 10 - 09:44 PM Previous reports in the NY Times detailed BP's mistakes. And as noted before, Robert Kaluza, BP's top man on the rig, has invoked the Fifth Amendment and so far refused to testify. The forthcoming Criminal investigation by Congress will show, as Ebbie notes, that there will be blame to go around. Certainly Transoceans own reports are very damaging to their image. Don T., it would help if you got the timeline straight. From the selection of light-weight drill pipe to the handling of the drilling mud to the failure to properly test the BOP on the rig (not done fully since 2000), etc. this well, as one Transocean employee had told his wife, was the well from Hell. He was killed in the explosion. And yes, the regulatory agency was derelict in its duty and the head was fired. We can hope that the reorganized agency will work. I expect the accumulation of reports and subsequent hearings to go on for a long time. Loss of tourist dollars over the next three years is now estimated at $23 billion alone, more than BP is trying to raise to pay damages. According to a new study launched by the U. S. Travel Assn. and facilitated by Oxford Economics "the region is on the precipice of unimaginable tourism losses and financial ruin. July 23, 2010, "Gulf Girds for $22.7 Billion Tourism loss..." Glenn Haussman. http://www.hotelinteractive.com/article.aspx?articleid=17659 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Don Firth Date: 23 Jul 10 - 09:12 PM Don T., I think you have the sequence of events mixed up. I have an acquaintance who has worked on such oil rigs and is following this with both great interest and much expertise. I'll check with him and be back in a day or two. In the meantime, Attorney General Eric Holder is naming ,all three, BP, Transocean (owner of the Deepwater Horizon), and Haliburton, as liable in the Gulf oil spill. That works for me. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Ebbie Date: 23 Jul 10 - 09:05 PM If what is being testified now is true, there is plenty of blame to go around. "The rig's history of mechanical errors was documented in a confidential audit conducted by BP seven months before the explosion and reviewed by The New York Times. According to the September 2009 document, four BP officials discovered that Transocean, the rig's owner, had left 390 repairs undone, including many that were "high priority," and would require a total of more than 3,500 hours of labor. It is unclear how many of the problems remained by the day of the catastrophe. "The 60-page audit found that previously reported errors had been ignored by Transocean. "Consequently, a number of the recommendations that Transocean had indicated as closed out had either deteriorated again or not been suitably addressed in the first place," investigators wrote. "In a statement, BP said it had expected Transocean to take the audit seriously. "The goal is to have the contractor address all safety critical items in a prompt manner," the statement said. "As we have previously said, the Deepwater Horizon tragedy had multiple potential causes, including equipment failure." Lots More |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: mousethief Date: 23 Jul 10 - 07:01 PM After all, GOOD news sells no papers. What kind of good news is in this? Especially in the early days when all the things you mention happened? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 23 Jul 10 - 06:43 PM ""True, there were subcontractors, whom you want to blame, when it was BP management who were complaining that the drilling was taking too long and costing too much money, so they order the drilling crew to speed things up. When the drilling crew objected, saying it was not safe to do so, the BP paper-pushing desk jockeys threatened to replace them."" Like most of the others on this thread, you are ignoring the fact that drilling was over! Please explain the relevance of BP's insistence on faster drilling, when, after drilling had finished and the drill been removed, the blowout preventer (Not made or installed by BP) failed, and the rig which was under the control of Transocean at that point, blew up. I have repeatedly said that BP bear ultimate responsibility, but, Transocean and Halliburton should not be allowed to walk away Scot free. The situation is analogous with the Torrey Canyon affair, in that in both cases, those dirctly involved walked away untouched, while the buck stops with the major contractor who made the mistake of employing them. BP immediately announced that they would foot the total bill, but your Media had to put the boot in out of their usual motive. "Screw the truth, sell copy" Those same vultures will be nowhere in sight when the leak is stopped, and BP is spending the next ten years working to repair the harm. After all, GOOD news sells no papers. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Don Firth Date: 23 Jul 10 - 02:51 PM Don T., most of the time I agree with the viewpoints you express. But in this case, you are misinterpreting—distorting—what I said. I am not advocating anything like revenge for the Torrey Canyon incident. To claim that this is what I am saying is disingenuous, and it's unworthy of you. I am pointing up the predilection many people, particularly companies, have to blame someone else so they can disavow their obvious responsibility when it is they who have screwed up. The cause of the Torrey Canyon oil spill was an incompetent captain. Yet both the British and the French governments, sued Union Oil, which had no control over, hence no responsibility for, the shipwreck. Why? Because that's where the money was!!! The Gulf oil spill is an entirely different situation. You, Richard Bridge, and a few others seem to want to blame anybody but BP for causing the disaster. True, there were subcontractors, whom you want to blame, when it was BP management who were complaining that the drilling was taking too long and costing too much money, so they order the drilling crew to speed things up. When the drilling crew objected, saying it was not safe to do so, the BP paper-pushing desk jockeys threatened to replace them. In the light of this, I would say that if the subcontractor bears any responsibility, it is in that they should have refused and threatened to quit. No revenge, Don T. Put the responsibility where it really belongs. I resent your attempt to warp what I have said. Don Firth P. S. And thank you, Rev. Goose. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: GUEST,Rev. Goose 'Goof' Gander (ret.) Date: 23 Jul 10 - 12:32 PM Don Firth, I'm afraid you are suffering from irony deficiency today. Let me speak as clearly and simply as I possibly can: I agree with your post. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: GUEST,Vic Date: 23 Jul 10 - 08:39 AM It's simply a waste of time talking to Keith A. He defends the murderous British army and their football thugs in uniform who walked the streets of the North of Ireland shooting children with plastic bullets and murdering people in Derry attending a Civil Rights march. Keith has the bit between his teeth against the Irish due to an incident in Manchester city centre in the early 90's. A young tart who was living with him went into the city that day shopping. She wasn't anywhere near the two operational sites, but came back to T.A. Keith crying. So this is all down to the fact he was slipping this girl a length on the quiet and she was upset. He is a very sad example of an older man chasing young skirt. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 23 Jul 10 - 07:41 AM ""People ought to learn the facts before they start popping off about who's responsible for what, and accusing others of bigotry when they expect compensation from the ones who really are responsible, instead of trying to shift blame to those who had no control over what was going on at the time of the disaster."" So what you want then, is revenge for the time when the boot was on the other foot? Union oil was wrongly blamed for one disaster, so BP must be blamed for this one? The contractors got away with it before, so the same must happen now? Ninety percent of the time I agree with your perspectives, which is why I am so disappointed to find that you believe two wrongs DO make a right. BP must of course shoulder the responsibility for poor safety policy, but, as has been pointed out, the drilling was over, and Transocean were operating the rig during the changeover to a pumping rig. Transocean are being shielded from the proper consequences, as are the makers and installers of the BOP. This is wrong!...Just as wrong as the Torrey Canyon decision. But hey, if payback is all that's important, go for it! Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 23 Jul 10 - 02:48 AM Q; "I don't find anything remotely humorous about the Gulf catastrophe." Neither do I. Ridicule dishonors, more than dishonor itself! The satire is toward both BP and the corruption in our government. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 22 Jul 10 - 08:26 PM Storm Bonnie on the way- hope it changes direction. The well will be capped and closed, but drilling of relief wells will cease, and ships come to shore for 10-14 days. Oil in the Gulf could be blown onshore. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Don Firth Date: 22 Jul 10 - 06:42 PM Oh, yeah. Have the poor taste to point out whose face the egg is really on and you're a bigot for sure. . . . (I don't recognize your name, but your voice sounds kinda familiar.) Don Firth) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: GUEST,Rev. Goose 'Goof' Gander (ret.) Date: 22 Jul 10 - 04:26 PM Oh, Don, you're such a bigot! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Don Firth Date: 22 Jul 10 - 04:00 PM A bit of historical perspective: On 18 March, 1967 the "Torrey Canyon" struck Pollard's Rock in the Seven Stones reef between the Scilly Isles and Land's End, England. She was the first of the big supertankers, carrying a cargo of 120,000 tons of oil. 31,000,000 gallons of oil leaked from the ship and spread over the sea and up the English Channel, killing most of the marine life it touched along the whole of the south coast of Britain and the Normandy shores of France, blighting the region for many years thereafter. Because nobody had planned for this, all sorts of emergency measures were attempted, many of which made matters worse; lots of chemical dispersants were eventually sprayed onto the oil slicks, but these were more lethal for life than the original oil. About the ship: 1. The ship was built in the United States in 1959 and was owned by Union Oil, an American company.The governments of both England and France brought suit against Union Oil, the American company, because they were the owners of the Torrey Canyon—despite the fact that the ship had been chartered to BP and was manned by an Italian crew, and at the time of the disaster, Union Oil had no control over the running of the ship!! In the meantime, because the ship was registered in Liberia, a Liberian Board of Inquiry investigated the incident and found the captain of the Torrey Canyon, Capt. Pastrengo Rugiati of Genoa, Italy, guilty of "a high degree of negligence." This determination of responsibility was ignored. And Union Oil was blamed for the disaster. So— In the Gulf oil disaster, there were indeed subcontractors working for BP, but it was a BP manager who issued the order to speed up the drilling. The crew of the Deepwater Horizon objected, saying that it would be dangerous to do so. The BP manager insisted, implying that if they didn't follow instructions, they would be fired and another drilling crew hired. In fact, BP managers interfered with safe and established drilling procedures on several occasions, on the basis that it was going too slow and costing too much. People ought to learn the facts before they start popping off about who's responsible for what, and accusing others of bigotry when they expect compensation from the ones who really are responsible, instead of trying to shift blame to those who had no control over what was going on at the time of the disaster. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 22 Jul 10 - 01:06 PM I don't find anything remotely humorous about the Gulf catastrophe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 22 Jul 10 - 12:33 AM Just for you!!! Black Water Enjoy! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 21 Jul 10 - 10:32 PM Tony Boy's pay last year was roughly $1 million, plus c. $1 million bonus. |
