BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 04:43 PM

are they still liable as they were the ones who paid to have the rig drill and stood to profit from it?

They are liable gnu because they are the Operating Company who hold the exploration licence for that concession, nothing whatsoever to do with who paid for what or who stood to gain or lose. As they are the Operator they are liable, that does not necessarily mean that they (BP) were at fault or to blame and that is becoming clearer and clearer by the day that they were not.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: gnu
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 07:40 PM

That is a matter for the courts. Liability is responsibility.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 05:48 PM

Gnu, it is something like the Captain (Commanding Officer) of a ship that runs aground or is involved in a collision at sea. He may have been fast asleep through out the run up to the incident and right the way through it. However it will be the Captain who will be held responsible, it will be the Captain of the ship who is Court Martialed, alongside the Officer of the Watch whose fault it was.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 07:02 PM

Part 1:
"The saddest sight this week has been of America's first family taking a quick one-day holiday in Florida. Crashing visitor numbers and plummeting fish sales have devastated the Gulf of Mexico after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. There is talk of an 80% drop in revenues in some resorts. Yet figures show just 16 of the state's 180 holiday beaches are at all polluted, while the bulk of the spill appears to have dispersed, or be dispersing out at sea. Having hyped the disaster for political purposes, the president is now frantically trying to play it down.

The spill has been another classic of state terror in which incident and response are wholly out of proportion to one another. As the oil leak began back in April, Obama declared a disaster, banned fishing in 37% of the Gulf and ordered a halt to underwater oil exploration, putting some 27,000 jobs at risk. Columnists screamed it was "Obama's 9/11" and demanded he "harness the nation's outrage". He was attacked for playing golf within 58 days of the disaster. With dial-a-quote scientists howling blue murder, any who might have looked at previous spills and thought it might not be so bad would have been unpatriotic disaster-deniers.

Hardly a day passed without the president castigating BP, the hated "British Petroleum" – never its American site operators, Transocean and Halliburton, or his own regulators. It was a field day for xenophobes. The president used the sort of language normally visited on global terrorists. He was going to "get BP" and make them "pay for this". It was another Hurricane Katrina, but one that could thankfully be blamed on foreigners. A Louisiana seafood supplier declared: "If I had a bomb, I would put it on London" – which would have him in Guantánamo Bay if he were Muslim and speaking of New York. Foreigners had raped America. It was they, they, they …

Now, mysteriously, Obama speaks of we, we, we … who "have this thing under control". His environment adviser, Carol Browner, says "the vast majority of the oil appears to have gone". Less than 10% of coastline saw any oil at all. There have been no sightings of dead fish floating in the sea and most fishing will soon be "back to normal". The Gulf is apparently "clean, safe and open for business", and a lovely place to take the kids. It is OK, everyone. Disaster has turned to triumph, so let us all think about the midterm elections.

So whose fault really was the collapse in the local economy? It began with a failed oil well, responsibility resting with BP, but blame still not apportioned. Yet as every terrorist knows, it is not the bomb that does the real damage, it is the publicity multiplier given it by the media and politics. The bomb causes the bang; the target is then relied on to supply the megaphone.

So it has proved in the Gulf. Competing scientists have had a field day. While some kept up the hysteria this week with such declarations as "We don't know the long term yet", those with links to the administration or fishing for BP's $500m offered to Gulf environmental research are suddenly optimists.

Most of the oil has mysteriously evaporated, like that from the biggest similar disaster, the dumping of oil into the Persian Gulf in 1991 by Iraqi forces. America did not turn a hair, any more than it did about the Union Carbide explosion that killed 15,000 Indians in Bhopal in 1984, with only trivial compensation paid.

The issue is apparently no longer the number of "barrels" spilled but the sort of oil, the location of the spill and the temperature of the ambient water and air. Contamination of most wildlife appears to have been minimal. Even crustaceans recover fast, while the ban on fishing has boosted fish stocks.

Part 2:
"The great conflation of fear – often egged on by "the science" – is the result of government gladly allowing itself to go mad for a day, to raise a fear, glean a headline or win a budget rise. Obama grotesquely exaggerated the oil threat to advance his personal and party cause. He is now struggling to downplay it.

The US Travel Association is suing BP for $500m in promotional compensation. Why not sue the president? It was he who led the charge in disaster rhetoric, with a daily stream of negative publicity for the Gulf of Mexico, before trying, somewhat pathetically, to make up for it. He and others were surely accessories after the fact."

The above by Simon Jenkins, not someone I normally agree with, taken from the Guardian of 17th August, 2010 in an article entitled:

Oil spilled. But hysteria did the real damage in the Gulf

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 09:55 PM

Disaster spawns fallout that goes far beyond the event and which is long-lasting. Trust will take time to re-build and money will be lost and lives disrupted until it is regained.

Moreover, the studies of the effect are by no means complete. Many are waiting for the other shoe to drop.

As the company with the worst record for mistakes, especially considering Alyeska and the refineries, and numbers of fines for disregard of safety that make other majors seem pristine, Americans will worry about BP's operations at all levels and in all situations.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 12:09 AM

As the company with the worst record for mistakes, especially considering Alyeska and the refineries, and numbers of fines for disregard of safety that make other majors seem pristine, Americans will worry about BP's operations at all levels and in all situations.

BP's Safety record in the GOM was far,far better than that of Transocean. The safety record that you attribute to BP was that of the American Company it took over (AMOCO) caused by serious errors made by that company's management seven years before BP bought them.

As has been detailed in reports while your President has grandstanded and postured, the actual perpetrators, two American Contractors have been let off "Scot Free" (Transocean & Halliburton).

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 03:01 PM

Ye gawds, Teribus! You're starting to sound like Colonel Blimp!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 11:04 AM

Why Don did he tell the truth too?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 12:34 PM

OK so who owns Mariner Energy Inc., becuase that had a gas blast in the same area as BP.

I am sure somebody in the USA will find a possibility of blaming BP

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11014645

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: toadfrog
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 02:01 PM

Teribus:

Can you tell us the source of the statements you are making?
I have by now read four long and seemingly painstaking accounts of the Machado explosion, three in the WSJ and one in the New York Times. All step-by step, detailed, with diagrams and referring to events on a time line with explicit quotations from testimony. None of them leaves any doubt that BP was in control of the rig--aside from the fact that key BP people were missing from the bridge on the day of the explosion because they were busy ushering BP executives around the rig. All four point to a long sequence of events in which BP repeatedly made the quick and dirty choice. And on or near the final day, it made a bizarre decision to draw out drilling fluid and pump in seawater, overruling the strong objections of Transocean people on the spot.

I also understand that Shell, also a British Company, has run a formal presentation describing precautions Shell normally takes and pointing out that BP did not follow what it considers best practices. I have not read or seen that presentation, so I may be wrong on that.

So the question is this. Your version of the story squarely contradicts every factual source I am aware of. Is there any evidence to support it? If so, what is it?

I think I am only hearing patriotic slogans from you--no facts.
Where do you get this stuff from?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Alice
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 02:22 PM

toadfrog, do you mean Macondo explosion? I googled Machado because I had not heard of that one. The Macondo Prospect in the gulf is where the Deep Horizon rig was drilling.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 02:44 PM

Royal Dutch Shell (Shell Oil) is not British, but home office in The Netherlands.

Macondo is the name of the BP Gulf drilling project which blew out. Each drilling prospect (well, or group of wells) is given a name under which data about the prospect can be summarized.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 06:30 PM

Well toadfrog best ask the journalists who wrote the stories how many years experience they have in the offshore oil & gas industry.

While BP may well have been in "control" of the rig in as much as they hired Transocean to do the drilling for them, it WAS Transocean doing the drilling. Transocean would be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the equipment on the rig.

Reported today in the UK press is that the original BOP has now been recovered. If it does transpire that Transocean "plumbed" it incorrectly, or made "local" and unauthorised modifications to it without the approval and knowledge of BP or of Cameron (BOP's manufacturers) then Transocean are, like the Macondo Well, in very deep water.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 06:40 PM

Sorry toadfrog, that did not really answer your question about where I get my information from. I refer you to:

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus - PM
Date: 24 Aug 10 - 10:48 AM

Authoratitave eyewitness account not by a journalist but by someone who was there, involved, and knows what they are talking about.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus - PM
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 11:05 AM

The first inkling that there WAS something wrong with the BOP and the way it was connected up inside.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus - PM
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 11:45 AM

Where I make it known to Alice exactly what I meant by "our guys", i.e. fellow workers.

I have not worked on BOA Sub C but have done quite a bit of work on her sister ship BOA Deep C

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: toadfrog
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 07:20 PM

Teribus:

O.k. I assume that by referring to yourself as a person with "years of experience" in the offshore oil and gas industry, you are saying you work for BP. Is this correct? You have talked with one [unidentified] "authoritative" person who were present and is not a journalist. In other words, someone who may have directly caused the incident has assured you it was not his/her fault. And I assume the reason this individual cannot be identified because he/she is a likely witness in litigation and potentially liable.

Is that a fair summary of what you are saying, or have I missed something? If this is what you are saying, your story does not inspire confidence.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 09:31 PM

Testimony being taken at the hearing being conducted by the Coast Guard and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, in the latest installment, focused on functions that keep a rig afloat and in place above a well, and the command structure.

The attorney representing the rig's chief mechanic, noted that the rig's captain, Curt Kuchta, earlier had testified that he had not been trained to disconnect the rig from the well in an emergency- the rig's last line of defense in case of a blowout.
An audit by BP marine safety personnel identified about 70 problems on board the rig. Testimony was that 63 of the problems had been addressed.

US Coast Guard Captain Hung Nguyen, co-chair of the (Macondo) Deepwater Horizon Joint Investigation, criticised the separation of navigation and drilling decisions aboard floating drilling rigs, a management structure commonly used throughout the oil industry.
"The fact that ship captains do not have oversight over drilling "is one of the problems we have here," Nguyen said in a Dow Jones Newswires report.
From Upstreamonline.com, a weekly international oil news source, 24 Aug 2010.

The BOP was lifted by a semi-submersible vessel operated by Helix Energy Solutions.

An article in the same source, Aug. 30, covering the probe, said BP engineers made mistakes, including mis-reading tests of the well's stability.
"The managers decided the test results confirmed the well was in good shape, clearing the way for rig workers to begin replacing drilling fluid in the well, which is heavier than oil and natural gas, with seawater.
"The seawater was too light to prevent the natural gas that had begun leaking into the well from shooting up the pipe to the rig, where it exploded and killed 11 workers."
BP will issue findings of its internal probe by Sept. 10.

Bloomberg copies some of Upstream Online reports, a weekly journal that charges subscription fees, but these items are taken directly from the journal.

The dispute over cement jobs on the rig intensifies, is another article in Upstream Online, but I can't access without subscription.




.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 09:44 PM

Digression-
Norwegian billionaire says his Seadrill company is considering a takeover bid for Transocean. "We are looking at companies that are cheap and that have good equipment."
Upstream Online, Sept. 1, 2010.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 12:17 AM

toadfrog you obviously did not read the link.

You are wrong in quite a number of your assumptions

I do not work for BP (I did about twenty years ago)

The person who wrote the article is not a journalist, and does not work for BP, he was not present at the time of the incident so can in no way be liable or involved. The ship they talk of was the command ship for the response effort from 02:00hrs on the morning of the 22nd April (tells you that in the link).

One article toadfrog? No toadfrog I did not just read one article, what I read and had access to were the daily reports and various logs from the vessel throughout the rescue and well capping phases of the operation up until such time as the leak was stopped.

Don't know about you toadfrog but for me that tops four fucking articles written by journalists who have never been offshore in their lives or worked in the offshore oil & gas industry - TRUE??

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 12:35 AM

Testimony being taken at the hearing being conducted by the Coast Guard and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, in the latest installment, focused on functions that keep a rig afloat and in place above a well, and the command structure.

The attorney representing the rig's chief mechanic, **noted that the rig's captain, Curt Kuchta, earlier had testified that he had not been trained to disconnect the rig from the well in an emergency- the rig's last line of defense in case of a blowout.**

An audit by BP marine safety personnel identified about 70 problems on board the rig. Testimony was that 63 of the problems had been addressed.

US Coast Guard Captain Hung Nguyen, co-chair of the (Macondo) Deepwater Horizon Joint Investigation, criticised the separation of navigation and drilling decisions aboard floating drilling rigs, a management structure commonly used throughout the oil industry.
"The fact that ship captains do not have oversight over drilling "is one of the problems we have here," Nguyen said in a Dow Jones Newswires report.
From Upstreamonline.com, a weekly international oil news source, 24 Aug 2010.

US Coast Guard Captain Hung Nguyen wants to STFU sit back listen and learn, instead of making a complete and utter arse of himself. Some points about the above:

1) The "marine" crew of any offshore vessel or unit is completely seperate from the construction, survey, diving, or drilling crew for a very good reason - whatever they are on has to float, so if there is an emergency you have crews using their own expertise to dealt with any problems in the areas they know best.

2) The Rigs Captain in incidents like what happened onboard the Deepwater Horizon had far more important and pressing concerns than disconnecting from the well, an operation by the way that could not have been performed at the time. Besides which at his emergency station the Captain of the rig would be nowhere near where any of those actions could be taken.

3) If the rig was subject to marine safety audit, then that audit would conform to an industry standard checklist and would not cover any of the drilling equipment or drilling procedures other than aspects that impact the marine operation of the vessel. There would be separate audits to cover drilling.

4) No confusion within the industry at all about the roles and responsibilities of the Master (Marine Captain); Offshore Installation Manager; Tool Pusher.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 12:49 AM

The managers decided the test results confirmed the well was in good shape

The well was in good shape, it was in exactly the same condition on the 15th July when the leak was stopped as it was on the 20th April when it blew. The reason it blew was because the cement job failed (Halliburton responsibility) as did the BOP (Transocean responsibility).

The drilling had ceased on the 17th when the cementing job started, at least three separate cement plugs would have been set, and that job was completed. The drilling mud used as counterweight is then replaced with salt water because the drilling mud is toxic and expensive and the BOP is then removed and recovered, a corrosion cap is then placed over the open conductor pipe sticking out from the top of the guide base, then they wait for the Production rig to arrive. Nothing has been replaced or substituted down hole on the Macondo Well apart from the cement plugs.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 03:03 PM

Testimony was that BP engineers made a mistake by requesting the mud could be replaced with seawater because they mis-read tests of the well's stability.

It will be some time before all concerned have had a chance to testify and conductors of the hearing will write their report.
At this stage, there is no point in quarreling with testimony that is incomplete.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 09:35 PM

A BP spokesman said its lawyers were allowed to "review" their Deepwater Horizon report, and had provided legal advice and council to the investigative team, but would not elaborate on what that entailed.
"Some internal and external" lawyers for BP worked with investigators who prepared the report. This raises questions about the independence of the report, which assigned much of the blame to contractors Transocean and Haliburton.
The report was quickly blasted by Transocean, Haliburton 'and others'. As operator, BP faces many lawsuits over the accident.

"For BP, the stakes are high as it tries to dodge accusations of gross negligence ..... Under the Clean water Act, BP might have to pay fines of at least $1100 a barrel of oil spilled. But if the government finds the spill resulted from gross negligene, the fine could be $4300, potentially boosting the total to more than $20 billion."
Wall Street Journal, Sept. 10, 2010.

Other news-
Norway has halted new offshore projects until the causes of the Gulf rig blast are known.
North Sea producers are fighting to convince the British government that the UK does not need a moratorium on drilling, like the one imposed in the U. S. British MPs will grill outgoing BP PLC CEO Tony Hayward as part of an investigation into risks.
Doubt that he will be more open-mouthed with them than he was with the U.S. Congressional Committee.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 09:37 PM

Last item from Reuters.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 12:11 AM

One thing that the internal investigation does is knock a few "red herrings" down, that people on this forum were banging on about.

If the findings are verified as stated then criminal negligence may be proven against Transocean but gross negligence on the part of BP will be unlikely.

The timeline surprised me in as much as I was not aware that Transocean played around for as lonng as they did 40 minutes.

I await results of the examination of the BOP.

I stated from the outset two things happened:

1- The Cement Job failed

2- The BOP failed to function as it should

The "red herring" about Cement Bond Logging has now been dismissed, the operation could not be performed, it was not a case of BP attempting to cut costs. From someone in the industry involved in this aspect he said that even had they run such a test it would not have told them anything if the leak was at the shoe as stated in the report so far.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 04:26 PM

No red herrings have been dismissed. As would be expected, the report was self-serving and is being challenged in part by the contractors, particularly Haliburton and Transocean. Cameron has yet to comment.
Its main purpose (all 195 pages) is to provide the story that BP will use in the forthcoming suits and in arguments to limit penalty fines from the government.

Stanley Gordon, the maritime lawyer representing some of the oil workers, took aim at the lack of sworn testimony from people interviewed by BP.
".......people intrviewed, not under sworn testimony conditions, can make comments that are untruthful and there is no legal recourse to pursue perjury in such cases."
No verbatim transcripts of any interviews were produced.

Wall Street Journal, Sept. 9, 2010.

The report suggested the major failures were the cement job by Haliburton and failure of Transocean to implement safety measures in response to the pressure buildup.
Other investigations may substantiate, or refute the BP findings.
Dripping Oil, Sept. 9, 2010.
The government report is in the future, since much testimony remains to be taken.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Sep 10 - 01:01 AM

The government report is in the future, since much testimony remains to be taken.

Would that be the report of the Government investigating team whose powers of subpoena powers have been blocked by the Senate Q?

After all, much testimony remains to be taken and:

.......people intrviewed, not under sworn testimony conditions, can make comments that are untruthful and there is no legal recourse to pursue perjury in such cases."

But at least the people carrying out the investigation for BP (Note the team included BP personnel and independent experts brought in to examine the evidence) did get to talk to key figures which without the power of subpoena the Government investigators and inquisitors will not even see.

Additional to that the two bodies are performing two completely different functions and purposes. The BP report details merely what happened and the timeframe and order in which things happened, as such the BP Report actually "blames" no-one (Read it), the purpose of the BP report is to outline what happened for "lessons learned" to prevent re-occurrence.

FBI investigation to establish "Criminal Negligence" will have a tough time pinning anything on BP - That based on my first analogy of the taxi driver and the passenger, any traffic violation is the fault and responsibility of the driver not the passenger.

Government investigation to establish "Gross Negligence" will I believe cast accusations of such negligence at the doors of quite a number of players involved, to varying degrees.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Sep 10 - 01:43 AM

If you believe the Warren Report, I guess you are just waiting with baited breath and great anxiety for this new 'report'....good luck!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Sep 10 - 01:50 PM

BP has threatened to withdrawl their 20 billion dollar clean up reparations.

While the commercials about helping Gulf restaurants and business are running night and day for millions of dollars... the true story is that restaurants that made $200, 000 are actually offered $4,500 or nothing.

When BP said they would honor all legitimate claims, it was code for your claims will all have to be litigated unless you take the pitance we offer!

but are we surprised?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 11 Sep 10 - 02:40 PM

The 'block' is long gone.
"Senate GOP Will Lift Block on Subpoena Power Against BP." Washington Post, July 1, 2010, The Plum Line, Greg Sargent.

Senator Jim DeMint put a block on the legislation during a voice vote. Later his spokesman said, "Senator DeMint does not and will not have an objection to this legislation. He simply objected on behalf of other senators who had not been given time to review the bill."
The colums says that the leadership has read the bill and decided it has no objections, it will move forward if a Dem asks again for it to be passed by unaminous consent.
A spokesman for Mitch McConnell, confirms that the leadership has no objections to the bill. "I don't know of any objections," he said. "What I do know is that there is bipartisan support."

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 11 Sep 10 - 03:12 PM

Reparations for onshore businesses probably will require litigation.
Plaintiffs and banding together. Several large legal firms have moved in, offering the needed legal expertise for a percentage of the possible awards.
Yes, litigation will keep BP and plaintiff lawyers busy for a long time to come. Many plaintiffs will go away unsatisfied.

Remember that business losses often can be deducted against profits, so business tax lawyers will be busy as well.

Unfortunately my son the lawyer practices in Canada, so he cannot share in the pie.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Sep 10 - 02:03 AM

IF the block has indeed been lifted then I for one will be delighted, after all it was put in place to protect MMS, with that gone the other culprits in this affair, who did actually fail miserably in their "professional" capacities can be dragged before an investigation and roasted to the same degree that BP has been from day one.

In the attitudes shown BP stood up and shouldered their responsibilities while the other ducked and ran, the MMS to stave off recriminations got a name change, and Transocean and Halliburton made a bloody fortune rectifying mistakes that were avoidable and entirely their own.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 12 Sep 10 - 01:40 PM

We shall see what we shall see.
And miles to go before we sleep.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 11:18 AM

A US presidential commission investigating the Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster has found no evidence to support charges that BP and its rig partners put profits ahead of safety.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/8118435/Everybody-hates-me-says-BP-oil-spill-investigator.html

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 11:30 AM

My take away on this debacle is that all of the oil companies were promising in their environmental impact statements that they could handle a 100,000 barrel per day spill. They were all lying. BP got caught in that lie.

They were all trading off profits for safety. But since that was "standard industry practice" they were excused.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 12:09 PM

So the facts are out at last. US companies at fault - not BP.

About time for an apology, don't you think?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 03:14 PM

Couldn't agree with you more Richard.

The yanks bark becuase they think they own the world and can do and say what they like. They have done this with BP and now the truth is coming out.

May I also mention George Bush who thinks that waterboarding is acceptable, because HE was the president of the almighty USA and he can do what he damn well likes, including drawing the UK into his battles with that bottom creeper, Tony Blair.

Things have a way of coming back and biting you in the bum. Its starting to happen.

You never know Bush and Blair may well one day face a War Crime tribunal. Also Obama may get thrown out at the end of his term.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 05:30 PM

My take away on this debacle is that all of the oil companies were promising in their environmental impact statements that they could handle a 100,000 barrel per day spill. They were all lying. BP got caught in that lie. - JTS

Operative words are "Spill" as opposed to "Blow-out"

They were all trading off profits for safety. - JTS

Well John a certain Mr Bartlit seems to totally disagree with you, you know which Mr Bartlit I am talking about don't you JTS, the one in charge of the Federal Investigation into the Deepwater Horizon Incident, the put in charge of it by the President of the United States of America.

Don't know about any apologies from Barak Hussein Obama but I bet there are few who earlier on were extremely vocal on this and other associated threads have now wound their necks in, there will be no apologies from them either, not the thing really to put your hands up and admit that you got it wrong.

The shit of course will really hit the fan when it comes to revealing what went wrong with the BOP and why TransOcean took 40 minutes to react.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 06:11 PM

Wall Street Journal, Nov. 9, 2010

The federal panel is seeking to move beyond findings that rig workers "didn't consciously put costs ahead of safety."
"The problem here is that there was a culture that did not promote safety and that culture failed," said Bob Graham, co-chairman of the panel created by U.S. President Obama. "Leaders did not take serious risks seriously enough; did not identify a risk that proved to be a failure."
William Reilly, the other co-chairman, said that "BPthe evidence is they are in need of top-to-bottom reform."
He said that "we know a safety culture must be led from the top, and permeate a company."
Possible root causes are the subject of current hearings.
Steve Lewis, a drilling engineer...... said one reason that rig workers may have missed red flags is that the well was designed as an exploration well with only the possibility of producing oil-...... when workers shifted to developing a production well after oil was discovered, BP may have had to rush to put new plans in place.

The hearings have a long way to go and it is too early to predict the outcome or what the conclusion will be. It begins to look like none of the three major participants will escape blame.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 06:17 PM

Sorry- Missing line in Reilly statement-
"....BP, Haliburton and Transocean are major respected companies operating throughout the Gulf and the evidence is... need........ reform."

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 07:11 PM

I heard the head of the commission say that they did not trade safety for lowers costs that day. and he stressed, that day.

I think the money that BP paid out was as much an admission that you will see from any company. They didn't take tens of billions of dollars off their bottom lines as a favor to Halliburton.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 12:27 AM

"I think the money that BP paid out was as much an admission that you will see from any company. They didn't take tens of billions of dollars off their bottom lines as a favor to Halliburton."

As the Licenced Operator of the field BP lived up to and honoured what it saw as its obligations, it did this waiving its right to hide behind the 75 million US$ liability cap. It did all this voluntarily while your President "Grandstanding" for the press was shooting his mouth off about "kicking ass" and keeping his "boot on the necks of BP". No such talk from Saint Obama about either Halliburton or TransOcean sharing the load although it is now perfectly apparent that it was they who were to blame to some considerable extent. Quite the contrary both Halliburton and TransOcean continued to profit from the accident by providing rigs, crews and support for the relief well drilling operations so in effect they got paid 200% extra to work on the job that they fucked up.

Not to worry though, they will be dragged through the courts and BP will have its pay day from both.

Of the other culprit, the US Regulatory Body, we have not heard a peep. Short-comings there were so bad they had to bury the shame by changing its name. Of all involved if any "body" showed that it needed reform it was them.

By the bye the emphasis was put on "that day" because the investigation was after all about the incident that occurred on the 20th April 2010, please do not be so blinkered as to suppose that if throughout the drilling of the Macondo Well the Operator and contractors put profit before safety right up until the last day the chief investigator would not mention it.

And Q is perfectly correct there is a long way to go yet, lawyers not qualified on the date of this incident will have very successful careers and retire on the proceeds from the cases arising from it. Personally I cannot wait for the reports relating to the BOP to come out, I do not think that TransOcean are so keen though.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 11:57 AM

Of course Obama was tough on BP, they had the leased the oilfield from the Feds, had they not? But implying that it was anti-British bigotry is beyond silly.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 12:14 PM

Well judge for yourself

BP - Field operator with 65% interest in the Field with exploration phase just ending - Foreign Multi-National;

Andarko Petroleum - Field Operator with 25% interest in the Field - American;

MOEX - Field Operator with 10% interest in the Field - American;

Halliburton - Service Contractor - Who fucked up and got caught in a lie - American;

Transocean - Drilling Contractor - Who fucked up - American
MMS - US Government Regulatory Body - Who fucked up - American;


Now guess who Barak Obama decided to get tough with???

Doesn't take a bloody genius does it, to identify who gets selected to fulfil the role of the "Big Bad Wolf" in Saint Obama's grandstanding - couldn't possibly be an American Company or a US Government Department could it? After all it would look bad in the press.

The continual references to "British Petroleum" which he knew damn well how to play. Well what goes round comes round. My guess is that when it comes to the gross/criminal negligence part it is going to be MMS & Transocean that get the roasting, particularly the idiots who by-passed and disabled the rigs safety systems and alarms.

And of course the Transocean employees who modified the BOP and plumbed it back incorrectly. Then there is the Transocean employee who took 40 minutes to react to the indications that the well was going to blow. Oh yeah JTS - Big Bad BP right enough - bloody pathetic.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 12:19 PM

He got tough with the principal owner of the lease. He got tough with the largest, most visible company with the biggest pockets.

You need to take the chip off your shoulder.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 01:16 PM

Obama is a great improvement on the previous incumbent - but if you think back to the beginning there were many loudmouthed American jackasses (a bit like Sheriff GW Pepper in the early Bond films) all going for the alien.

Obama is supposed to be (and often is) interested in right and wrong (as, it seems to me, Bush's memoirs make plain that Bush was not). That someone has deep pockets or has the lease does not mean that they did wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 01:38 PM

Someone did wrong. BP registered an environmental impact statement, as a condition of that lease, saying that they were capable of dealing with a hundred thousand barrels per day. They were and are responsible for their subcontractors. If they can collect in court the damages from those subcontractors, well and good. But they were and are responsible, even if not at fault.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 02:06 PM

Wall Street Journal, Nov. 10, 2010.

Testimony led this week by Messrs. Graham and Reilly has painted a picture of managers aboard the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig .....operating on the fly, changing complex plans and making a series of decisions that increased the risks of a catastrophic blowout.
While commission officials stopped short of blaming these decisions on a desire to cut costs, they have said that cost pressures loomed over the operation.
Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson told Commission members Tuesday that it was critical for the industry to instill a strong safety culture. "It's in the companies' best interests to improve in this area," he said.
The Interior Dept. has asked Congress for an additional $75 million to hire more-skilled workers, such as petroleum engineers, instead of relying so much on rig inspectors using a check-the-box oversight approach.
It isn't clear whether the request will find support among newly empowered Republicans in Congress or from oil-industry leaders.

Mr Tilerson, Exxon Mobil CEO, pointed out that it would be tough for regulatory agancies to hire people skilled enough in the complex technology of deepwater drilling to oversee such operations effectively. "We are an industry hiring the best and brightest people, and we pay them so they will come work for us," he said. "It's a difficult challenge for [regulatory agencies] to have people at the same levelof competency."

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 04:17 PM

This is the Exxon of the Exxon Valdez fame is it?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 04:45 PM

Who would know better?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 06:03 PM

There is no relationship between the failure of a tanker crew and the collapse of control by those in charge of a complex drilling operation.

And let's hope that safeguards result from the investigation into the drilling catastrophe.