BP oil disaster: Who made it that way?

What author Lawrence Solomon is alleging amounts to criminally stupid behavior by US-government regulators.

Reply to
Tegger
Loading thread data ...

It isnt the first hint of incompetence in the American government. We are experts at stepping on our "Johnsons".

Reply to
hls

It is BP's responsibility to clean up the spill.

On May 23 Bp purchased 3 of the Dutch skimmer's and those are in operation. Bp has ordered six more for immediate delivery and the Dutch company is in the process of fabricating those skimmers. Norway has sent skimmers also.

Reply to
jim

"hls" wrote in news:comdnVaodIeiCrvRnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com:

You're aware that the US government /actively/ solicited bids for drilling in the depwater Outer Continental Shelf? And you're aware that BP was one of the successful bidders?

More reading for those interested:

Reply to
Tegger

Tegger wrote in news:Xns9DA3C0C695310tegger@208.90.168.18:

Hmm. The country with just about the shortest coastline in the world advising a country with one of the 5 longest. I have my doubts 60 miles would have made a difference. Nor do we know the actual reason *why* their plan was rejected, I would guess that BP retains control of the cleanup and the governments own regulations can't change that.

The fact remains however that there just wasn't enough time to fix it in any large scale manner. I can't see the Dutch equipment cleaning the entire gulf of oil either BTW.

I really pity the gulf coast. I've only been there once, but throughly enjoyed Clearwater.

Reply to
chuckcar

A good thing nowadays to invest money in is oil clean up stocks. stock market. cuhulin

Reply to
cuhulin

Why shouldnt BP have been one of them? They are one of the large and previously well respected global companies.

We really have no system for oversight.. At least nothing workable.

Reply to
hls

You and Pallin have raised self contradictions to a new level. So which is it... are you for off shore drilling or against? Are you for limiting torts or are you against Tort limits? Or is it a new day and you haven't picked which way to flip flop yet?

Reply to
jim

BP made the mess, and they should pay for it. I tend to agree with tort limits, but the $75 million that the government established is clearly not enough for cases like this.

Reply to
hls

The $75 million is already irrelevant. The total cost to BP may end up being more like $100 Billion (depending how long it takes to stop and how much oil is ultimately involved). BP probably won't pay the total cost because eventually they will split off the US operations/holdings and put them into bankruptcy. The sale of those assets will be used to pay for the remaining cleanup. And the taxpayers will pik up the tab if the liquidation of assets isn'gt enough. The whole purpose of corporations is to limit liability. It is extremely unlikely that any change in the law could have made the economic cost to BP any greater than it already will be. unless it would first abolish the whole concept of a corporation.

It is also worth noting that the states of Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi and Alabama are receiving millions in oil company revenues for their share of the oil leases, as well as the tax revenues and jobs from hosting the oil companies infrastructure inside those states. Other states like Florida and California and those along the Atlantic coastline don't have exploratory drilling offshore because the people in those states are less willing to take the risks. If you remember just about every candidate or potential candidate in the last election was falling over each other trying to be perceived as the candidate that would best promote exploratory oil drilling inside the US boundaries. If you want to blame somebody, why not blame the American people. Where exactly do the voters think this oil will disappear to if we don't get it out of the ground and burned as fast as possible? And what do people think future generations are going to use for their energy source if we use up all that is easily available as fast as we possibly can? It is after all the vast wasteful consumption of energy that is main driving force behind pushing the technology to its limits.

-jim

Reply to
jim

I thought BP has already bought many purification machines from Kevin Costner. See the first 2:30 minutes of this video.

formatting link
That is our only hope of sucking all the seafood gumbo out of the gulf.

Reply to
Bob Jones

*** First, corporations are juridical persons, and the risk is not limited where a corporation is concerned, except in some cases. The biological people who set up a corporation or own part of a corporation are protected to a higher degree.

I believe BP will be found guilty of pretty massive negligence in this particular case.

Perhaps another company might have successfully completed this project. BP paid for an option to exploit part of this nation's wealth, and instead of exploiting the wealth to the benefit of their corporation and to the owners of these resources (namely the citizens of the USA), this company was involved in the loss of million dollars of revenue, AND the damage and destruction of even more resources.

There is no reason not to drill for deep water oil. There is reason to demand that it be done safely and by companies and personal who have the technology and determination to do it safely and effectively.

We have no meaningful energy policy. If we did, we would be moving full speed to try to find better and more replaceable sources of energy which are needed to drive our economy.

Our economy is in one heck of a mess, and there are but a couple of courses: either we try to bail out the boat and move forward, or we deteriorate into a thirdworld status. Our citizens are not too good at squatting in the dust, swatting flies from their faces, and starving to death.

BP has a job to do.. They have to pay rather dearly for the terrible cockups that caused this.

And it is a good time for all such companies to learn that you cant just give lip service to safety, especially when you are working in a highly hazardous industry and area.

Have you EVER worked for a company in which the HSE group could shut down an activity, such as drilling an oil well, if they sensed a problem? Not likely, but this may come in the future.

Reply to
hls

ROFLMAO.

Good one...

Reply to
Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B

If BP liquidates its US operations, that is the maximum dollar amount BP will pay.

Nah this is at most just ordinary lack of care. The probability of something bad happening will only increase as you go after the more difficult to obtain oil. The Deepwater Horizon had just completed a well for BP that was far more risky than this one. They had received accolades for pulling that off.

Do you think this was intentional?

Up until this happened that description fits the Deepwater Horizon to a tee.

We have an energy policy. The policy is to promote the use of petroleum by keeping the price of oil as low as possible and the supply of oil as a stable as possible and to build infrastructure that facilitates the consumption of oil. Future generations may look back at that policy and say it was misguided, but nobody is going to say the policy didn't exist.

Nobody is good at that.

Don't worry there will be lots of consequences when it is done. But at the moment the primary concern is to deal with controlling a runaway gusher. We may be still talking about how that is going to be stopped a year from now.

Any number of people could have shut down the operations on the Deepwater Horizon if they had safety concerns. But nobody thought the well was about to blow, or that the whole rig would be almost instantly engulfed in flames, or that the BOP would fail. If you listened to the testimony at the MMS-USCG hearings everyone thought they were going to be packing up and to leave for a new drilling location in a couple of days.

-jim

Reply to
jim

And this is pure bullshit, Jim. Schlumberger moved off this rig several hours before the blowout because they KNEW and they COMMUNICATED that this was excessively risky. They, according to my information, were not ferried off by BP paid helicopter services but instead had to call their land office and order their own helicopter services. (There is more, and much more explicit information, that may come out about this)

Any mud engineer could tell you the problem of circulating salt water when you were already taking kicks in a high pressure zone. It is, and was, suicide.

It cost several people their lives.

Keep reading, and I think you will be amazed at the incompetence that caused this. It is maybe worse than incompetence..It is hubris.

The only entity that could have arrested this chain of events was BP, not Hayward, but the local "company man".

Had ALL the service companies (the true experts) walked off, this disaster might never have happened.

Reply to
hls

"hls" wrote in news:dKOdnX_Yc6X13brRnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com:

You never read the entire original article. That is certain. Either that, or your reading comprehension is extremely poor.

Here's the link again. It might pay for you to print out the whole article and read the paper copy.

Reply to
Tegger

My comments still stand. I did not comment on the Eurpean systems for oil recovery intentionally. I have personally never seen them deployed and functioning.

My comments have to do with the problems that lead to this disaster in the first place.

Maybe you have a hard time understanding.

Reply to
hls

"hls" wrote in news:ecSdnVOAhPCEELXRnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com:

What led to the /event itself/ is unremarkable. Leaks into ocean waters from oil wells are more common than you might think.

This is why Holland--and at least eleven other nations--have marine fleets that are built specifically to clean up those spills, along with skilled cerwmen trained to quickly deal with such spills before they spread and reach land.

What turned the "event" into a /disaster/ is US government policy. If you had read the article, you would understand that.

You really should read that article.

To briefly summarize it in case you still wish not to read it:

1) The Dutch repeatedly offered their equipment and men--at no charge. 2) US environment law precluded the use of that equipment because it didn't make the water "clean" enough. 3) Dutch marine-based earth-moving equipment was disallowed from being used to quickly build sand-dikes on shore, because US labor unions wanted /their/ people to operate it instead of the Dutch.

The delays and inaction resulting from US policy resulted in the /disaster/, not the spill itself. The very same government stupidity led to the Exxon Valdez /disaster/ as well.

Reply to
Tegger

"hls" wrote in news:r-udnfAtAood9brRnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com:

No, ultimately, Lisa Jackson made the mess. She failed to override stupid US-government environmental policy in order to allow Dutch vessels and men to quickly clean up the spill before it spread and hit land.

The Dutch /repeatedly/ offered their equipment at no charge, and were repeatedly told, "Thanks, but no thanks".

Obama and Jackson deliberately allowed this matter to turn into the disaster that it's become. They did this by failing to override the unions and US environmental policies so as to get the oil cleaned up quickly, and to get sand-berms built quickly.

Reply to
Tegger

Russia offered huge super tanker Aircraft to help put out huge wildfires in America.American fed govt turned the Russians offer down.

The Dutch people reclaim land from the Sea.They know how to take good care of their land, oil and whatever. cuhulin

Reply to
cuhulin

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.