On 5/14/10 13:16 , bpnjensen wrote:
On May 14, 10:10 am, "D. Peter wrote:
On 5/14/10 10:52 , bpnjensen wrote:





On May 14, 8:03 am, wrote:
It IS an OIL GUSHER!http://www.rense.com/general90/spill.htm

What will they (''They'') call that OIL GUSHER when it gets into the
Gulf Stream and starts Fouling the Beaches and Wildlife along the
Atlantic Coast?
What will the Brits call it when it gets to British Beaches?
I call it a British POLLUTION OIL GUSHER!
cuhulin

Indeed - but it could have been *any* one of a number of oil
companies, American too, whose well went bad - BP's number just came
up this time...along with their American subcontractors Transoceanic
and (cough cough) Halliburton.

FWIW, according to some sources, BPs quality control, here and in many
other locations, is apparently lacking. They seem to have a corporate
culture in which bending the regulations and tryig to fly under the
radar with problems is rampant. They probably are not the only ones.
This is probably an understatement. Nobody gets rich being honest
anymore.

Bruce

BP was slated to receive an award for it's environmental
friendliness until Obiteme ordered it killed in the wake of this
spill.

BP was to be recognized for it's environmental responsibility and
exceptional safety record, with the fewest injuries, and lowest
volume of oil spilled, over its history, in the industry.

BP is positively antiseptic compared to Exxon.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Do you still think BP deserves the award?


Depends on the outcome of the investigation. BP did not own the
platform, and was not exclusively involved in its maintenance and
operation.



It is true that their record is good, and BP certainly trumpets this
attitude in its ads, but former employees and inspectors, including
some from Alaska, have suggested that BP cuts corners when nobody is
looking. At least one former employee has suggested that certain
mandatory high-pressure well tests, which are specified to last 5
minutes, were frequently shut off after just 30 seconds when
inspectors were not present. With a behind-the-scenes operation like
this, their safety and environmental record was a sitting duck.

There are also safety and equipment regulations present in other
countries (such as certain kinds of pressure valves - sorry to be less
than specific, but I think you kwow what I refer to) that the U.S.
does not require. A company who prides itself on safety, with or
without regulation, should employ these methods anyway.

It seems to me (and I would have to go looking for this information to
verify it) that I have also read or viewed that Halliburton's concrete
casements have been responsible for the large majority of failures of
these structures in recent years; with a record like that, if I were
an oil company concerned with safety and the environment, I would be
very hesitant to use their services.


There are only two companies in the world that offers those
services. One is Halliburton. The other is Schlumberger, which is
not a domestically owned company, so environmental rules would be
difficult to enforce.

That leaves Halliburton. There is no one else offering these
services.



I am not sure how a company can anticipate the sudden presence of a
large expansive methane bubble, but it appears that this was not an
isolated incident and that they happen with some frequency. Proper
outfitting and procedures - specified from the top down - probably
could have avoided this problem.

There is no way to specify from the top down, because, often the
forces encountered are so far outside expectation, experience, or
imagination, there is no specification. Mother nature in her fury is
not something we can predict, nor manage. If we could, we'd be
powering New York with lightning.

We've gotten so used to controlling natural events, as a species,
that we sometimes forget that there are things outside our ability
to control, outside our ability to manage, or even deal with.

Methane bubbles are the nature, and one of the great risks, of
the oil business. I worked for a petroleum geologist some years ago.
And I expressed these same concerns, and as an active broadcaster at
the time (he owned the radio station) his interests were served in
answering my questions. So he took me out onto the platforms where I
was allowed to ask straight forward unvarnished questions from
non-PR types...ie, working crew on the platform. Since he was a
scientist and not a wildcatter, I got a nowhere near exposure than
when I asked the same questions of those actively producing. One of
my clients owns oil wells, and I get a lot of first hand, there,
too. And it's a much different perspective.

The risks are enormous. And the forces being dealt with are
equally enormous. And nearly impossible to predict. Even when
estimates are expanded to 10 times expected pressures and more, they
can be inadequate to what's really encountered. You must bear in
mind that the technology is often developed on the spot in direct
response to conditions that can't be predicted, and are fueled by
Mother Nature's moods.

Companies like Red Adair came into being to bring solutions to
wells that can't be controlled. Adair's solution is to dynamite them
shut and destroy the well. A massive resort to violence. Because
management is impossible.

It's a business full of risks. That's why there are only two
companies doing it. Halliburton and Schlumberger. BP hires the best,
with the best track record. That's Halliburton. Schlumberger does
not have the resources, the experience or the ability to do what
Halliburton does. Nor do they give enough of a **** about the
consequences of an accident to put them in charge of such a well as
Deepwater Horizon.

You should see a Schlumberger site. Halliburton's sites are
surgical theatres by comparison.

But, again, we're dealing with Nature and her whims. **** happens.

Nonetheless, BP has the best track record.

The award, had it been issued, would have been earned.



Having said this, while I am strong believer in the buck stopping at
the top, I think there is enough evidence that each player among the
top three shares some responsibility. It would be nice if they could
sort it out amicably among themselves, but in lieu of that, I suppose
we'll have to go through a protracted process to resolve those
proportionate shares.


There's no doubt it's going to be a legal mess. And there's going
to be a lot of punitive action clamored for. But likely, that will
be politically motivated. Not equal to the actual damage.

But here's something that's not being discussed: The amount of
this spill is about the same volume of petroleum that seeps into the
Gulf through the silt, every day. And that seepage has been going on
for centuries. The ocean, and nature have found a way to deal with
that seepage. And a protracted oil slick hasn't developed from the
hundreds of years of seepage in the Gulf.

Which goes a long way toward explaining that about 35% of the oil
that's been spilled is no longer in the slick. It's already
disappeared. Not just dissipated. Gone. It, too, has been gobbled
up by the ocean. Some of it's settling out, and attaching to the
silt, as with natural seepage. Some has dissipated. Some has been
consumed by natural chemical processes, and some has been consumed
by biological entities. All of which points to the growing
understanding that the damage, as expected, will be less than
predicted, with far, far shorter endurance than claimed.

The Exxon Valdez spill was supposed to have destroyed the oceanic
environment for 100 miles around the spill for the next 150 years.

Today, it's a thriving aquatic environment, teeming with life.
The oyster and crab beds are richer than ever, and the local
lifestyle is better than before the spill.

Doesn't mean it wasn't bad. Just that it wasn't as cataclysmic as
the hand wringers were claiming.

This one won't be either.