On 5/14/10 22:47 , Drifter wrote:
Peter, I'm curious. just where did you find all this info?


Read it again.


I
think you better check all your facts. don't follow the company
line printed else where. and, BTW, Halliburton is based out of
Abu Dhabi, and a badly run company. BP is only second to Exxon,
on their safety/spill record. and,as for Adare, his use of explosive,
depleted the oxygen on a well head. then the head was capped. it's
the same way as done today. remember all the burning wells during
the gulf war? blow and cap is faster and safer. as you said, i spent
a few years in the oil fields over seas. my family has an interest.

Drifter...






On 5/14/2010 3:19 PM, D. Peter Maus wrote:


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.