On May 14, 10:10*am, "D. Peter Maus" 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?

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.

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.

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.

Bruce Jensen