| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#6
May 16th 10, 01:19 PM
posted to rec.radio.shortwave
|
|||
|
|||
Whose Country is This?
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. |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Ask Not What Your Country Can Do To You? | Shortwave | |||
| New Country on The Air | Shortwave | |||
| What country? | Shortwave | |||
| 4W - a new country ? | Dx | |||
![D. Peter Maus[_2_] is offline](https://www.radiobanter.com/images/SultanThemeVB3R/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
Threaded Mode
