Louisiana Oil Rig Fire / Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

The_Dunedan · 05-11-2010, 08:05 AM

More than plausible, sadly. When I said this could have the economic impact of an atomic bombing, I wasn't kidding. The Gulf Coast produces a huge proportion of the seafood consumed in the US and around the world, and an appropriate percentage of the local economy is tied to this. Likewise tourism, which will not simply suffer but cease to exist if the beaches are covered in oil and the fishing sucks. The Gulf is looking at tens of billions of dollars in lost revenue, work, etc. At this point, almost anything is better than doing nothing at all: If you don't fight the bear, it's going to eat you. If you -do- fight the bear, it might still eat you...but you also might live. That's where the Gulf is right now; deciding whether to fight the bear.

Baraka_Guru · 05-11-2010, 08:08 AM

I'm willing to believe it's plausible—desperate, but plausible.

The_Jazz · 05-11-2010, 08:13 AM

How fucked up is it that the least bad option is a nuclear weapon? What's the old addage? "Piss-poor planning makes for piss-poor performance"? Or something like that.

The_Dunedan · 05-11-2010, 08:14 AM

Proper prior planning prevents piss-poor performance.

We're lookin' at you guys, BP, Transocean...

ring · 05-11-2010, 08:16 AM

Are they still dumping the oil-dispersant chemicals?

This is scary nasty.

Dispersant 'may make Deepwater Horizon oil spill more toxic' | Environment | The Guardian

The_Jazz · 05-11-2010, 08:16 AM

Thanks, Dunedan. *Click*Select*Save As*

aceventura3 · 05-11-2010, 08:26 AM

Given the Congressional hearings today and the lack of progress it makes me wonder why BP is still in charge. At some point the US government should say enough is enough and take control of the matter. If a house is burning you don't let the homeowner make the decisions. Poor planning blame, poor performance blame, etc. is not important at this time, it isn't going to help. If we think BP is best equipped to handle this and they can't or do more harm than good, at what point is it more a commentary on us rather than BP?

Cimarron29414 · 05-11-2010, 08:35 AM

Why don't they just jetison the warp core? It's got as good'a chance as any?

---------- Post added at 12:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:33 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Given the Congressional hearings today and the lack of progress it makes me wonder why BP is still in charge. At some point the US government should say enough is enough and take control of the matter. If a house is burning you don't let the homeowner make the decisions. Poor planning blame, poor performance blame, etc. is not important at this time, it isn't going to help. If we think BP is best equipped to handle this and they can't or do more harm than good, at what point is it more a commentary on us rather than BP?

The trouble is, we've got a patient lying on the ER bed bleeding to death and the doctors are standing over him arguing over who didn't read the chart. Stop the fucking bleeding, I don't care who does it.

aceventura3 · 05-11-2010, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

The trouble is, we've got a patient lying on the ER bed bleeding to death and the doctors are standing over him arguing over who didn't read the chart. Stop the fucking bleeding, I don't care who does it.

Right. BP is responsible for the problem. BP has not been able to fix it. BP still doesn't know if their latest plan will work. The oil dispersant may be causing more problems. And we keep looking at BP??? I know accidents happen and I will defend those charged wrongly with bad motivations when it may not be true, but ability to get a job done is something different. We should bring in a team that can get the job done. Why hasn't that been done?

roachboy · 05-11-2010, 09:06 AM

well, ace, the problem may well be that outside a comic book there is no team that can just swoop in and deal with this.
that is the problem, yes?
well that and drilling a mile down without planning for contingencies because it's cost effective not to and besides the regulatory system allows tons of latitude for encouraging happy petroleum corporation shareholders and not so much in the way of forcing corporations like bp to have a viable plan which would include developing and testing the required technologies BEFORE the drill baby drill got underway---it's totally irresponsible. but so long as nothing Really Bad happened its a kind of routinized irresponsibility of the sort that goes on every day yes? but now something Really Bad has happened and this underlying fabric of irresponsibility is evident.

but there we are.
it'd be nice if there were super heroes who could just Deal With This.
anyone got the number of the mayor of Gotham City? i hear he's connected...

aceventura3 · 05-11-2010, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

well, ace, the problem may well be that outside a comic book there is no team that can just swoop in and deal with this.
that is the problem, yes?

No. There are people who specialize in certain activity and there are those who have experiences that may not be found within BP. Also, there may be people within BP who have the experience and expertise who may not have the clout needed to direct activities. I look at where behavioral incentives are, and to select a group or firm with a sole incentive of stopping the leak fast regardless of cost is our best option at this point in my view. Comic books aside, there are people who can respond under great pressure and get the job done when others can not.

Quote:

well that and drilling a mile down without planning for contingencies because it's cost effective not to and besides the regulatory system allows tons of latitude for encouraging happy petroleum corporation shareholders and not so much in the way of forcing corporations like bp to have a viable plan which would include developing and testing the required technologies BEFORE the drill baby drill got underway---it's totally irresponsible.

We see this issue in different ways, that is clear. All I suggest is that government and our regulators let BP do what they did. If BP acted irresponsibly so did our government, and there we have the false sense of security offered by "regulation" and a glaring weakness in the system.

Quote:

but so long as nothing Really Bad happened its a kind of routinized irresponsibility of the sort that goes on every day yes? but now something Really Bad has happened and this underlying fabric of irresponsibility is evident.

Bad things happen everyday, true. Every contingency can not be planned for and we respond to the best of our ability. We live in a world of risk, this is a known. I don't get your point.

Quote:

but there we are.
it'd be nice if there were super heroes who could just Deal With This.
anyone got the number of the mayor of Gotham City? i hear he's connected...

I believe in heroes, it is sad if you don't

The_Jazz · 05-11-2010, 10:42 AM

I'm sorry, Ace, but exactly who within the Federal government do you expect to have the expertise to deal with this situation? And I've heard of exactly *zero* private contractors saying that they have the ability to respond better. Maybe I've missed that, so please let me know who's saying that they're better able to find a solution.

roachboy's point is that there's no one else, private sector or public, that's stepped forward with viable solutions. If they haven't, their voices haven't made it my ears. Apparently they have to yours. If they haven't, well, then you're talking about comic book heroes.

roachboy · 05-11-2010, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Oil Spill Hearings Kick Off the Blame Game

— By Kate Sheppard
| Tue May. 11, 2010 4:00 AM PDT

Executives from BP, Transocean, and Halliburton are testifying before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee this morning, and blaming each other seems to be the name of the game. In their respective prepared statements, each company points to another as the likely responsible party in the explosion and subsequent spill.

Here's an excerpt from BP America president and chairman Lamar McKay's testimony (which operated the Deepwater Horizon rig), which blames Transocean (owner of the rig) for having faulty a blowout preventer, the technology that should have shut the well:

We are looking at why the blowout preventer did not work because that was to be the fail-safe in case of an accident. The blowout preventer is a 450-ton piece of equipment that sits on top of the wellhead during drilling operations. It contains valves that can be closed remotely if pressure causes fluids such as oil or natural gas to enter the well and threaten the drilling rig. By closing this valve, the drilling crew can regain control of the well.

Blowout preventers are used on every oil and gas well drilled in the world today. They are carefully and deliberately designed with multiple levels of redundancy and are regularly tested. If they don’t pass the test, they are not used.

The systems are intended to fail-closed and be fail-safe; sadly and for reasons we do not yet understand, in this case, they were not. Transocean's blowout preventer failed to operate.

In his prepared remarks, Transocean CEO Steven Newman says blaming the blowout preventer "simply makes no sense." "We have no reason to believe that they were now operational," he said, as Transocean and BP had tested the blowout preventers on April 10 and 17. Instead, Newman blames Halliburton, which was contracted to pour the cement for the well:

What is most unusual about the explosion in this case is that it occurred after the well construction process was essentially finished. Drilling had been completed on April 17, and the well had been sealed with cement (to be reopened by the Operator at a later date if the Operator chose to put the well into production). At this point, drilling mud was no longer being used as a means of reservoir pressure containment; the cement and the casing were the barriers controlling pressure from the reservoir. Indeed, at the time of the explosion, the rig crew, at the direction of the Operator, was in the process of displacing drilling mud and replacing it with sea water.

For that reason, the one thing we know with certainty is that on the evening of April 20, there was a sudden, catastrophic failure of the cement, the casing, or both. Therein lies the root cause of this occurrence; without a disastrous failure of one of those elements, the explosion could not have occurred. It is also clear that the drill crew had very little (if any) time to react. The explosions were almost instantaneous.

What caused that catastrophic, sudden and violent failure? Was the well properly designed? Was the well properly cemented? Were there problems with the well casing? Were all appropriate tests run on the cement and casings? These are some of the critical questions that need to be answered in the coming weeks and months.

Halliburton chief health, safety and environmental officer Tim Probert, in turn, pointed back at Transocean, which was responsible for the Deepwater Horizon's construction plan:

Halliburton is confident that the cementing work on the Mississippi Canyon 252 well was completed in accordance with the requirements of the well owner’s well construction plan.

Oil Spill Hearings Kick Off the Blame Game | Mother Jones

kate shepard, who wrote the above, is tweeting from the hearings:

Kate Sheppard (kate_sheppard) on Twitter

here's another annotated feed from the hearings:

Gulf oil spill hearing - live blog | Richard Adams | World news | guardian.co.uk

aceventura3 · 05-11-2010, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

I'm sorry, Ace, but exactly who within the Federal government do you expect to have the expertise to deal with this situation? And I've heard of exactly *zero* private contractors saying that they have the ability to respond better. Maybe I've missed that, so please let me know who's saying that they're better able to find a solution.

roachboy's point is that there's no one else, private sector or public, that's stepped forward with viable solutions. If they haven't, their voices haven't made it my ears. Apparently they have to yours. If they haven't, well, then you're talking about comic book heroes.

It is not clear if you have been following the entire exchange on the issue of "regulators" or not, but to me it is clear that "regulators" rely on the expertise from the industry they regulate. In my view "regulators" are generally going to be responsive rather than proactive. Given my view described, at some point and I think we have past the point our government or "regulators" have to take a lead role in responding to an event. At the end of the day BP may or may not exist as we know it today, but the rest of us have to deal with the consequences. Therefore "we" need to take control. If I was in charge of the government, I would take control of this situation and hire a team of people who could solve this problem. I would stop looking at BP and listening to excuses. I would take accountability. You seem to be able to understand Roach's point of view, even if you don't agree, why don't you understand mine? In my view, Roach's point of view is theoretical or academic, mine more roll-up your sleeves and...

roachboy · 05-11-2010, 12:24 PM

uh right ace. you're a pragmatist in that market-as-metaphysics kinda way. but i don't wanna talk about that again.

this is interesting:

Quote:

3.55pm: Tim Probert of Halliburton now speaking - and we're back to the blame-game shifting of the morning session.

Shorter version of Probert's defence: We can't possibly make any opinions on what might have happened at Deepwater Horizon rig until all the facts are known. Except that if the blow-out preventer (BOP) had worked none of this would have happened.

But that's not what the Transocean people say in their evidence:

The attention now being given to the BOPs in this case is somewhat ironic because at the time of the explosion, the drilling process was complete. The well had been sealed with casing and cement, and within a few days, the BOPs would have been removed. At this point, the well barriers – the cementing and the casing – were responsible for controlling any pressure from the reservoir.

Remember: Transocean drilled the well, Halliburton did the cement plug.

Now things are getting interesting:

Barbara Boxer: "Mr Probert, I was taken by your testimony, it seems to be that your blaming the well owner here."

Probert: "I certainly didn't mean to suggest that, I was just explaining the role of the parties."

For legal reasons, you will have to speculate on your own interpretation of which of these lying bastards is lying.

Gulf oil spill hearing - live blog | Richard Adams | World news | guardian.co.uk

for those who aren't keeping track at home, this from this afternoon's senate hearings.
emphasis added.

aceventura3 · 05-11-2010, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

uh right ace. you're a pragmatist in that market-as-metaphysics kinda way. but i don't wanna talk about that again.

this is interesting:

No, it is not interesting. The hearings are political grand standing. We need people to lead and get the leak stopped.

Cimarron29414 · 05-11-2010, 12:39 PM

I have to agree that these Senate hearings feel premature. It's been a long time since I watch a government hearing and thought, "Now we're getting somewhere!"

rb -

So the well was capped with cement. The cement didn't hold and the BOP didn't hold? This is sort of besides the point but, why would they cap a well which is capable of producing so much oil? In your readings, have you found the reason for capping it?

Baraka_Guru · 05-11-2010, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

No, it is not interesting.

I would agree it wouldn't be particularly interesting if this were the only oil well in the ocean and will be the only oil rig in the ocean.

Rekna · 05-11-2010, 12:44 PM

Does the government even have technology to deal with this type of a problem? There is a reason we explored the moon before we explored the bottom of the ocean....

roachboy · 05-11-2010, 12:51 PM

ace, so you imagine that the entirety of british petroleum, the entirety of halliburton and transocean and all the ships at sea are stalled out, idled, waiting around for the half dozen talking heads who are testifying before the senate to finish?

what on earth are you talking about?

all this manly man roll-up-yer-sleeves-and-get-in-there-and sort this puppy out bluster is kinda funny. i mean, you're posting in a messageboard. if you're so sure that there are Hero Figures out there who haven't been consulted---o i dunno, maybe one of the x-men--then why don't you stop posting stuff go hop in your car and drive to louisiana and start bossing some people around? i'm sure that the folk from bp would be relieved. "o thank christ he's here." they'd say.

but otherwise yours is every bit as theoretical a position as anyone else's==more even because you seem against all reason to be able to persuade yourself that it isn't theoretical.

get a grip there, ace buddy.

as for the hearings themselves, i'm not posting stuff from them for any reason beyond that there's some interesting information that passes through the veil of generalized tedium that they are. and there's something kinda funny about having representatives of all 3 of the private-sector players being hauled up in front of the senate. but it's all obviously theater and were it not for the information and/or posturing (in its particularities, so as information) i wouldn't bother. fyi.

Hektore · 05-11-2010, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

I have to agree that these Senate hearings feel premature. It's been a long time since I watch a government hearing and thought, "Now we're getting somewhere!"

rb -

So the well was capped with cement. The cement didn't hold and the BOP didn't hold? This is sort of besides the point but, why would they cap a well which is capable of producing so much oil? In your readings, have you found the reason for capping it?

For capping productive wells, I can't speak about underwater oil, but the explosion in the natural gas exploration around here has caused me to learn more than I ever wanted to know. With natural gas they move equipment around to get the most out of it. If the current supply is being met and opening a new well requires new equipment then buying new equipment wastes money. Buying a new rig, then letting an older, functional rig sit once the well it's on runs dry is not as cost effective as waiting till the well runs dry and using the older rig until it falls to pieces. The costs to open a well are more or less fixed (not likely to differ significantly in the near future) and the equipment is slightly different, so they cap wells until the equipment is freed to utilize the well.

Cimarron29414 · 05-11-2010, 01:28 PM

Hektore,

That makes sense, except for the fact that the rig was over this well. Does that mean they were preparing to move this rig to another well in the near future? Just trying to wrap my brain around all of this.

aceventura3 · 05-11-2010, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

I would agree it wouldn't be particularly interesting if this were the only oil well in the ocean and will be the only oil rig in the ocean.

There are thousands of wells in the Gulf many of them deep water. Across the globe there are many deep water wells. Also national standards differ. The reason this is not interesting is because these companies can simply say they met or exceeded our US standards, and "we" don't have a legitimate response. We already know BP is responsible, we know what we think happened, we know what we think failed and there is no evidence that standards were not met. This is simply an exercise put on by people with no expertise with CEO's so far removed from what happened that they have nothing of value to say.

What would have been interesting would have been a hearing before the accident discussing the standards, or a hearing on preventing the next disaster.

Hektore · 05-11-2010, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

Hektore,

That makes sense, except for the fact that the rig was over this well. Does that mean they were preparing to move this rig to another well in the near future? Just trying to wrap my brain around all of this.

I haven't seen anything laid out about the particular well/rig in question, so I cannot speak to this specific case. I only know that capped, unused wells are not uncommon.

My guess would be that moving the rig off the well is not likely the initial cause as it's something that happens quite often. As for who's fault it is right now, I'd say both Halliburton and Transocean are responsible as they both had equipment in the well which was supposed to be able to prevent this from happening independently of one another. Knowing what I do from the drilling I've done, I think a big important question right now is: What was the hold-up on taking the BOP out of the hole if the cap was finished?

aceventura3 · 05-11-2010, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

ace, so you imagine that the entirety of british petroleum, the entirety of halliburton and transocean and all the ships at sea are stalled out, idled, waiting around for the half dozen talking heads who are testifying before the senate to finish?

what on earth are you talking about?

The above is your absurdity, not mine.

Quote:

all this manly man roll-up-yer-sleeves-and-get-in-there-and sort this puppy out bluster is kinda funny. i mean, you're posting in a messageboard. if you're so sure that there are Hero Figures out there who haven't been consulted---o i dunno, maybe one of the x-men--then why don't you stop posting stuff go hop in your car and drive to louisiana and start bossing some people around? i'm sure that the folk from bp would be relieved. "o thank christ he's here." they'd say.

but otherwise yours is every bit as theoretical a position as anyone else's==more even because you seem against all reason to be able to persuade yourself that it isn't theoretical.

get a grip there, ace buddy.

I am willing to bet Obama will be seeking outside help soon from experts outside of BP and our "regulators".

ASU2003 · 05-11-2010, 07:38 PM

What irony it would be if Russia was the only ones with the capability to do this. 20 years after the Cold War ended, and them trying to get nuclear bombs into Cuba a few hundred miles away, they would actually be able to help us by detonating one. The one thing I would worry about is if there are any other oil rigs nearby.

I think the big problem now is that BP still wants to get this oil and be able to sell it. They want to either put in more oil rigs to take the pressure off, or cap it and fill barges with it. I'm not sure if they would want to try and fuse it shut, since the damage to their image is done, I'm not sure if they care if they get it stopped tomorrow or a week from today.

I just wonder if there are anti-nuclear treaties that would prevent us from using a nuclear bomb in this way. And I would really start to worry about the election campaigns against a President that needs to use a nuclear weapon in US waters. But, having no plan on what to do to stop a major oil spill is a problem as well.

roachboy · 05-12-2010, 07:06 AM

it's a funny kind of working.

Quote:

We had a contingency plan for Louisiana spill, and it's working, BP chief tells angry senators

But all three oil firms try to blame each other's errors; hearing acknowledges regulatory oversight failed

BP insisted last night that its contingency plan had worked, despite coming under fire in Congress for minimising the risks of offshore drilling and trying to shirk blame for the oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.

With an estimated 4m gallons of oil polluting the gulf from the ruptured well, Lamar McKay, the chief executive of BP America, said the company had adequately anticipated the potential scale of any spill and that its clean-up operation had gone according to plan.

"We had a very specific plan," he told the Senate. "It has actually worked." But he acknowledged the spill could grow to nearly 19m US gallons by the time a relief well – the only sure method of stopping the leak – is drilled. BP's defence came at the end of a testy day of hearings before two committees which saw the three oil titans connected to the disaster repeatedly accused of trying to slough off their financial and legal obligations.

Executives of BP America, which owned the well, Transocean, which owned the sunken Deepwater Horizon rig, and Halliburton, which cemented the wall, were repeatedly taken to task by senators for failing to put in place adquate safety regimes. BP was also pressed for specifics on its commitment to honour all "legitimate claims" for damages from the spill.

The senators' anger grew as all three admitted they could offer no guarantees against another calamity in the Gulf. "There is just nothing there underneath your statements," said Barbara Boxer, the chair of the Senate environment and public works committee. "If you look at what's happening it is very very disturbing."

But other senators acknowledged a failure of regulatory oversight. "We dropped the ball here," said Max Baucus, a Democrat from Montana.

The day got underway with BP America's chief executive, Lamar McKay, pointing to Transocean, the operator of the rig, and pinning a failed blowout preventer, a 450 tonne set of valves now lying on the ocean floor. "We have a blowout preventer that didn't work," McKay said.

Transocean's Steven Newman fired straight back. "Offshore oil and gas production projects begin and end with the operator, in this case BP," he said.

That left Halliburton. Its health, safety and environment officer, Tim Probert, started off by warning against a premature rush to judgment – then took his turn at assigning blame. Like Newman, he told the hearing that Halliburton had carried out its work according to BP's specifications.

Yesterday's hearings — on Capitol Hill and in Kenner, Louisiana — mark the first official efforts to unravel the causes of spill, and prevent future disasters.

BP and the others were put on notice the spill could well change the future of offshore drilling. "If you can't convince people that you can operate safely, not only will BP not be out there, but Transocean won't be out there to drill the rigs, and Halliburton won't be out there cementing," said Lisa Murkowski, a Republican from Alaska who supports drilling.

The first changes were set in motion yesterday, with the Obama administration proposing reform in the policing of offshore drilling following repeated charges that regulators were too cosy with oil companies. A proposed overhaul of the mineral management service would put a firewall between officials approving projects and those responsible for making operations meet safety and environmental standards.

The move comes amid repeated charges from senators yesterday that the mineral management service was "too cozy" .

The hearing was told the BP and other companies routinely won exemptions from environmental review of offshore projects, a waiver process McKay described as "just the industry standard".

Meanwhile, the long-awaited energy and climate bill due for release today was also tweaked in response to heightened concerns about drilling. The bill will still expand offshore drilling, but environmental groups said they were assured that states would be able to veto projects within 75 miles of their shores.

As the hearings played out on Capitol Hill, the Louisiana national guard deployed troops in Blackhawk helicopters to drop sandbags along the shoreline.

Much evidence at the two hearings yesterday was technical, about various protective devices that should – if functioning properly – prevent catastrophe. One key detail could be the cement casing of the well. Halliburton noted the well had been left without a cap or blowout preventer for five months before the explosion.

BP also faced tough questions about whether it was too complacent about the risks of deepwater drilling, given more than a dozen accidents in the last five years involving failed blow out preventers. BP was also pressed repeatedly to spell out its commitment to pay all "legitimate" claims of compensation for the spill.

Senators also accused the company of cutting corners in its disaster planning by failing to have a containment dome and stocks of dispersants were not on standby. "What I see here is a company flailing around trying to deal with a worst-case scenario," Robert Menendez, a New Jersey senator, told BP.

The three companies were also forced to admit under questioning that they were conducting no research into how to deal with deep water spills. BP, in particular, was singled out over fatal accidents in Texas, as well as safety violations in Alaska.

We had a contingency plan for Louisiana spill, and it's working, BP chief tells angry senators | Environment | The Guardian

meanwhile...:

Video: Oil has reached Louisiana coast, says marine biologist | Environment | guardian.co.uk

roachboy · 05-12-2010, 09:16 AM

and meanwhile again, this time back in congress, it appears that the results of some of the initial investigations into what happened with the deepwater horizon and why those things happened are starting to come out. this particular sequence of bad things concerns the famous...well read on:

Quote:

Stupak: Oil well's blowout preventer had leaks, dead battery, design flaws

By Steven Mufson and David A. Fahrenthold
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 12, 2010; 12:58 PM

A senior House Democrat said that the blowout preventer that failed to stop an oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico had a dead battery in its control pod, leaks in its hydraulic system, a "useless" test version of one of the devices that was supposed to close the flow of oil and a cutting tool that wasn't strong enough to shear through joints that made up 10 percent of the drill pipe.

In a devastating review of the blowout preventer that BP said was supposed to be "fail-safe," Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said in a hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Wednesday that the device was anything but fail-safe.

Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) pressed BP on why it had assured regulators in its exploration plan that it could deal with a spill 50 times larger than the current one when the current one seems to have defied control technology. "The American people expect you to have a response comparable to the Apollo Project, not Project Runway," Markey said.

Stupak said that the committee investigators had also uncovered a document prepared in 2001 by the drilling rig operator Transocean that said there were 260 "failure modes" that could require removal of the blowout preventer.

"How can a device that has 260 failure modes be considered fail-safe?" Stupak said.

It was the second day of congressional hearings into the causes and consequences of the three-week old spill that began when a BP exploration well blew out and set fire to Transocean's Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, killing 11 people.

Stupak delivered a detailed critique of the blowout preventer, which was supposed to be the last line of defense against the type of spill now spreading across the Gulf of Mexico. Stupak said that the blowout preventer's manufacturer, Cameron, told committee staffers that the leak in the hydraulic system, which was supposed to provide emergency power to the rams that should have cut through the drill pipe and seal the well, probably predated the accident because other parts were intact.

Stupak said that the problem suggested inadequate maintenance by BP and Transocean.

The Democrat also said that the shear ram, the strongest of the shut-off devices on the blowout preventer, was still not strong enough to cut through joints that connected the 90-foot sections of drill pipe and made up 10 percent of that pipe length.

Meanwhile other details about the rig accident were emerging in an investigation being conducted in Louisiana.

There, an official conceded that the Minerals Management Service, the beleaguered federal agency that oversees offshore drilling, learned in 2004 that fail-safe systems designed to shear through overflowing oil pipes could fail in some circumstances -- but did not check if rigs were avoiding those circumstances.

In a hearing in a hotel ballroom in the New Orleans suburbs, Michael Saucier, a regional supervisor for the service, was grilled for more than an hour by a board of federal officials investigating the April 20 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig, which was about 50 miles off the Louisiana coast.

The hearing provided the spectacle of one federal agency drawing embarrassing admissions out of another: Some of the toughest questions came from Coast Guard Capt. Hung Nguyen, a figure with a military haircut and a crisp blue uniform who is co-chair of the panel.

Nguyen asked about a 2004 study on blowout preventers -- devices set on the sea floor, and designed to shear through oil pipes in an emergency. In some case, the study found, the devices were not strong enough to cut especially thick pipe, or ultra-strong pipe joints.

Nguyen asked Saucier if those problems might have affected the Deepwater Horizon's blowout preventer, which failed to stop the flow of oil.

"We don't know what happened. We don't know what was actually installed?" Nguyen said. "And whether the shear ram was capable of cutting the drill pipe, do we?"

"I don't have the numbers on that, no," Saucier said.

Nguyen asked Saucier about how the Minerals Management Service ensures that blowout preventers actually function. Saucier said the government relies heavily on the oil industry: The American Petroleum Institute guides the design of blowout preventers, and government inspectors rely on oil-company tests to be certain the devices work once installed.

"Manufactured by industry, installed by industry, with no government witnessing oversight of the installation or the construction, is that correct?" Nguyen said.

"That would be correct," Saucier said.

"Seems to me [there is] self-certification here, by industry," Nguyen.

After Nguyen finished, the strongest defense of the Minerals Management Service's methods might have come from the industry it regulates.

Ned Kohnke -- an attorney for Transocean, which owned the Deepwater Horizon -- was allowed to question Saucier, and asserted that the rig's operators had strong incentives to make sure their blowout preventers work.

"These people are depending on these tests, and their equipment," Kohnke said. "If there's some cutting of corners, they're at the corner that is being cut. It's in their interest that these tests be performed correctly and completely."

Fahrenthold reported from Kenner, La.

washingtonpost.com

and in other bureaucratic infotainment, it appears that interior thinks that maybe, just maybe, it'd be a good idea to split minerals management into two mineral managements, one that actually does some regulating/control and the other that collects royalties. here the ny times is noticing that perhaps...maybe....JUST MAYBE...the relation between oil corporations and "regulators" has been a Problem. too "cozy" they're saying.

Obama Officials Seek Better Policing of Oil Industry - NYTimes.com

yeah.
go capitalism. go the state that is its administrative extension.
remember the marxist view of the state? it's not wrong...want proof? here it is.

aceventura3 · 05-12-2010, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

yeah.
go capitalism. go the state that is its administrative extension.
remember the marxist view of the state? it's not wrong...want proof? here it is.

There is a Marxist view of the state? What is it? Connect the Marxist view of the state to this accident and what it has to do with capitalism. Are you a Marxist? Your above comment simply raises a bunch of questions.

roachboy · 05-12-2010, 11:13 AM

Quote:

There is a Marxist view of the state?

yes.

Quote:

What is it?

that is is an instrument of class warfare that acts in the interest of the dominant political arrangement.

Quote:

Connect the Marxist view of the state to this accident and what it has to do with capitalism.

you can manage it, ace. the dots are right in front of you. a general discussion of the marxian view of the state is not relevant to this thread though. if you're curious, start another.

Quote:

Are you a Marxist?

gonna drop a dime on me with heimat security if i say yes?

suffice it to say that it's kinda hard to *be* a marxist in 2010.

aceventura3 · 05-12-2010, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

that is is an instrument of class warfare that acts in the interest of the dominant political arrangement.

Did Marx prefer anarchy? Seems like he created a paradox for himself. If the "state" can not be used to achieve his stated goals or even be used to prevent corporate abuse as what is alleged against BP, what is the point of Marxism?

roachboy · 05-12-2010, 12:29 PM

ace, given that in the relatively limited frame of a thread about what is still perhaps the largest industrial accident ever at least in terms of petroleum spilled into water and potential for ecological damage, and given that among the things today has brought to the surface of public attention is that the famous blowout preventer had hydraulic system problems and a dead fucking battery reported in the days just prior to the explosion and nothing was done about it...one result of which was that the preventer didn't..um...prevent, it seems to me that there's ample stuff to think about here, stuff that's more interesting in general and in particular than the difficulty you seem to have formulating a logical question about marxism.

it was a passing remark, a comment on the incestuousness of the relation between "Regulator" and corporate interest in this area which is now so obvious that even the ny times, which in general has never seen a status quo it didn't support, has taken note.
if it causes less static for you to overlook it in your struggle to remain on topic, overlook it. you have my blessing.

aceventura3 · 05-12-2010, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

it was a passing remark, a comment on the incestuousness of the relation between "Regulator" and corporate interest in this area which is now so obvious that even the ny times, which in general has never seen a status quo it didn't support, has taken note.
if it causes less static for you to overlook it in your struggle to remain on topic, overlook it. you have my blessing.

The inference in your comment was that there was a failure in capitalism that would not have occurred under Marxism. My point of view has been clear - this was an accident and that we can not and should not make rash generalizations from it. Your position is not clear to me, and that is why I ask questions.

roachboy · 05-12-2010, 12:52 PM

no, ace, that was in no way a conclusion that a normal reader would have derived from my remark. but to get that, you'd have to know what marxism is. which you clearly do not.

trust me, you want to move on to other things, ok?

aceventura3 · 05-13-2010, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

no, ace, that was in no way a conclusion that a normal reader would have derived from my remark. but to get that, you'd have to know what marxism is. which you clearly do not.

trust me, you want to move on to other things, ok?

Why are you being so cryptic?

A normal reader has no understanding of what you are presenting - even if you think they get it, how would you know? I simply ask questions and I admit what I don't get. I honestly don't get Marxism and I don't get why you brought it into this thread. I will move on, I have already come to some conclusions on the issue, even without understandable responses to my questions.

Cimarron29414 · 05-13-2010, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

...My point of view has been clear - this was an accident and that we can not and should not make rash generalizations from it...

I respectfully disagree. If you do a wheelie on your crotch rocket at 100 MPH on a wet road in the middle of the night with no headlights on and no helmet and you wreck - that's not an accident. That's pretty much what we have here.

roachboy · 05-13-2010, 09:47 AM

BP boss Tony Hayward admits job is on the line over Deepwater oil spill | Business | guardian.co.uk

you haven't even caught up with the head of bp, who is obviously preparing to fall on his sword over this.

here's a little clip of one of the leaks that you can look at.
there's alot of problems that watching this triggered in my brain. maybe you'll have them too.

YouTube - BP Gulf Oil Spill Leak Plume Gusher Disaster Video

ring · 05-13-2010, 10:58 AM

Wasn't there some controversy over BP being reluctant to release this video footage?

I just saw a new, Dawn dish-washing detergent commercial, 'bout two minutes ago.

They were washing birds and other wildlife.

roachboy · 05-13-2010, 11:55 AM

here's a summary of the materials presented to congress yesterday about equipment and other safety problems that were ignored by bp, transocean and halliburton:

Quote:

Gulf oil spill: firms ignored warning signs before blast, inquiry hears
Documents suggest BP, Transocean and Halliburton ignored tests indicating faulty safety equipment, says committee

BP was aware of equipment problems aboard the Deepwater Horizon rig hours before the explosion pumped millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, a congressional hearing was told yesterday .

In a second day of hearings, the House of Representatives's energy and commerce committee said documents and company briefings suggested that BP, which owned the well; Transocean, which owned the rig; and Halliburton, which made the cement casing for the well, ignored tests in the hours before the 20 April explosion that indicated faulty safety equipment.

"Yet it appears the companies did not suspend operations, and now 11 workers are dead and the gulf faces an environmental catastrophe," Henry Waxman, the chair of the energy and commerce committee, said, demanding to know why work was not stopped.

The committee heard testimony from oil executives suggesting multiple failures of safety systems that should have given advance warning of a blowout, or should have promptly cut off the flow of oil.

The failures included a dead battery in the blowout preventer, suggestions of a breach in the well casing, and failure in the shear ram, a device of last resort that was supposed to cut through and seal the drill pipe in the event of a blowout.

"Already we have uncovered at least four significant problems with the blowout preventer used on the Deepwater Horizon drill rig," said Bart Stupak, a Democrat from Michigan who chairs the oversight subcommittee.

The examination was far tougher on the oil companies than the Senate hearings on Tuesday. BP also faced a financial sting as the White House asked Congress to approve $118m in recovery costs, to be passed on to the oil company.

While the committee accused the oil industry of failing to anticipate the dangers of offshore drilling, senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman unveiled a climate and energy bill that for the first time will put a price on carbon and require American cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

Kerry said he believed the oil spill would give impetus to the American Power Act. "This a bill for energy independence after a devastating oil spill, a bill to hold polluters accountable, a bill for billions of dollars to create the next generation of jobs and a bill to end America's addiction to foreign oil."

But after eight months of careful courtship of industry and political opposition, the bill has no Republican backers after Senator Lindsey Graham, a co-author, withdrew his support last month and the immediate response from industry groups and mainstream environmental groups was guarded.

Passage of the law is seen as crucial to a global deal on climate change. The 987-page bill was carefully positioned to secure support from industry and moderate Republicans, making the final product far weaker than environmental organisations wanted.

In response to the oil disaster, the bill moderated its original support for offshore drilling, giving states veto power over projects in waters 75 miles from their shores. States that go ahead will be able to keep a bigger share, 37%, of federal revenues from drilling.

Otherwise the bill calls for 12 nuclear plants and sets aside $2bn for research into clean coal. Greenpeace condemned it as a "dirty energy bailout", with director Phil Radford adding: "It seems that after a year and a half wrangling, the only people who can be happy with this bill are the fossil fuel industry lobbyists."

The bill aims for a 17% cut in emissions over 2005 levels, the same weak target enshrined in a bill passed by the House in June last year. But the Senate version would apply to a smaller share of the US economy. Heavy industries would not be required to cut emissions until 2016.

The bill would stop the Environmental Protection Agency regulating greenhouse gases and would scrap region cap and trade systems now underway in two dozen states and Canadian provinces.

Gulf oil spill: firms ignored warning signs before blast, inquiry hears | Environment | The Guardian

if this is the case, the claim that "this was just an accident...and they happen" heads out the window: not because it wasn't an accident. but because problems with the "fail-safe" systems that were supposed to prevent such massive problems were known and nothing done about them. that means it's not just an accident. that means it's negligence AND an accident.

aceventura3 · 05-13-2010, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

I respectfully disagree. If you do a wheelie on your crotch rocket at 100 MPH on a wet road in the middle of the night with no headlights on and no helmet and you wreck - that's not an accident. That's pretty much what we have here.

Isn't it relative? For some the above risk as you describe it is very high based on a factor such as experience, for others the risk relative to that factor may be significantly less. Therefore, based on that one factor (experience) a crash may very well be an accident. There are some people who can do wheelies as well as they can walk across the street and their risk of injury may be the same. But if you take a young person unfamiliar with their bike, unfamiliar with the road, unfamiliar with the dynamics of wet traction, unfamiliar with traffic patterns on the road in question and inexperienced in doing wheelies, I would agree with you.

You may not understand the point and my use of hyperbole - but I have not seen anything that points to anyone purposefully taking on unnecessary risk related to the oil spill. The people in question drill for oil, that is what they do.

---------- Post added at 10:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:47 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

but because problems with the "fail-safe" systems that were supposed to prevent such massive problems were known and nothing done about them. that means it's not just an accident. that means it's negligence AND an accident.

Again, after the fact it is easy to say whatever we want to say about an accident. But at some point isn't "fail-safe" a concept that boils down to a question of semantics. Is it even possible to have a true "fail-safe" system? I don't think it is, therefore all we have is what we think may be a "fail-safe" system, until it fails. In the case of this oil leak the term "fail-safe" was used but there was evidence that the systems could fail. I believe even the regulators knew this, and I think it is common sense. No one really believes we can drill for oil with a zero risk of an oil leak. We, as a society, accept the risk based on our desires for oil and our willingness to give companies like BP the rights to drill for it. Sure there will be a price BP pays, and it is a price they should pay - including punitive damages. This sends a message to everyone else in the market, but just because some now have the illusion, of a true "fail-safe" system does not directly mean there was negligence.

05-11-2010, 08:08 AM	#82 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	I'm willing to believe it's plausible—desperate, but plausible. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

05-11-2010, 08:13 AM	#83 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	How fucked up is it that the least bad option is a nuclear weapon? What's the old addage? "Piss-poor planning makes for piss-poor performance"? Or something like that. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

05-11-2010, 08:16 AM	#86 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Thanks, Dunedan. ClickSelectSave As __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

05-11-2010, 08:26 AM	#87 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	Given the Congressional hearings today and the lack of progress it makes me wonder why BP is still in charge. At some point the US government should say enough is enough and take control of the matter. If a house is burning you don't let the homeowner make the decisions. Poor planning blame, poor performance blame, etc. is not important at this time, it isn't going to help. If we think BP is best equipped to handle this and they can't or do more harm than good, at what point is it more a commentary on us rather than BP? __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

05-11-2010, 09:06 AM	#90 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	well, ace, the problem may well be that outside a comic book there is no team that can just swoop in and deal with this. that is the problem, yes? well that and drilling a mile down without planning for contingencies because it's cost effective not to and besides the regulatory system allows tons of latitude for encouraging happy petroleum corporation shareholders and not so much in the way of forcing corporations like bp to have a viable plan which would include developing and testing the required technologies BEFORE the drill baby drill got underway---it's totally irresponsible. but so long as nothing Really Bad happened its a kind of routinized irresponsibility of the sort that goes on every day yes? but now something Really Bad has happened and this underlying fabric of irresponsibility is evident. but there we are. it'd be nice if there were super heroes who could just Deal With This. anyone got the number of the mayor of Gotham City? i hear he's connected... __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-11-2010, 08:05 AM	#81 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	More than plausible, sadly. When I said this could have the economic impact of an atomic bombing, I wasn't kidding. The Gulf Coast produces a huge proportion of the seafood consumed in the US and around the world, and an appropriate percentage of the local economy is tied to this. Likewise tourism, which will not simply suffer but cease to exist if the beaches are covered in oil and the fishing sucks. The Gulf is looking at tens of billions of dollars in lost revenue, work, etc. At this point, almost anything is better than doing nothing at all: If you don't fight the bear, it's going to eat you. If you -do- fight the bear, it might still eat you...but you also might live. That's where the Gulf is right now; deciding whether to fight the bear.

05-11-2010, 08:14 AM	#84 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	Proper prior planning prevents piss-poor performance. We're lookin' at you guys, BP, Transocean...

05-11-2010, 08:16 AM	#85 (permalink)
ring ░ Location: ❤	Are they still dumping the oil-dispersant chemicals? This is scary nasty. Dispersant 'may make Deepwater Horizon oil spill more toxic' \| Environment \| The Guardian

05-11-2010, 10:42 AM	#92 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	I'm sorry, Ace, but exactly who within the Federal government do you expect to have the expertise to deal with this situation? And I've heard of exactly zero private contractors saying that they have the ability to respond better. Maybe I've missed that, so please let me know who's saying that they're better able to find a solution. roachboy's point is that there's no one else, private sector or public, that's stepped forward with viable solutions. If they haven't, their voices haven't made it my ears. Apparently they have to yours. If they haven't, well, then you're talking about comic book heroes. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

05-11-2010, 12:39 PM	#97 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	I have to agree that these Senate hearings feel premature. It's been a long time since I watch a government hearing and thought, "Now we're getting somewhere!" rb - So the well was capped with cement. The cement didn't hold and the BOP didn't hold? This is sort of besides the point but, why would they cap a well which is capable of producing so much oil? In your readings, have you found the reason for capping it? __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly." Last edited by Cimarron29414; 05-11-2010 at 12:46 PM..

05-11-2010, 12:44 PM	#99 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Does the government even have technology to deal with this type of a problem? There is a reason we explored the moon before we explored the bottom of the ocean....

05-11-2010, 12:51 PM	#100 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	ace, so you imagine that the entirety of british petroleum, the entirety of halliburton and transocean and all the ships at sea are stalled out, idled, waiting around for the half dozen talking heads who are testifying before the senate to finish? what on earth are you talking about? all this manly man roll-up-yer-sleeves-and-get-in-there-and sort this puppy out bluster is kinda funny. i mean, you're posting in a messageboard. if you're so sure that there are Hero Figures out there who haven't been consulted---o i dunno, maybe one of the x-men--then why don't you stop posting stuff go hop in your car and drive to louisiana and start bossing some people around? i'm sure that the folk from bp would be relieved. "o thank christ he's here." they'd say. but otherwise yours is every bit as theoretical a position as anyone else's==more even because you seem against all reason to be able to persuade yourself that it isn't theoretical. get a grip there, ace buddy. as for the hearings themselves, i'm not posting stuff from them for any reason beyond that there's some interesting information that passes through the veil of generalized tedium that they are. and there's something kinda funny about having representatives of all 3 of the private-sector players being hauled up in front of the senate. but it's all obviously theater and were it not for the information and/or posturing (in its particularities, so as information) i wouldn't bother. fyi. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-11-2010, 01:28 PM	#102 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	Hektore, That makes sense, except for the fact that the rig was over this well. Does that mean they were preparing to move this rig to another well in the near future? Just trying to wrap my brain around all of this. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

05-11-2010, 07:38 PM	#106 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	What irony it would be if Russia was the only ones with the capability to do this. 20 years after the Cold War ended, and them trying to get nuclear bombs into Cuba a few hundred miles away, they would actually be able to help us by detonating one. The one thing I would worry about is if there are any other oil rigs nearby. I think the big problem now is that BP still wants to get this oil and be able to sell it. They want to either put in more oil rigs to take the pressure off, or cap it and fill barges with it. I'm not sure if they would want to try and fuse it shut, since the damage to their image is done, I'm not sure if they care if they get it stopped tomorrow or a week from today. I just wonder if there are anti-nuclear treaties that would prevent us from using a nuclear bomb in this way. And I would really start to worry about the election campaigns against a President that needs to use a nuclear weapon in US waters. But, having no plan on what to do to stop a major oil spill is a problem as well.

05-12-2010, 12:29 PM	#112 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	ace, given that in the relatively limited frame of a thread about what is still perhaps the largest industrial accident ever at least in terms of petroleum spilled into water and potential for ecological damage, and given that among the things today has brought to the surface of public attention is that the famous blowout preventer had hydraulic system problems and a dead fucking battery reported in the days just prior to the explosion and nothing was done about it...one result of which was that the preventer didn't..um...prevent, it seems to me that there's ample stuff to think about here, stuff that's more interesting in general and in particular than the difficulty you seem to have formulating a logical question about marxism. it was a passing remark, a comment on the incestuousness of the relation between "Regulator" and corporate interest in this area which is now so obvious that even the ny times, which in general has never seen a status quo it didn't support, has taken note. if it causes less static for you to overlook it in your struggle to remain on topic, overlook it. you have my blessing. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-12-2010, 12:52 PM	#114 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	no, ace, that was in no way a conclusion that a normal reader would have derived from my remark. but to get that, you'd have to know what marxism is. which you clearly do not. trust me, you want to move on to other things, ok? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-13-2010, 10:58 AM	#118 (permalink)
ring ░ Location: ❤	Wasn't there some controversy over BP being reluctant to release this video footage? I just saw a new, Dawn dish-washing detergent commercial, 'bout two minutes ago. They were washing birds and other wildlife. Last edited by ring; 05-13-2010 at 11:03 AM..