Oil Spill [Pictures]
- Thread starter 2-0-Sixx
- Start date
The point was that such an event was more or less inevitable. Unless BP was involved in such extremely egregious abuses of safety practices, while every one of the other doze or so oil companies that do deep offshore drilling in the Gulf was not, which is not likely given that the companies themselves are not the ones who do the drilling, they hire other companies to do it and those companies are really just a few.
So basically BP was the unlucky one which this happened to. Could have been Shell, could have been Chevron, etc. Why should BP be dissolved just because of that? How would this help? Would the world become less reliant on oil if it happened?
So basically BP was the unlucky one which this happened to. Could have been Shell, could have been Chevron, etc. Why should BP be dissolved just because of that? How would this help? Would the world become less reliant on oil if it happened?
Again, if you think that trying to plug a "leak" that's gushing at 13,000 psi pressure (that's mot much lower than the pressures used in industry to cut metal, which start at 40,000psi) more than a mile under water is so easy, you are deeply mistaken. It has taken months to take control of blowout wells in previous cases, and those were in shallower water
Why is it that people have this attitude that every problem has a quick fix, that will solve it within an hour? Actually, I know why - because on TV this is how long it takes to find the fix to problems and they are always solved. In the real world it is different.
Why is it that people have this attitude that every problem has a quick fix, that will solve it within an hour? Actually, I know why - because on TV this is how long it takes to find the fix to problems and they are always solved. In the real world it is different.
I think its more of the fact that BP did some fairly questionable things to try and close it. Like, oh i dont now, having a meeting with James Cameron, a film director, to ask for suggestions on how to stop it. I mean....really?
Also, shouldn't a company who DOES off shore drilling, already have a plan IN CASE this happens? I mean....REALLY???? What a bunch of dolts.
THATS the beef we have.
Also, shouldn't a company who DOES off shore drilling, already have a plan IN CASE this happens? I mean....REALLY???? What a bunch of dolts.
THATS the beef we have.
You're acting like BP was just this unlucky company that really had no involvement. There is a lot of information coming out, little by little, about certain things, safety violations really, that were ordered from straight from BP. Some of the survivors of the explosion talked about this. Here is one article:
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2010/06/bp-ordered-shortcuts-on-day-of.html
BP ordered changes on day of Gulf oil disaster
BP ordered procedural changes on the day of the Deepwater Horizon blast that left 11 men dead and continues to spew oil into the Gulf of Mexico, according to televised interviews by CNN with five of the explosion's survivors.
[...]
The upshot of the exchange was that the Deepwater Horizon crew would replace heavy mud, used to keep the well's pressure down, with lighter seawater, to assist with the transition from drilling the well to oil production.
According to Brown the completion of the drilling phase was already five weeks late, and the continued use of the Deepwater Horizon drill rig was costing BP roughly $750,000 per day. By contrast, a recent estimate of the cost of the disaster to BP came up with a figure of $1.25 billion.
The decision to replace mud with water may well have been a factor that led to the catastrophic explosion of Deepwater Horizon oil rig on 20 April. Congressional hearings last month, however, revealed a series of additional technical and procedural failures that led to the blowout....
___
So again, I think it should be the end of all those involved, BP, deepwater horizon, halliburton and I would want to see criminal trials held with actual jail sentences and/or capital punishment for their crimes. That's obviously wishful thinking. Further, politicians should be held accountable and most obvious offshore drilling should be stopped for good.
None of that will happen of course, just sayin.
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2010/06/bp-ordered-shortcuts-on-day-of.html
BP ordered changes on day of Gulf oil disaster
BP ordered procedural changes on the day of the Deepwater Horizon blast that left 11 men dead and continues to spew oil into the Gulf of Mexico, according to televised interviews by CNN with five of the explosion's survivors.
[...]
The upshot of the exchange was that the Deepwater Horizon crew would replace heavy mud, used to keep the well's pressure down, with lighter seawater, to assist with the transition from drilling the well to oil production.
According to Brown the completion of the drilling phase was already five weeks late, and the continued use of the Deepwater Horizon drill rig was costing BP roughly $750,000 per day. By contrast, a recent estimate of the cost of the disaster to BP came up with a figure of $1.25 billion.
The decision to replace mud with water may well have been a factor that led to the catastrophic explosion of Deepwater Horizon oil rig on 20 April. Congressional hearings last month, however, revealed a series of additional technical and procedural failures that led to the blowout....
___
So again, I think it should be the end of all those involved, BP, deepwater horizon, halliburton and I would want to see criminal trials held with actual jail sentences and/or capital punishment for their crimes. That's obviously wishful thinking. Further, politicians should be held accountable and most obvious offshore drilling should be stopped for good.
None of that will happen of course, just sayin.
Exactly ThaG, what news source are you getting your information from? BP won't even let the Fishermen who are helping cleaning up the oil wear air mask, and if they do they'll foire them, and you think this is an upstanding company that's doing all it can to stop this leak? They're looking out for themselves still.
Government scientists confirm massive oil plumes
BP issues denial
By Tom Eley
10 June 2010
On Tuesday scientists working for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) confirmed the existence of massive underwater plumes of oil in the Gulf of Mexico, first identified by independent scientists three weeks ago. BP, which continues to control the cleanup and spill site, responded by once again denying the existence of the plumes.
The plumes, which could create enormous oxygen-depleted “dead zones” in the Gulf, likely have been caused by the depth of the spill coupled with the application of hundreds of thousands of gallons of chemical dispersant. The dispersed oil has not vanished, but has been broken up into clouds of particles called hydro-carbons grouped together in the plumes.
Unlike the spill on the surface, which is moved by winds, tides, currents and eddies, the underwater plumes appear to move in somewhat unpredictable ways. NOAA confirmed that one of the plumes has moved northeast about 42 miles from the spill site toward Alabama, reaching depths of 3,300 feet. University of South Florida scientists found a plume at a similar location at the end of May, which they estimated was 22 miles long and 100 feet thick. Other plumes have been identified, one about 142 miles southeast of the Deepwater Horizon site.
Scientists fear that the plumes may effectively suffocate large areas in the Gulf, including critical deep-sea coral reefs. As expected, the oil is under attack by microbes, which serve to decompose it. But in doing so the microbes also remove large amounts of oxygen from entire strata in the water column, potentially choking off organisms low on the food chain that cannot freely move away, from plankton to mussels, crabs, clams, oysters and small fish. With all higher forms of ocean life ultimately based on these lesser forms, the plumes could break the food chain at its most important links, devastating fish populations as well as marine mammals such as dolphins and sperm whales.
There are also concerns over the effects of the chemical dispersant, Corexit, on marine life. Though less toxic than oil, in combination the two substances could form a highly toxic cocktail. Whereas a surface spill may drive many species away to safer waters, the massive plumes are not so dense and are mostly invisible. Marine life likely continues to move through them, consuming both poisoned organisms and water. Fish eggs and larva can be damaged by oil even at concentrations of one part per million.
Efforts to understand the plumes are hindered by BP’s refusal to release to scientists the chemical composition of the dispersants they are using, which are protected as “trade secrets.”
“I and many others are trying to get samples of the various dispersants that are being used,” said Samantha Joye, an oceanographer at the University of Georgia and one of the scientists who first identified the plumes, at a Tuesday news conference in Athens, Georgia. “I have been unable to secure any so far. And I know there are many other researchers that want to get samples of the various types of Corexit to do lab experiments with; so we are hopeful we will be able to get those dispersants, but right now we haven’t been able to secure any.”
NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco admitted the existence of the plumes after dismissing or downplaying them for weeks. Like BP, NOAA and the Obama administration have from the beginning sought to minimize the extent of the spill. It was a NOAA organized study that initially established the spill size at 5,000 barrels per day, an assertion endlessly repeated by BP and the US Coast Guard. The figure was sharply criticized by scientists because its method relied on a very limited observation of only the spill on the surface, thus excluding the enormous amounts of oil under the surface.
Even in admitting the existence of the plumes, Lubchenco sought to downplay their significance, describing them as “very low concentrations of subsurface oil.”
Scientific evidence suggests that just the opposite is true. On Tuesday Joye revealed data suggesting that methane levels in the plume range from 100 times to 10,000 times the normal reading for Gulf waters.
“I’ve never seen concentrations of methane this high anywhere,” said Joye. “The whole water column has less oxygen than it normally does.”
BP continued to deny the existence of the plumes, without providing any evidence of its own. “We haven’t found any large concentrations of oil under the sea. To my knowledge, no one has,” BP Chief Operating Officer Doug Suttles declared in a patent lie. He then attempted to reduce the question to one of semantics. “It may be down to how you define what a plume is here,” Suttles offered. “But basically, what some people have asked is, are there large concentrations of oil under the sea? And those have not been found so far by us or anyone else that’s measuring this. The oil that has been found is in very minute quantities.”
This is only a slight retreat from the categorical denial of the plumes made by BP CEO Tony Hayward last week—again without offering any evidence. “The oil is on the surface,” Hayward said. “There aren’t any plumes.”
Coast Guard commander Thad Allen, who is heading up the federal response to the disaster, also rejected use of the term “plume.” “The term ‘plume’ has been used for quite awhile,” he complained. “I think what we are talking about are concentrations. ‘Cloud’ is a better term.” Allen has no scientific training.
Carl Safina, an ocean biologist with the Blue Water Institute, raised concerns over the toxicity of the oil and dispersant in the plumes. “BP doesn’t reveal the content of the dispersant, but we know it kills fish eggs and larvae depending on the dose,” Safina told the World Socialist Web Site. “In the worst case scenario, the Gulf communities are suffering a situation of the total end of fishing. I don’t see how the fish populations will be able to withstand what has happened. The basis of their livelihoods is being destroyed.”
“This is not a temporary issue,” Safina continued. “Those things don’t come back the day the oil stops. After the Exxon Valdez disaster in 1989, the herring never recovered. The killer whale population is still reduced by half.”
The WSWS asked Safina what species, in particular, would suffer, beyond the fish populations.
“In the Gulf, the endangered kemp’s ridley turtle is in trouble,” he said. “It’s taken Herculean efforts to bring their population up to more than 8,000. All these turtles have to breed in the Gulf. Blue-fin tuna in the Gulf of Mexico represent a separate population from those in the Mediterranean. It takes 12 years for them to mature. Losing one breeding season or more will be a total catastrophe for them.”
“The marine mammals like sperm whales and dolphins are in big trouble because they must emerge through layers of the water column and the surface in order to breathe,” Safina said. “You cannot breathe through that mass of oil.”
“The sea birds cannot make a living but by diving into the water for their food, so there really is no quick way to protect them,” Safina said. “It would almost be better if in the short term if we would remove their nests in the hope that they might move to nest elsewhere. May was a big month for migratory birds, with various terns and gannet who travel as far as New England and Newfoundland nesting in the area. Some of these birds will not come back because of the spill.”
Safina said that the damage cannot be easily remedied. “It can’t be cleaned up the way you might think,” he said. Referring to the use of dispersants, Safina offered an analogy. “You might as well try to extract an egg from an already baked cake.”
“One thing I can’t understand is why they are not doing more to corral it as it comes to the surface rather than attempting to disperse it in the water column,” he said. “The boom they are using is good for hemming in 100 gallons of oil that just spilled in a harbor, but it is useless in the Gulf.” Safina said that boom with fins going up and down with it would hold it in the water and more effectively prevent oil from passing over and under.
BP issues denial
By Tom Eley
10 June 2010
On Tuesday scientists working for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) confirmed the existence of massive underwater plumes of oil in the Gulf of Mexico, first identified by independent scientists three weeks ago. BP, which continues to control the cleanup and spill site, responded by once again denying the existence of the plumes.
The plumes, which could create enormous oxygen-depleted “dead zones” in the Gulf, likely have been caused by the depth of the spill coupled with the application of hundreds of thousands of gallons of chemical dispersant. The dispersed oil has not vanished, but has been broken up into clouds of particles called hydro-carbons grouped together in the plumes.
Unlike the spill on the surface, which is moved by winds, tides, currents and eddies, the underwater plumes appear to move in somewhat unpredictable ways. NOAA confirmed that one of the plumes has moved northeast about 42 miles from the spill site toward Alabama, reaching depths of 3,300 feet. University of South Florida scientists found a plume at a similar location at the end of May, which they estimated was 22 miles long and 100 feet thick. Other plumes have been identified, one about 142 miles southeast of the Deepwater Horizon site.
Scientists fear that the plumes may effectively suffocate large areas in the Gulf, including critical deep-sea coral reefs. As expected, the oil is under attack by microbes, which serve to decompose it. But in doing so the microbes also remove large amounts of oxygen from entire strata in the water column, potentially choking off organisms low on the food chain that cannot freely move away, from plankton to mussels, crabs, clams, oysters and small fish. With all higher forms of ocean life ultimately based on these lesser forms, the plumes could break the food chain at its most important links, devastating fish populations as well as marine mammals such as dolphins and sperm whales.
There are also concerns over the effects of the chemical dispersant, Corexit, on marine life. Though less toxic than oil, in combination the two substances could form a highly toxic cocktail. Whereas a surface spill may drive many species away to safer waters, the massive plumes are not so dense and are mostly invisible. Marine life likely continues to move through them, consuming both poisoned organisms and water. Fish eggs and larva can be damaged by oil even at concentrations of one part per million.
Efforts to understand the plumes are hindered by BP’s refusal to release to scientists the chemical composition of the dispersants they are using, which are protected as “trade secrets.”
“I and many others are trying to get samples of the various dispersants that are being used,” said Samantha Joye, an oceanographer at the University of Georgia and one of the scientists who first identified the plumes, at a Tuesday news conference in Athens, Georgia. “I have been unable to secure any so far. And I know there are many other researchers that want to get samples of the various types of Corexit to do lab experiments with; so we are hopeful we will be able to get those dispersants, but right now we haven’t been able to secure any.”
NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco admitted the existence of the plumes after dismissing or downplaying them for weeks. Like BP, NOAA and the Obama administration have from the beginning sought to minimize the extent of the spill. It was a NOAA organized study that initially established the spill size at 5,000 barrels per day, an assertion endlessly repeated by BP and the US Coast Guard. The figure was sharply criticized by scientists because its method relied on a very limited observation of only the spill on the surface, thus excluding the enormous amounts of oil under the surface.
Even in admitting the existence of the plumes, Lubchenco sought to downplay their significance, describing them as “very low concentrations of subsurface oil.”
Scientific evidence suggests that just the opposite is true. On Tuesday Joye revealed data suggesting that methane levels in the plume range from 100 times to 10,000 times the normal reading for Gulf waters.
“I’ve never seen concentrations of methane this high anywhere,” said Joye. “The whole water column has less oxygen than it normally does.”
BP continued to deny the existence of the plumes, without providing any evidence of its own. “We haven’t found any large concentrations of oil under the sea. To my knowledge, no one has,” BP Chief Operating Officer Doug Suttles declared in a patent lie. He then attempted to reduce the question to one of semantics. “It may be down to how you define what a plume is here,” Suttles offered. “But basically, what some people have asked is, are there large concentrations of oil under the sea? And those have not been found so far by us or anyone else that’s measuring this. The oil that has been found is in very minute quantities.”
This is only a slight retreat from the categorical denial of the plumes made by BP CEO Tony Hayward last week—again without offering any evidence. “The oil is on the surface,” Hayward said. “There aren’t any plumes.”
Coast Guard commander Thad Allen, who is heading up the federal response to the disaster, also rejected use of the term “plume.” “The term ‘plume’ has been used for quite awhile,” he complained. “I think what we are talking about are concentrations. ‘Cloud’ is a better term.” Allen has no scientific training.
Carl Safina, an ocean biologist with the Blue Water Institute, raised concerns over the toxicity of the oil and dispersant in the plumes. “BP doesn’t reveal the content of the dispersant, but we know it kills fish eggs and larvae depending on the dose,” Safina told the World Socialist Web Site. “In the worst case scenario, the Gulf communities are suffering a situation of the total end of fishing. I don’t see how the fish populations will be able to withstand what has happened. The basis of their livelihoods is being destroyed.”
“This is not a temporary issue,” Safina continued. “Those things don’t come back the day the oil stops. After the Exxon Valdez disaster in 1989, the herring never recovered. The killer whale population is still reduced by half.”
The WSWS asked Safina what species, in particular, would suffer, beyond the fish populations.
“In the Gulf, the endangered kemp’s ridley turtle is in trouble,” he said. “It’s taken Herculean efforts to bring their population up to more than 8,000. All these turtles have to breed in the Gulf. Blue-fin tuna in the Gulf of Mexico represent a separate population from those in the Mediterranean. It takes 12 years for them to mature. Losing one breeding season or more will be a total catastrophe for them.”
“The marine mammals like sperm whales and dolphins are in big trouble because they must emerge through layers of the water column and the surface in order to breathe,” Safina said. “You cannot breathe through that mass of oil.”
“The sea birds cannot make a living but by diving into the water for their food, so there really is no quick way to protect them,” Safina said. “It would almost be better if in the short term if we would remove their nests in the hope that they might move to nest elsewhere. May was a big month for migratory birds, with various terns and gannet who travel as far as New England and Newfoundland nesting in the area. Some of these birds will not come back because of the spill.”
Safina said that the damage cannot be easily remedied. “It can’t be cleaned up the way you might think,” he said. Referring to the use of dispersants, Safina offered an analogy. “You might as well try to extract an egg from an already baked cake.”
“One thing I can’t understand is why they are not doing more to corral it as it comes to the surface rather than attempting to disperse it in the water column,” he said. “The boom they are using is good for hemming in 100 gallons of oil that just spilled in a harbor, but it is useless in the Gulf.” Safina said that boom with fins going up and down with it would hold it in the water and more effectively prevent oil from passing over and under.
Yes, ThaG likes to assume what you are thinking, and then attempt to logically/scientifically attack you. It points out his obvious insecurities, thats all.
So I don't know if anyone has any real background information on the Gulf of Mexico's ecology before the oil spill, but there was an ever growing "Dead Zone" that was caused by an accumulation of toxic chemicals that run off from the Mississippi River. (The Mississippi River transports all the run off water from many farms that use toxic pesticides/herbicides and unhealthy amounts of animal urine and feces that are treated with hormones and other lovely things like high doses of antibiotics)
Here's a really information video, it doesn't have sound, but it explains it nicely with text.
And here is a more recent article that connects them, and speculates on how the wildlife will be affected.
Gulf Wildlife "Dead Zone" Keeps Growing
http://news.discovery.com/animals/gulf-dead-zone-oil-spill.html
A short bit from the article (try to read the entire article and related materials)
"An over 7,000-square-mile wildlife "dead zone" located in the center of the Gulf of Mexico has grown from being a curiosity to a colossus over the past two decades, according to the National Wildlife Federation (NWF), and scientists are now concerned the recent oil spill and other emerging chemical threats could widen the zone even further.
The NWF describes the dead zone as being "the largest on record in the hemisphere in coastal waters and one of the biggest in the world."
During the summer months, it is nearly devoid of wildlife, save for the dead bodies of crabs, shrimp and other marine species that succumb to oxygen depletion in the polluted water.
So I don't know if anyone has any real background information on the Gulf of Mexico's ecology before the oil spill, but there was an ever growing "Dead Zone" that was caused by an accumulation of toxic chemicals that run off from the Mississippi River. (The Mississippi River transports all the run off water from many farms that use toxic pesticides/herbicides and unhealthy amounts of animal urine and feces that are treated with hormones and other lovely things like high doses of antibiotics)
Here's a really information video, it doesn't have sound, but it explains it nicely with text.
And here is a more recent article that connects them, and speculates on how the wildlife will be affected.
Gulf Wildlife "Dead Zone" Keeps Growing
http://news.discovery.com/animals/gulf-dead-zone-oil-spill.html
A short bit from the article (try to read the entire article and related materials)
"An over 7,000-square-mile wildlife "dead zone" located in the center of the Gulf of Mexico has grown from being a curiosity to a colossus over the past two decades, according to the National Wildlife Federation (NWF), and scientists are now concerned the recent oil spill and other emerging chemical threats could widen the zone even further.
The NWF describes the dead zone as being "the largest on record in the hemisphere in coastal waters and one of the biggest in the world."
During the summer months, it is nearly devoid of wildlife, save for the dead bodies of crabs, shrimp and other marine species that succumb to oxygen depletion in the polluted water.
See, I am not defending BP; what I am trying to explain is that making BP the scrapegoat does not help anyone. For all we know, the other oil companies in the gulf are in all likelihood doing exactly the same things. The subcontractors that do the actual work are the same for all of them. I am pretty sure that any of the other major oil companies would not do much better if this had happened to them.
And really, what do you think would happen if BP files for Chapter 11? Would this clean-up the mess? What do you think will happen to oil prices? What would the effect be on the British economy which isn't in great shape to begin with what would the ripple effect of that be? And so on..
People like to portrait the big oil companies as the epitome of evil. They are involved in plenty of shady practices, that's absolutely true, and should be held responsible for all the bad things they have done. But the reality is that they are all on their death bed and desperately trying to hold to their positions (which is why they're willing to go to such risky places like deepwater for oil) and they have a lot less influence on oil markets than you think. The major international oil companies produce only 11% of the oil in the world, but have the even less significant 3% of the reserves. The rest belongs to state-owned oil companies. And in the end we all depend on that oil
The above is not a defense of big oil, it is to remind you that framing the issues surrounding the oil spill as "big bad BP" vs the environment only takes the focus away from the real issue of Peak Oil, which is what we should be really talking about
And really, what do you think would happen if BP files for Chapter 11? Would this clean-up the mess? What do you think will happen to oil prices? What would the effect be on the British economy which isn't in great shape to begin with what would the ripple effect of that be? And so on..
People like to portrait the big oil companies as the epitome of evil. They are involved in plenty of shady practices, that's absolutely true, and should be held responsible for all the bad things they have done. But the reality is that they are all on their death bed and desperately trying to hold to their positions (which is why they're willing to go to such risky places like deepwater for oil) and they have a lot less influence on oil markets than you think. The major international oil companies produce only 11% of the oil in the world, but have the even less significant 3% of the reserves. The rest belongs to state-owned oil companies. And in the end we all depend on that oil
The above is not a defense of big oil, it is to remind you that framing the issues surrounding the oil spill as "big bad BP" vs the environment only takes the focus away from the real issue of Peak Oil, which is what we should be really talking about
Dead zones have absolutely nothing to do with toxic chemicals and antibiotics. It is the nitrogen and phosphates in the agricultural run-off that cause the phenomenon - a lot of nitrogen and phosphates mean algal blooms; in the same time there aren't enough animals to eat them all so they end up dying of old age (unheard of for plankton in ecosystems in balance) and falling to the sea floor. There they are decomposed by bacteria, which eat away all the oxygen in the process and this creates the hypoxic conditions that characterize dead zones.
Oil will have the same effect as dead algae.
Oil will have the same effect as dead algae.
Not punishing doesn't help either because it reinforces the cozy relationship between oil companies and the government and does little to motivate other companies to increase their safety procedures.
A slap on the wrist for BP means a slap on the wrist for the next company to fuck up.
A harsh punishment for BP means a harsh punishment for the next company to fuck up.
I am certain the other oil companies are doing the same thing, and I don't disagree that if this happened to any other company we would be in the same predicament. However, that doesn't somehow mean just because everyone was being careless we should lessen the punishment given to BP.
10 people were driving drunk, 1 hit and killed a pedestrian - do we give that 1 a lesser punishment because other people were also driving home drunk that night?
Also; no surprise Haliburton was a major subcontractor on this project.
BP had a net income of 20 billion last year - they have a long way before to go before even thinking about filing for Chapter 11.
By the time you include all the insurance companies, the subcontractors and their insurance companies - Chapter 11 shouldn't even be a consideration.
To say Oil Companies are on the their death bed is a bit a of an exaggeration.
BP, Chevron, Exxoon, RD Shell, and ConocoPhillips had a combined net income of around 100 billion last year.
It doesn't necessarily take the focus of the issue of Peak Oil, although I agree that is a huge issue.
I think what it does show a lot of people that we can expect more issues like these as the oil we are drilling is found in increasingly difficult places.
A slap on the wrist for BP means a slap on the wrist for the next company to fuck up.
A harsh punishment for BP means a harsh punishment for the next company to fuck up.
I am certain the other oil companies are doing the same thing, and I don't disagree that if this happened to any other company we would be in the same predicament. However, that doesn't somehow mean just because everyone was being careless we should lessen the punishment given to BP.
10 people were driving drunk, 1 hit and killed a pedestrian - do we give that 1 a lesser punishment because other people were also driving home drunk that night?
Also; no surprise Haliburton was a major subcontractor on this project.
BP had a net income of 20 billion last year - they have a long way before to go before even thinking about filing for Chapter 11.
By the time you include all the insurance companies, the subcontractors and their insurance companies - Chapter 11 shouldn't even be a consideration.
To say Oil Companies are on the their death bed is a bit a of an exaggeration.
BP, Chevron, Exxoon, RD Shell, and ConocoPhillips had a combined net income of around 100 billion last year.
It doesn't necessarily take the focus of the issue of Peak Oil, although I agree that is a huge issue.
I think what it does show a lot of people that we can expect more issues like these as the oil we are drilling is found in increasingly difficult places.
Published Monday, June 14, 2010 3:22 AM
The National Hurricane Center says there is a 60 percent chance a system that has formed in the Atlantic Ocean will become a Tropical Storm Alex.
The system is located about 1000 miles west-southwest of the Cape Verde Islands.
The NHC says environmental conditions are expected to remain favorable for development of the disturbance which is moving west-northwest at 15 MPH
The National Hurricane Center says there is a 60 percent chance a system that has formed in the Atlantic Ocean will become a Tropical Storm Alex.
The system is located about 1000 miles west-southwest of the Cape Verde Islands.
The NHC says environmental conditions are expected to remain favorable for development of the disturbance which is moving west-northwest at 15 MPH
BP engineer called doomed rig a 'nightmare well'
WASHINGTON – BP took measures to cut costs in the weeks before the catastrophic blowout in the Gulf of Mexico as it dealt with one problem after another, prompting a BP engineer to describe the doomed rig as a "nightmare well," according to internal documents released Monday.
The comment by BP engineer Brian Morel came in an e-mail April 14, six days before the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion that killed 11 people and has sent tens of millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf in the nation's worst environmental disaster.
The e-mail was among dozens of internal documents released by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which is investigating the explosion and its aftermath.
In a letter to BP CEO Tony Hayward, Reps. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Bart Stupak, D-Mich., noted at least five questionable decisions BP made in the days leading up to the explosion.
"The common feature of these five decisions is that they posed a trade-off between cost and well safety," said Waxman and Stupak. Waxman chairs the energy panel while Stupak heads a subcommittee on oversight and investigations.
"Time after time, it appears that BP made decisions that increased the risk of a blowout to save the company time or expense," the lawmakers wrote in the 14-page letter to Hayward. "If this is what happened, BP's carelessness and complacency have inflicted a heavy toll on the Gulf, its inhabitants, and the workers on the rig."
The letter, supplemented by 61 footnotes and dozens of documents, outlines a series of questions Hayward can expect when he comes before Stupak's subcommittee on Thursday.
The hearing will be Hayward's first appearance before a congressional committee since the explosion and sinking of the BP-operated Deepwater Horizon rig. BP America President Lamar McKay and other officials represented the company at earlier hearings.
The letter by Waxman and Stupak focuses on details such as how to secure the final section of the deepwater well. The company apparently chose a riskier option among two possibilities — running a single string of steel casing from the seafloor to the bottom of the well, instead of hanging a steel liner with a "tieback" on top.
Despite warnings from its own engineers, "BP chose the more risky casing option, apparently because the liner option would have cost $7 to $10 million more and taken longer," Waxman and Stupak said.
In a brief e-mail exchange, Morel and a colleague, Richard Miller, talked about the last-minute changes.
"We could be running it in 2-3 days, so need a relative quick response. Sorry for the late notice, this has been nightmare well which has everyone all over the place," Morel wrote on April 14.
Waxman and Stupak also said BP apparently rejected advice of a subcontractor, Halliburton Inc., in preparing for a cementing job to close up the well. BP rejected Halliburton's recommendation to use 21 "centralizers" to make sure the casing ran down the center of the well bore, they said. Instead, BP used six centralizers.
In an e-mail on April 16, a BP official involved in the decision explained: "It will take 10 hours to install them. I do not like this." Later that day, another official recognized the risks of proceeding with insufficient centralizers but commented: "who cares, it's done, end of story, will probably be fine."
In spite of the well's difficulties, "BP appears to have made multiple decisions for economic reasons that increased the danger of a catastrophic well failure," Waxman and Stupak said.
The lawmakers also said BP also decided against a nine- to 12-hour procedure known as a "cement bond log" that would have tested the integrity of the cement. A team from Schlumberger, an oil services firm, was on board the rig, but BP sent the team home on a regularly scheduled helicopter flight the morning of April 20. Less than 12 hours later, the rig exploded.
BP also failed to fully circulate drilling mud, a 12-hour procedure that could have helped detect gas pockets that later shot up the well and exploded on the drilling rig.
A spokesman for BP could not immediately reached for comment.
WASHINGTON – BP took measures to cut costs in the weeks before the catastrophic blowout in the Gulf of Mexico as it dealt with one problem after another, prompting a BP engineer to describe the doomed rig as a "nightmare well," according to internal documents released Monday.
The comment by BP engineer Brian Morel came in an e-mail April 14, six days before the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion that killed 11 people and has sent tens of millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf in the nation's worst environmental disaster.
The e-mail was among dozens of internal documents released by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which is investigating the explosion and its aftermath.
In a letter to BP CEO Tony Hayward, Reps. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Bart Stupak, D-Mich., noted at least five questionable decisions BP made in the days leading up to the explosion.
"The common feature of these five decisions is that they posed a trade-off between cost and well safety," said Waxman and Stupak. Waxman chairs the energy panel while Stupak heads a subcommittee on oversight and investigations.
"Time after time, it appears that BP made decisions that increased the risk of a blowout to save the company time or expense," the lawmakers wrote in the 14-page letter to Hayward. "If this is what happened, BP's carelessness and complacency have inflicted a heavy toll on the Gulf, its inhabitants, and the workers on the rig."
The letter, supplemented by 61 footnotes and dozens of documents, outlines a series of questions Hayward can expect when he comes before Stupak's subcommittee on Thursday.
The hearing will be Hayward's first appearance before a congressional committee since the explosion and sinking of the BP-operated Deepwater Horizon rig. BP America President Lamar McKay and other officials represented the company at earlier hearings.
The letter by Waxman and Stupak focuses on details such as how to secure the final section of the deepwater well. The company apparently chose a riskier option among two possibilities — running a single string of steel casing from the seafloor to the bottom of the well, instead of hanging a steel liner with a "tieback" on top.
Despite warnings from its own engineers, "BP chose the more risky casing option, apparently because the liner option would have cost $7 to $10 million more and taken longer," Waxman and Stupak said.
In a brief e-mail exchange, Morel and a colleague, Richard Miller, talked about the last-minute changes.
"We could be running it in 2-3 days, so need a relative quick response. Sorry for the late notice, this has been nightmare well which has everyone all over the place," Morel wrote on April 14.
Waxman and Stupak also said BP apparently rejected advice of a subcontractor, Halliburton Inc., in preparing for a cementing job to close up the well. BP rejected Halliburton's recommendation to use 21 "centralizers" to make sure the casing ran down the center of the well bore, they said. Instead, BP used six centralizers.
In an e-mail on April 16, a BP official involved in the decision explained: "It will take 10 hours to install them. I do not like this." Later that day, another official recognized the risks of proceeding with insufficient centralizers but commented: "who cares, it's done, end of story, will probably be fine."
In spite of the well's difficulties, "BP appears to have made multiple decisions for economic reasons that increased the danger of a catastrophic well failure," Waxman and Stupak said.
The lawmakers also said BP also decided against a nine- to 12-hour procedure known as a "cement bond log" that would have tested the integrity of the cement. A team from Schlumberger, an oil services firm, was on board the rig, but BP sent the team home on a regularly scheduled helicopter flight the morning of April 20. Less than 12 hours later, the rig exploded.
BP also failed to fully circulate drilling mud, a 12-hour procedure that could have helped detect gas pockets that later shot up the well and exploded on the drilling rig.
A spokesman for BP could not immediately reached for comment.