A Most Important Issue Being Downplayed In Re: BP Oil Spill ...

[Blackhatjack]

The depth of the drilling from the offshore platform is almost 1 mile deep, and it was initiated without a shutoff valve.

So far all efforts to shut off the flow this deep are being attempted for the first time with equipment that was not originally designed to work at that depth.

The operators of this offshore rig had to have considered what would be required to deal with a disaster at that depth BEFORE they began drilling.

Sure looks like someone decided to save some money by not installing the shutoff valve on this rig, and planning for a more effective response that has now failed.

[ShortnFiery]

1. We'll have to tune into France24 or EuroNews to get the latest information.

:shrug:

[Supersedeas]

26. the big networks would want to offend big Petro advertisers--Drill Baby Drill

[ShortnFiery]

2. I would venture to surmise it was a "cost cutting" measure that prevented the ...

installment of a shut-off valve?

Not unlike smoke and carbon monoxide detectors in one's home, you never think you need them ... until you do. :(

[Lochloosa]

11. 500K for the sonic shutoff valve.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

18. I think that's just the cost for the valve itself, excluding installation costs

From the WSJ article which sited the original price they went on to say The Deepwater Horizon had a replacement cost of about $560 million. I assume that's what it would have cost for the valve and installation combined? Even still, in light of how much money this industry profits quarterly is still a drop in a bucket to their yearly profits.

Here's the actual snip of the article:

An acoustic trigger costs about $500,000, industry officials said. The Deepwater Horizon had a replacement cost of about $560 million, and BP says it is spending $6 million a day to battle the oil spill.

Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704423504575212031417936798.html?mod=rss_Today%27s_Most_Popular

The point is still valid, however. In order to save a minor amount of money (in relation to the profits involved) they've subjected the environment to massive devastation and destruction.

[nykym]

3. From what i have heard

the shut off is not required by the US. So once again a problem in regulation. If you let the fox manage the hen house you are asking for trouble.

[KansDem]

4. Someone should have been on hand to oversee this operation.

Like a "government regulator." A real one, and not one "appointed" by the industry. Then when the absence of a shutoff valve was noted, operations would have been halted until this safety measure was in place.

And a big "FUCK YOU" to the BP execs who would have whined about "costing too much money and stifling capitalism."

Personally, though, I wonder why we're still drilling offshore...

[JuniperLea]

7. All the regulators have been asleep at the switch for nearly a decade...

I expect we'll find all sorts or horrid things as they go awry... I blame Bush/Cheney.

[jberryhill]

12. Well, that's ONE switch that's working /nt

[Blackhatjack]

5. OK, Here is how BP predicted its worst case analysis (162,000 gal per day)...LINK

I guess the BP Public Relations decided that it was better to go ahead and get this information out now before the oil slick hits the mainland.

Just reinforces the idea that BP's costs were cut to increase profits, and the US Govt didn't insist on full disclosure and implementation of safety measures that would have spared environmentally sensitive areas, not to mention its economic impact.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/29/gulf-oil-spill-exceeds-bp_n_556798.html

Gulf Oil Spill Exceeds BP's 'Worst-Case Scenario,' Drilling Supporters On Defensive

"Yesterday, the estimated size of the spill quintupled to over 210,000 gallons a day. In BP's exploration plan, which allowed it to avoid filing a more detailed site-specific plan, the company outlined a worst-case scenario of 162,000 gallons a day.

In addition, the federal agency with oversight of offshore drilling, the Interior Department's Minerals and Management Service did not require BP to file a "scenario for potential blowout," referring to the sudden release of oil from a well.

According to the exploration plan obtained by Huffington Post, an MMS official certified that BP "has the capacity to respond, to the maximum extent practicable, to a worst-case discharge, or a substantial threat of such a discharge."

MORE

[JuniperLea]

8. Wanna bet the second, larger figure isn't accurate either?

Cuz the rate they're going with this information... and MISinformation, is pretty staggering.

[JuniperLea]

6. Looks like someone didn't have an "exit plan"

Figures.

[Blackhatjack]

9. It Smells Like A Partial Govt Bailout Plan ...IF It Exceeded BP's Worst Case Scenario

I can envision BP saying this was beyond anything they could have imagined, and that 'acts of God' made it impossible to clean up on their own.... So, the US Govt should help bear the costs of the clean up(a Partial Bailout, if you will).

I predict BP will run the same playbook Exxon used to avoid paying for the entire clean up and damages.

[postulater]

13. My God wouldn't have allowed that to happen.

Musta been Palin's God.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. Bush era regulations.

Clinton era regulations would have included a device that could shut off this leak in an emergency. The idea was later scrapped during the Bush administration.

[Froward69]

14. Unreccing does not change the truth

[AnArmyVeteran]

15. Oil Executives should be personally financially responsible!

Anytime a corporation does something irresponsible that kills people or destroys the environment the leaders of the company suffer zero consequences. Why is that? If you or I did something that harmed someone else we would get fined or put in jail. Why do we allow loopholes in corporate law that allow people who are irresponsible to get away without a dime taken out of their fat wallets or spending time in prison?

The clean up is going to cost an enormous amount of money, but not a dime will come from BP executives. The only way we can stop the corporate assaults against the people and the environment are to make corporate leaders subject to massive fines and prison time. Perhaps they would think twice about doing anything to endanger other people or destroy the environment if they knew they would have their bank accounts seized.

Corporate law insulates corporate 'leaders' from any accountability at all. In some countries they throw corporate thugs in prison or even execute them. While I don't believe in the government executing anyone, I do believe corporate leaders who knowingly did something that kills another human being should be subject to life time prison sentences.

Just how long are we going to allow corporate leaders to act recklessly and with no regard for human life or the environment?

[Dappleganger]

17. +1000

[TheKentuckian]

21. Ahh, you call for a ban/re-think of our corporate charters!

The whole purpose is to avoid personal responsibility and make everything the legally created entity's baby so that if it goes broke or screws folks over the members walk away with all the payouts.

[Webster Green]

16. I heard on Thom Hartman's show that Haliburton was the operator.

He had a caller who seemed to know what she was talking about.

[SidDithers]

24. I thought I'd read the rig was operated by a combination crew...

from BP, who was leasing the rig, and Transocean, the owner of the rig.

Could be that Halliburton was a subcontractor. :shrug:

Sid

[Webster Green]

25. That is what the woman was saying.

That at the time of the explosion, Halliburton was working on some sort of prep-work in advance of the actual drilling.

[HughMoran]

19. There were blowout preventer valves, but they failed

There were apparently 4 of these valves in total. They tried to inject hydraulic fluid into the valves using robot submarines to force them to close, but they were unsuccessful.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

22. True

The valve the poster is referring to is a remote acoustic switch. Which is used when the blowout preventers fail. However the regulatory commission decided the acoustic valve wasn't necessary on US offshore rigs in 2003. Why? Because they thought the existing methods were good enough to not warrant the added expense of the new switches.

Appears they were wrong.

[HughMoran]

23. Right, I was reading about that 'automatic' valve

...but I wasn't sure which valve was which.

[robdogbucky]

20. Lax regs, influence in DC

set the stage for this disaster:

Leaking Oil Well Lacked Safeguard Device

"...Industry critics cite the lack of the remote control as a sign U.S. drilling policy has been too lax. "What we see, going back two decades, is an oil industry that has had way too much sway with federal regulations," said Dan McLaughlin, a spokesman for Democratic Florida Sen. Bill Nelson. "We are seeing our worst nightmare coming true."

U.S. regulators have considered mandating the use of remote-control acoustic switches or other back-up equipment at least since 2000. After a drilling ship accidentally released oil, the Minerals Management Service issued a safety notice that said a back-up system is "an essential component of a deepwater drilling system."

The industry argued against the acoustic systems. A 2001 report from the International Association of Drilling Contractors said "significant doubts remain in regard to the ability of this type of system to provide a reliable emergency back-up control system during an actual well flowing incident."

By 2003, U.S. regulators decided remote-controlled safeguards needed more study. A report commissioned by the Minerals Management Service said "acoustic systems are not recommended because they tend to be very costly."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704423504575212031417936798.html?mod=rss_Today's_Most_Popular



Just my dos centavos



robdogbucky

[Gregin Orlando]

27. $500K acoustic trigger could have prevented oil spill

Here is a link to an article that contains a video from The Ed Show of an interview with an attorney whose firm filed a class action lawsuit against BP on behalf of Gulf fishermen. The attorney clearly states that an acoustic trigger costing BP $500K could have prevented this spill. He also states that the deregulation that led to this device not being deployed on rigs in the Gulf of Mexico is a direct result of Cheney's closed-door energy meeting.

Check it out:
http://www.examiner.com/x-38220-Orlando-Independent-Examiner~y2010m5d2-500K-device-may-have-prevented-oil-spill