BP of A?????

[Bet51987]

.

[woodchip]

I heard that 40% of BP's dividends go to American pensioners. So lets screw them too. I guess under Obama the Munificent, not only do we have Death Panels but now we will have Poverty Panels. This is what you get with a uncaring social engineer in office.

[Tunnelcat]

Heretic and Will, I DID lose retirement money in the banking crisis, some to foreign entities! Quite a chunk of my net worth went down the drain when Royal Bank of Scotland (yes, the Europeans got some of my money) and Citigroup tanked, so I know full well the risks inherent with investing money. Not only did I lose the dividends all together, I lost a large part of the actual net worth of both of these banks before I sold them, so I have no sympathy for others now in this situation.

Let's get something straight, the stock market, and even someone's pension fund that invests in the stock market, is NOT a guaranteed way to keep hard earned money, let alone make more of it, so I could care less if a bunch of pensioners lose some of their retirement funds because greedy BP cut corners, killed 11 people, fouled the Gulf of Mexico for decades, destroyed an ecosystem, ruined the livelihood of people around the Gulf and lost their own money BIG TIME. I lost because these bankers gambled with some of my money and failed miserably. That is a risk we all take when investing in the stock market. And yes Will, I'm just as upset about it as those pensioners because in both cases, this could have been avoided. These banks could have choosen to not gamble with mortgage-backed derivatives (and lose) and BP could have quit cutting corners to save a dime (causing the biggest waterborne oil leak in U.S. history), all for short term, greedy gain. You'll notice that any hope of long term gains went out the window with these strategies.

Here's how BP 'cut corners':

Nightmare Well

Woodchip, you call Obama an \"uncaring social engineer\". Why is that when he's trying to get BP, not the taxpayers, to pay in full for the oil cleanup and income loss for so many people? BP is the guilty party who made the mess, so THEY'RE responsible, NOT the U.S. taxpayer. If your neighbor dumped gallons of their used car oil in your yard, wouldn't you want THEM to clean it up? If a corporation screws up in their quest for profit, THEIR stockholders must pay the piper. That's NOT social engineering. You almost sound like you're siding with the evil greedy corporation, not the taxpayers.

Bee, maybe Grendel got his idea from this statement: \"I promise you this,\" he said. \"Things are going to return to normal\".

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/ ... 1858.shtml

However, Obama did say that this was an \"ongoing assault\" as well. That doesn't say to me that he thinks the Gulf will return to normal anytime soon, but at least he's telling us that he's trying.

[Bet51987]

.

[Tunnelcat]

Yeah Bee, there isn't much Obama can do to get this mess cleaned up. The oil industry spent their money on drilling tech, NOT spill cleanup tech (no profit in it) and the government never mandated it as a requirement for ocean-based drilling, so it's a little disingenuous that people are blaming Obama NOW when it was on the onus of previous administrations (including Clinton's) that allowed it to proceed in the first place. What's worse is that people are taking BP's side in this instance. But unfortunately for Obama, there is that little nagging money connection to BP during his campaign that's going to keep haunting him.

I too will be interested in what he has to say tonight and what he proposes for solutions. But the problem is, the oil is already in the water and we don't seem to have a good way to clean it up, no matter how many promises he can make. I'm really interested to hear the results of his meeting with BP's CEO. I'd like to be a fly on the wall for that one.

[woodchip]

Woodchip, you call Obama an "uncaring social engineer". Why is that when he's trying to get BP, not the taxpayers, to pay in full for the oil cleanup and income loss for so many people?

If he was so concerned TC, I suggest you look up the Jones Act and how Obama didn't over rule the act and allow the Dutch to come into our waters to help clean the oil up. Read a former post where Obama sics Holder on BP with potential lawsuits causing BP's value to drop like a stone. What happens if BP files for chapter 11? Who will foot the bill then? Obam cares not about the "taxpayers", no more than during the Health care push. Obama sees the oil spill as a vehicle to ram through things like cap and trade to further decimate our economy.

On top of all that how many jobs and incomes are affected by banning any and all deep water rigs from operating for 6 months? Meanwhile the Chi-Coms, Cuba and Mexico are balls to the wall drilling and I bet the safety on their rigs are no better than BP's.

[Krom]

I'm generally against stopping all drilling in the gulf. However if they are stopping it in order to enact better safety mechanisms and they will resume as soon as that is done, then I'm willing to accept the minor damage to the economy it causes if it will spare us another costly disaster.

[woodchip]

Two things Krom:

1) I'm sure the laid off oil workers and their families don't agree with you.

2)You don't need the 6 month for improved safety measures. Considering BP will be spending over 4 billion to remediate, I suspect they already have new safety measures in place.

[Ferno]

you sayin that oil workers don't want safe places to work woody?

[dissent]

Woodchip, you call Obama an "uncaring social engineer". Why is that when he's trying to get BP, not the taxpayers, to pay in full for the oil cleanup and income loss for so many people? BP is the guilty party who made the mess, so THEY'RE responsible, NOT the U.S. taxpayer. If your neighbor dumped gallons of their used car oil in your yard, wouldn't you want THEM to clean it up? If a corporation screws up in their quest for profit, THEIR stockholders must pay the piper. That's NOT social engineering.

I think what Woody was referring to is the oil workers who are no longer working - they're not working (in most cases) because of the spill. They're laid off because of a policy decision made by the Obama administration to put a moratorium on deep water drilling.

To use your example, it's like the city told the neighbor to clean up the corner of the yard he dumped the oil on, then the city coming and telling you that you could not use any part of your yard for six months while they studied the issue. Yeah, your neighbor is responsible for his damage, but the city is also responsible for the consequences of their decision.

Having said that, I think taking some time to evaluate the current status of offshore wells is not such a bad idea. From what I've been reading, I think you can bet that any wells now are taking the greatest care at monitoring their drilling operations and mud usage. Nobody wants to join BP in the doghouse. It's also likely that any number of wells are probably in good enough shape that they could be approved to resume operations within the six month moratorium. I think the Macondo well was a case where a series of bad decisions led to the explosion, fire and leak. It will take some time to fully understand the circumstances of this incident.

You almost sound like you're siding with the evil greedy corporation, not the taxpayers.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ...................

[Tunnelcat]

If he was so concerned TC, I suggest you look up the Jones Act and how Obama didn't over rule the act and allow the Dutch to come into our waters to help clean the oil up. Read a former post where Obama sics Holder on BP with potential lawsuits causing BP's value to drop like a stone. What happens if BP files for chapter 11? Who will foot the bill then? Obam cares not about the "taxpayers", no more than during the Health care push. Obama sees the oil spill as a vehicle to ram through things like cap and trade to further decimate our economy.

On top of all that how many jobs and incomes are affected by banning any and all deep water rigs from operating for 6 months? Meanwhile the Chi-Coms, Cuba and Mexico are balls to the wall drilling and I bet the safety on their rigs are no better than BP's.

Woodchip, it didn't need to be waived in this case and there are already about 15 foreign flagged ships in the Gulf helping with skimming. You've been listening to Fox News again.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/prnewswire/ ... 19907.html

http://mediamatters.org/research/201006170022

Dissent, the oil workers need a safe and non-coercive working environment to work in and the oil industry needs to come up with better spill remediation if they want to drill for oil in the ocean in the future. The oil industry lied to the government and everyone else in this country that they were fully prepared for any eventuality. The ocean is the commons for everyone to use and it has to be protected from abuse and destruction. The private sector could give a rat's behind about how they treat the land or water WE ALL have a stake in. If you don't like that bit of socialism, go down and vacation in the Gulf for a bit and smell the tragedy.

Private industry is taking resources from an area that belongs to all of us, without regard to the consequences and that's why the government has to step in and oversee the private sector to see that things are done in everyone's best interest, as cumbersome or faulty as that may be. Privatized gain, socialized risk, AGAIN! Overfishing and pollution is just as destructive and needs monitoring as well. Not only are oil workers out of a job, thousands of fishermen and tourist related jobs are gone too, all due to a series of preventable mistakes. Was pushing the depth of drilling technology without any way to stop a wellhead leak, and reliance on decades old cleanup methods if the worse case ever happened worth all the lost jobs and the giant, oily bathtub ring we have now?

And no, I don't think putting BP out of business would solve a thing. We need them to be healthy and profitable enough to fulfill their obligation and clean up this mess they made and help those who's livelihoods have been destroyed for a long time to come. That's the way the cookie crumbles. And BP sure hasn't endeared themselves to people in the U.S., even if it was an honest translation error. Perception is everything.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0617/ ... l-response

[Heretic]

Obama ban on deepwater drilling blocked

[Tunnelcat]

Well, I guess I can't put all the blame on BP when a large proportion of people in the U.S. would still take the risk polluting the planet/oceans in exchange for the privilege of driving their precious cars. I just saw a poll on CNBC this morning that showed 80% wanted the ban lifted and 20% did not. I'm willing to bet people living near the Gulf now have a different opinion on the matter.

[Will Robinson]

...The ocean is the commons for everyone to use and it has to be protected from abuse and destruction.....

Private industry is taking resources from an area that belongs to all of us, without regard to the consequences and that's why the government has to step in and oversee the private sector to see that things are done in everyone's best interest, as cumbersome or faulty as that may be.

I couldn't agree more! But since we really do need to take oil from the ground regardless of the wishes of environmentalist idiots we will be drilling somewhere! And so with that in mind wouldn't the best interest of all be better served if we did most of our drilling/pumping on land where cleanup is much much easier? And where safety measures are much much easier to manage? And where the inevitable spill doesn't impact fisheries, tourism and that wonderful common area we share with the rest of the world?

Too bad the enviromental nutbags control so much of the democrat party that policy isn't in line with what you claim is the right thing to do!

....

Was pushing the depth of drilling technology without any way to stop a wellhead leak, and reliance on decades old cleanup methods if the worse case ever happened worth all the lost jobs and the giant, oily bathtub ring we have now?

See the above and remember BP didn't choose to drill so far out there because it serves their greedy interests. Their profit margins would be helped by being able to drill on land....So don't try to put the decision for "pushing the depth of drilling technology" on their backs, it belongs on the eco-weenies and political stooges in the democrat party
...........

Perception is everything.

I wouldn't go that far but then again politicians in both parties certainly go too far riding only on the perceptions they get some people to buy into and support, primarily the perception most people have that one party is good and the other bad....
both parties are the same damn evil, greedy, self serving corporate monster that BP is only they have the luxury of being able to write and enforce 'laws' to control their competition with a gun.

[Tunnelcat]

...The ocean is the commons for everyone to use and it has to be protected from abuse and destruction.....

Private industry is taking resources from an area that belongs to all of us, without regard to the consequences and that's why the government has to step in and oversee the private sector to see that things are done in everyone's best interest, as cumbersome or faulty as that may be.

I couldn't agree more! But since we really do need to take oil from the ground regardless of the wishes of environmentalist idiots we will be drilling somewhere! And so with that in mind wouldn't the best interest of all be better served if we did most of our drilling/pumping on land where cleanup is much much easier? And where safety measures are much much easier to manage? And where the inevitable spill doesn't impact fisheries, tourism and that wonderful common area we share with the rest of the world?

We will run out of oil from land based sources sooner or later, then the ocean will beckon again. We need to get over our love of oil and the sooner the better for all of us.

Too bad the enviromental nutbags control so much of the democrat party that policy isn't in line with what you claim is the right thing to do!

Last I figured, corporations are now in control of the Democratic Party, not environmentalists. If environmentalists had ANY control in the party, there would be absolutely NO oil drilling at all, land or sea. You're crediting "enviromental nutbags" with too much power.

Was pushing the depth of drilling technology without any way to stop a wellhead leak, and reliance on decades old cleanup methods if the worse case ever happened worth all the lost jobs and the giant, oily bathtub ring we have now?

See the above and remember BP didn't choose to drill so far out there because it serves their greedy interests. Their profit margins would be helped by being able to drill on land....So don't try to put the decision for "pushing the depth of drilling technology" on their backs, it belongs on the eco-weenies and political stooges in the democrat party....

No, they chose to drill in deep water without any backup plans for disaster because it would have cut into profits, plain and simple cheapskates. They went to the trouble of figuring out how to cut the patient, but not seal the wound. They also chose to cut technical and engineering decisions that might have prevented the spill in the first place, again for profit. And it was the government's fault for allowing them to do so without that necessary backup contingency.

[Will Robinson]

...
No, they chose to drill in deep water without any backup plans for disaster because it would have cut into profits, plain and simple cheapskates. They went to the trouble of figuring out how to cut the patient, but not seal the wound. They also chose to cut technical and engineering decisions that might have prevented the spill in the first place, again for profit. And it was the government's fault for allowing them to do so without that necessary backup contingency.

You are wrong.
HOW they chose to go about drilling in that location is on them, WHY they are drilling there in the first place instead of on land, for example in the section of Alaska's ANWR that was SET ASIDE SPECIFICALLY for drilling but blocked BY ENVIRO-NUTBAGGERY, is not on them....

[woodchip]

you sayin that oil workers don't want safe places to work woody?

Not at all.I am saying the workers would rather have their jobs and have the safety issues worked out while they (workers) are collecting a paycheck. Trust me Fernman, after all the money that BP will be paying out, I can guarantee you BP and all the other oil companies will not be putting safety on the back burner in hopes of saving a few sheckles.

[woodchip]

And it would seem I am not the only one thinking this way:

\"A New Orleans federal judge lifted the six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling imposed by President Barack Obama\"

[Tunnelcat]

You are wrong.
HOW they chose to go about drilling in that location is on them, WHY they are drilling there in the first place instead of on land, for example in the section of Alaska's ANWR that was SET ASIDE SPECIFICALLY for drilling but blocked BY ENVIRO-NUTBAGGERY, is not on them....

Not that the oil in ANWR would solve our long term problem anyway and it is a wildlife refuge. Demand is going to continue to rise, there will NEVER be enough oil to satisfy our needs. Is that a good reason to trash another pristine wilderness when we should be looking for something more stable and permanent as an energy source?

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/nat ... rices.html

And as for the environmentalists, I recall Jeb Bush was one of those vocal opponents to offshore drilling in the Gulf near Florida, mentioned sixth paragraph down in this article. He didn't want oil on his state's beaches while he was gov.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0422-06.htm

[Will Robinson]

You are wrong.
HOW they chose to go about drilling in that location is on them, WHY they are drilling there in the first place instead of on land, for example in the section of Alaska's ANWR that was SET ASIDE SPECIFICALLY for drilling but blocked BY ENVIRO-NUTBAGGERY, is not on them....

Not that the oil in ANWR would solve our long term problem anyway and it is a wildlife refuge. Demand is going to continue to rise, there will NEVER be enough oil to satisfy our needs. Is that a good reason to trash another pristine wilderness when we should be looking for something more stable and permanent as an energy source?

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/nat ... rices.html

And as for the environmentalists, I recall Jeb Bush was one of those vocal opponents to offshore drilling in the Gulf near Florida, mentioned sixth paragraph down in this article. He didn't want oil on his state's beaches while he was gov.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0422-06.htm

You just keep throwing up all kinds of piss poor deflections TC.
I don't care what Jeb Bush says, he isn't relevant to my point at all.
And the same is true of your excuse that land based drilling won't produce all the oil we need!
If it is easier,safer and less potentially hazardous to our environment to do more on land and less on the high sea then it is wiser to do more on land regardless of when it will run out.

FACT: We will continue to consume oil until an alternative is viable and then some.
FACT: As long as the world is going to burn oil someone is going to drill for it and pump it.

So in light of those facts it serves the enviroment as well as our economy to have American companies do as much of the drilling and pumping as possible because American companies will at least be regulated more than Mexican, Saudi Arabian, Iranian, Iraqi, Russian etc. companies will.
When's the last time you read about a Russian/Soviet spill? Never? Probably. And you don't really think it's because they don't have spills do you?!?

Your selective application of logic to serve your political team does not help the environment or the economy one bit!
So choose one or the other. Are you a friend of logic and the enviroment or a friend of the Democrat party? On this issue you can not have it both ways, that is a scam job for political hacks. If it turns out you choose to support drilling at ANWR for example and some Repub's also called for it so what?!? Even a stopped clock is right twice a day!

PS: ANWR is a refuge, yes. And in that giant refuge is a SMALL piece that was set aside explicitly for drilling! Do a little research if you don't believe me and try to stay off of liberal sites when you do. when you become familiar with the terrain there then imagine the same failure at ground level that they had a mile deep in the ocean and tell me how long the oil would be spewing and how easy it would be to recover it on frozen tundra versus a mile deep in water...
Nothing I'm suggesting here is designed to help a party or BP profits. It is based on common sense and a complete disregard for the political fortunes of ANY party or financial benefit of any company. You should try the same criteria when formulating your ideas.

[Tunnelcat]

You just keep throwing up all kinds of piss poor deflections TC.
I don't care what Jeb Bush says, he isn't relevant to my point at all.
And the same is true of your excuse that land based drilling won't produce all the oil we need!
If it is easier,safer and less potentially hazardous to our environment to do more on land and less on the high sea then it is wiser to do more on land regardless of when it will run out.

FACT: We will continue to consume oil until an alternative is viable and then some.
FACT: As long as the world is going to burn oil someone is going to drill for it and pump it.

FACT: When oil reserves run out on land, and they will eventually, they'll STILL return to the ocean to seek out oil. Staying on land is no guarantee drilling will never be done in the ocean.

So in light of those facts it serves the enviroment as well as our economy to have American companies do as much of the drilling and pumping as possible because American companies will at least be regulated more than Mexican, Saudi Arabian, Iranian, Iraqi, Russian etc. companies will.
When's the last time you read about a Russian/Soviet spill? Never? Probably. And you don't really think it's because they don't have spills do you?!?

BP is a British Multinational Oil Company, which has a subsidiary in the U.S. How will that regulation work any differently for them than any other multinational oil corporation? They are all drilling in the Gulf with the same attitudes and practices, regulations be damned, which were lax in the first place. The oil gravy train will eventually come to an inconvenient end for all of us. Typical of humans, never plan for the future, always live for the present.

Your selective application of logic to serve your political team does not help the environment or the economy one bit!
So choose one or the other. Are you a friend of logic and the enviroment or a friend of the Democrat party? On this issue you can not have it both ways, that is a scam job for political hacks. If it turns out you choose to support drilling at ANWR for example and some Repub's also called for it so what?!? Even a stopped clock is right twice a day!

I'm opposed to drilling for oil ANYWHERE, especially whenever oil companies have absolutely NO contingency plans PREVIOUSLY PROVEN FOR EFFICACY to compensate for equipment, natural or human failures. Yes, sh*t happens, but backup plans should be in place to account for that, if they even cared, which they don't. If they can't do it safely and cleanly, don't do it at all, the mess is NOT worth it! And frankly, we need to STOP using oil PERIOD and start thinking of the future before we do eventually run out OR turn our planet into a giant cesspool OR both. That IS common sense!

PS: ANWR is a refuge, yes. And in that giant refuge is a SMALL piece that was set aside explicitly for drilling! Do a little research if you don't believe me and try to stay off of liberal sites when you do. when you become familiar with the terrain there then imagine the same failure at ground level that they had a mile deep in the ocean and tell me how long the oil would be spewing and how easy it would be to recover it on frozen tundra versus a mile deep in water...
Nothing I'm suggesting here is designed to help a party or BP profits. It is based on common sense and a complete disregard for the political fortunes of ANY party or financial benefit of any company. You should try the same criteria when formulating your ideas.

It's now protected, so live with it. Even if drilling was allowed in ANWR, it would only account for around 1.2% of the world's total consumption by 2030, when production would come on line, and it would have very little impact on global prices. Oil is a global commodity, so oil that's pulled out of the ground within our borders just gets put into the world market. We don't get to keep it for ourselves because we found it within our borders.

On a separate note, this doesn't look good. The base of the BOP is bent and it's now leaning.

http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2010/0 ... p-leaning/

[Heretic]

Boycott Big Oil

[Tunnelcat]

I don't want to boycott big oil, I want to see us weened off of oil as a means of getting around. We'd have a lot more of it for other valuable uses if we didn't just burn the stuff for energy and mobility. About 18% of all oil consumed in the U.S. is NOT burned and goes into other products. Humans have the technological smarts to come up with something better for getting ourselves around, so we'd better get busy NOW, and not at the last minute when it runs out or poisons us.

[dissent]

FACT: We will continue to consume oil until an alternative is viable and then some.
FACT: As long as the world is going to burn oil someone is going to drill for it and pump it.

FACT: When oil reserves run out on land, and they will eventually, they'll STILL return to the ocean to seek out oil. Staying on land is no guarantee drilling will never be done in the ocean.

Yeah. And I also agree that oil workers "need a safe and non-coercive working environment to work in and the oil industry needs to come up with better spill remediation".

I'm opposed to drilling for oil ANYWHERE, especially whenever oil companies have absolutely NO contingency plans PREVIOUSLY PROVEN FOR EFFICACY to compensate for equipment, natural or human failures.

Terrific. And how do we go about testing for "efficacy" in the scenario we are currently experiencing? Would it surprise you to learn that governments are (at least partly) involved in the reason why this might be difficult?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/25/us/25clean.html

Research is hampered in other ways. For example, there is only one place in the United States — a center in New Jersey operated by the Minerals Management Service — where cleanup technologies can be tested, at full scale, on spilled oil. Other countries, notably Norway and Canada, allow occasional testing involving intentional spills into the environment, although only after an exhaustive permitting process.

I expect that one of the outcomes of this incident is that there will have to be found some ways to do just this kind of testing. Let’s see if they can make it happen without having it turn into a morass of regulatory doodoo.

Yes, sh*t happens, but backup plans should be in place to account for that, if they even cared, which they don't.

C’mon TC, gimme a break. You can’t possibly believe that BP doesn’t care that this oil has been spilled into the Gulf. It’s painfully obvious that the contingency plans in place were inadequate. Blame them for complacency (because of the long record of drilling with relatively few incidents). Blame them for hubris (thinking they had the bases covered, when clearly they didn’t). But don’t blame them for not caring. At the very least this is a very bad dream for BP’s financials and consumer brand.

If they can't do it safely and cleanly, don't do it at all, the mess is NOT worth it! And frankly, we need to STOP using oil PERIOD and start thinking of the future before we do eventually run out OR turn our planet into a giant cesspool OR both. That IS common sense!

Are we drifting back to our apocalyptic, end-of-the-world, the Gulf IS DEAD (!!!!) meme here?

On a separate note, this doesn't look good. The base of the BOP is bent and it's now leaning.

http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2010/0 ... p-leaning/

The fact that the BOP is not perfectly vertical had been known for some time. A couple of really interesting recent threads on this very topic over at TOD (The Oil Drum).

First there was this one, a post by "dougr" on 13 June, which seems to have gained some attention in the MSM.

Later, there was a post by "shelburn" on 25 June that attempted to throw some cold water on dougR’s theory – The BOP is not in danger of tipping over..

Long threads, but read ‘em for what they’re worth. Lots of interesting additional comments to each of the threads. This must be what it looks like to see sausage being made, from the sausage’s point of view.




On a related note, there was quite a bit of noise some days back about the Shell chairman and the oil tanker method of cleaning up oil spills, like they did in ’93 in the Persian Gulf.

Or did they?
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6485#more

[Will Robinson]

TC you shamelessly ignore the points raised and offer contradictory rantings instead of discussion.

[Tunnelcat]

I'm not ignoring the points raised here. I'm pointing out how oil companies spent all their money on drilling technology because it made them money and damn near NONE on better ways to clean up after an accident. Can you even concede that corners were cut with procedures and practices on the Deepwater Horizon in a bid to speed things up at the expense of safety? You keep defending their practices like they give a damn about the environment and their workers, NOT! That's why I think BP didn't care whether they spilled oil in the Gulf, because they sure didn't even try to invest in better ways to clean it up in case it ever did. Maybe they were so sure of themselves and their technology that they thought a blowout would never happen in the first place.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... AD9GJ5A6O2

And you prefer to not see what our continued unfettered use of oil will eventually do to humanity and this planet. You continually, derogatorily dismiss \"eco-weenies\" as crazy nut jobs and you can't even begin to concede a smidgen of what they say from their point of view. It's all about 'what's good for corporate America' to you. Well, how about 'what's good for humanity'? And just wait until a good sized hurricane actually hits that area dead on this season and spreads that foul poisonous crude FAR inland, all over human habitation in a big froth of oily water.

Dissent, you seem to be in the know. Is there anywhere someone could go for info. on how ocean drilling is actually done, in detail? How do they get all that cement and equipment installed on the ocean floor at the wellhead and how in the hell do they drill sideways or even directionally steer a drill underground anyway?

[Will Robinson]

...Can you even concede that corners were cut with procedures and practices on the Deepwater Horizon in a bid to speed things up at the expense of safety?

I already did when I pointed out to you that the way they drilled is their fault but why they are drilling out there where mistakes are so much more disastrous for the environment is, sadly ironically, on the backs of the eco-weenies. You failed to recognize the point....

By the way, not all people who are concerned with the environment are weenies, only those who would cut off their nose to spite their face....like you when you say we shouldn't drill at all. Or anyone who said it's better to drill a mile deep instead of on frozen tundra in a small piece of ANWR that was set aside specifically for drilling BECAUSE IT IS A GOOD PLACE TO DO THAT KIND OF POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS ACTIVITY!

You keep defending their practices like they give a damn about the environment and their workers, NOT!...

no, I keep defending the continued drilling by americans because there is no viable alternative. Someone is going to drill and pump the stuff even if we stop! You refuse to think that through.
If eco-weenies hadn't stopped us from building nuclear reactors the vast majority of us could probably be driving electric cars right now because the battery tech has advanced to meet the needs of most peoples daily driving routine.
But no, we don't dare be as bold as the French and build reactors.

There is reality and there is posturing, your ranting has left the station in reality land and you've taken your drama on down the track.

[dissent]

Is there anywhere someone could go for info. on how ocean drilling is actually done, in detail? How do they get all that cement and equipment installed on the ocean floor at the wellhead and how in the hell do they drill sideways or even directionally steer a drill underground anyway?

Here's a good place to start; lots of related articles -
http://www.rigzone.com/training/howitworks.asp



dood !!! - also @ rigzone -
http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=95117

BP has come under heavy fire from Congress and environmental groups for its lack of readiness to handle a worst-case spill. But that criticism has overlooked a key fact: BP was required by federal regulators to base its preparations on Interior Department models that were last updated in 2004.

Really!!?? Awesome. (natch - read the whole thing)

[dissent]

Interesting post here on the final approach of the first relief well -
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6674#more

Read the link from the John Wright Company.
Some interesting comments as well.

[Spidey]

UPDATE….still leaking…no end in sight...

[Tunnelcat]

Thanks dissent! Those sites you posted answered all my questions. Very interesting reading and watching. Now if these guys can design all this complicated technology to get at the oil, they can jolly well design the technology to fix things when they f**k up, because Murphy's Law says, \"Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong\"!

Something I didn't know. There are around 27,000 abandoned oil wells in the Gulf, 3500 of those are temporarily capped and some may be leaking right now. Nice of our government, or even the industry, to keep track of these things, NOT! Out of sight, out of mind, just like BP using dispersant to sink most of the presently leaked oil in a subsurface cloud of toxic death to keep it from the public eye. It also makes a large proportion of the oil collection impossible since it doesn't float.

http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill ... as_we.html

[Will Robinson]

TC, if you want to really get disgusted look into what goes on in the drilling and pumping of natural gas! I saw a film called gasland on HBO recently that just killed that industry for me and the only way they could have pulled it off is with the complete consent of both party's.

[Heretic]

Yes that Gasland left a bad taste in my mouth too.

[dissent]

Haven't seen Gasland yet.

There was a thread on this over at TOD recently -
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6635

[Tunnelcat]

TC, if you want to really get disgusted look into what goes on in the drilling and pumping of natural gas! I saw a film called gasland on HBO recently that just killed that industry for me and the only way they could have pulled it off is with the complete consent of both party's.

I don't get HBO, but maybe it'll show up on Sundance Channel. Interesting find though. I didn't know that they used rock fracturing to get at rock trapped-gas in order to extract it. It makes sense since a lot of the natural gas we have in this country is not in big convenient easy-to drill domed reservoirs like oil is usually found in. But sh*t, it never crossed my mind that methane under pressure could get into the water table in dissolved form when these rock layers are fractured during that process and THEN migrate into people's drinking water wells, expand into bubbles and pose an explosion hazard! That's not including the poisons they put down in the rock layers as part of the process that migrates into people's drinking water too! I suppose if this land-based gas extraction process is banned, then the industry will go after this, FIRE ICE and trash the ocean further:

It just reinforces my loathing of our government's too cozy of a relationship with private industry at the expense of the people. What's "good" for our country is not necessarily "good" for it's people. I wish Congress and the President could see that, but "sigh", they've been bought off yet again by corporate interests, instead of at least trying to find better solutions to our energy problems. The government also needs to get out of bed with the oil and gas industries and regulate them like they're supposed to be doing, instead of giving them free passes to destroy what they want to get at what they want. Hmmmmmm, I wonder if they stole the hydraulic fracturing term "fracking" from Battlestar Galactica, or vise versa.

Here's something recent, but I'm not advocating it, refrigerator-sized nuclear reactors that are transportable and small. But like all nuclear reactors, they produce radioactive waste that has to be dealt with and stored long term, along with terrorism concerns and possible meltdowns. Alas, there is no magic bullet if we want to use some form of energy in our everyday lives. I guess we'll all have to put up with our cesspool of a world in order to have electricity and have the ability to move ourselves and our goods around, until it kills us of course.

[AlphaDoG]

It just reinforces my loathing of our government

I sure hope you wake up soon!

[Tunnelcat]

AlphaDoG, I don't loathe government, I just loathe corrupt government.

Well, the new tighter fitting top cap is installed, but as usual, more delays in getting the leaked stopped.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gulf_oil_spill

[woodchip]

So what I don't get TC, that after 80+ days and now when it looks like a real cap may work, people in charge are suddenly worried about the \"cork\" causing pressure faults to materialize elsewhere in the ground and thus the cap should not be finalized? No one did these geologic analysis earlier on? No wonder it seems like clowns are in charge.

[AlphaDoG]

AlphaDoG, I don't loathe government, I just loathe corrupt government.

TC there is more than one way for a government to become corrupt. You contend that our government is in bed with big business, however it is my contention that our government has created class warfare and are trying to hold people down. Thus it is no surprise to me that government is in bed with NOT ONLY big business, but also Hollywood/celebrity. The little people can not supply the money politicians need to remain in office so they get stepped on on the way up, and walked on from then on.

[dissent]

AlphaDoG, I don't loathe government, I just loathe corrupt government.

Well, the new tighter fitting top cap is installed, but as usual, more delays in getting the leaked stopped.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gulf_oil_spill

TC, Woody - I had to laugh when I read this story. If these clowns over at AP had spent even a little bit of time listening to the various video briefings that Kent Wells has been giving for several weeks, freely available at BP's web site, they would have known that they (BP and the Unified Command) were going to move cautiously at this point and do a number of integrity tests on the well to see if there were issues with flow around the casing. This is not new news. It's been known for weeks that there might be some issues that needed to be addressed. This is not a case of the government stepping in to protect the public; there was never any intent to just try to slam the well closed, consequences be damned.

AP is apparently staffed by a bunch of idiots. or, ... else this sensationalistic reporting is by design, to bring in the mouse clicks to AP's stories, flawed as they may be. This story could have easily been written, and headlined, using the more measured statements given in the bottom half of the story. But no, AP opted for the sensational.

I'm shocked.