The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Spill, Baby, Spill!

Status
Not open for further replies.

jlm

Workshop Member
supposedly the most technologically advanced muti-million dollar rig; practically a poster child for the offshore drilling crowd, touted for the safety practices of drilling, yet:

-they had a major problem anyway
- and no-fail safe solution for stemming the leak worked;
-they had no plan B
-the impact of the spill is going to ruin many lives

drill, baby, drill.
 

bensonga

Well-known member
Disclaimer: I work for BP here in Alaska.

I think this rig explosion and massive oil spill demonstrates how risky oil exploration and development in areas like the deep waters of the Gulf can be. To my knowledge, BP is considered to have some of the industry's best technology for deep water drilling....but even so, catastrophic accidents can happen unless EVERYTHING works perfectly. There is such a small margin for error when you're drilling in waters a mile or more beneath the ocean's surface (and then down an additional 2-3 miles from the seabed). The most likely causes, from what I've read and heard from engineers here is a faulty cement casing job in the drillpipe and perhaps a faulty blowout preventer valve.

Personally, I think the whole idea of drilling in waters like this should be reconsidered....as we're seeing now, the environmental and economic consequences of failure can be far greater than many people have been willing to admit.

But if we're going to limit oil development and drilling to protect the environment (as I think we should) then we've all got to make tough choices about energy use and get serious about investing in alternative energy technologies as a nation. Frankly, I have little sympathy for my brother-in-law who has been quick to criticize BP for it's failures in this case and yet is determined to drive his F-350 diesel pickup (getting about 12-14 mpg) and tow his fifth wheel trailer across country all summer....not to mention his horse trailers etc etc. He derides the whole idea of driving more fuel efficient vehicles.

I just don't think we can have it both ways anymore.....cheap fuel, big trucks/RVs, a clean environment and an inhabitable planet.

I understand that Sarah Palin has tweeted today that she is praying for the people and communities in the Gulf that will be hit by this oil spill.

With all due respect Sarah <ack!>, I don't think "Pray, baby, pray" is a real solution to this problem.....no more than drill, baby, drill ever was.

Gary
 
Last edited:

jlm

Workshop Member
i am taking heart from the cape cod wind farm developments and of all things, the energy and initiative of Schwartzennegger!
 

bensonga

Well-known member
It's so depressing for me to see and anticipate the impact of this spill on the estuaries and wildlife of Louisiana and the Gulf coast. While I've never been to that part of the Gulf, I have spent many weekends walking the beaches and bird watching in the Bolivar Flats Bird Sanctuary near Galveston, Texas in the mid-90s.

When you work for a big oil company like BP, you want to think and believe that the company really means what it says re it's commitment to safety, protection of the environment etc. I know that many, many of my co-workers here in Alaska take that commitment seriously, as do I. After the Texas City refinery explosion and the oil pipeline leaks here in Alaska, there is always a nagging doubt in the back of our minds.....is it real, or is it just PR.

Gary
 

LJL

New member
You raise some interesting points, Ben. From what I know, also coming from the oil patch right here in the Gulf Coast area, BP has found itself beset with a couple issues. While it has a very strong PR and acclaimed program for both safety and environmental sensitivity, it has also gotten caught with some asset problems from acquisitions (they bought Amoco, which was the owner/operator of that Texas City refinery that had the explosion; they bought Arco, which was a major owner of a piece of the pipeline in Alaska). Those assets were starting to become marginal, meaning they needed a lot of investment and upgrading. BP was expanding into many areas, and maybe not putting as much into the older assets as they maybe needed to. Not trashing them, nor defending them, just pointing out that it takes huge amounts of capital to keep things in top shape, and that has a very poor effect on the share price....until something like this happens, and the impact is even worse financially. I used to do a lot of the risk analysis number crunching for many of these drilling programs, and while clean-up/remediation was always factored in, it gets low-balled, because of the false sense of belief, and record to some extent, that the technology works and will "probably" not fail.

The blowout preventer was built by a third party company (Cameron), and it was actually tested and passed a couple weeks prior to the explosion at that rig. What is interesting now, is that it cannot be manually triggered with the submersibles. That may be because it could have been damaged in the blowout itself, but it ain't doin' what it is 'sposed to be doin'. That is something that will be closely scrutinized for sure. If the cement job was poor (other very possible problem, especially in deep water, and that job was done by Halliburton!! I think the records show that 18 of the 39 rig blowouts in the Gulf since 1992 were caused by faulty cement jobs.), it will be the driller's fault (BP and Transocean, the rig owner). The worst part is that the "Plan B", which is actually mandated by Federal Law since the late 1980s or so for containment, clean-up and remediation, has never really been tested too often, simply because there have not been very many disasters like this one. (BTW, in a completely separate incident, another drilling rig tipped over in the shallow waters of a channel area today...operated by another company....no leaks known yet.) With oil price north of $80/bbl, drillers and pumpers are working flat out to get the stuff out of the ground and make the most money. We all know what happens in times like that.

Sorry to get too carried away on this, but having been pretty close to a lot of the inside stuff in all these companies while a consultant for several years, I can say there is plenty to worry about on so many fronts of this extremely technical and dangerous business in every sector from exploration through production to refining and petrochemicals. As long as we keep using the oil and plastics, we will constantly be creating more opportunities for these kinds of disasters. No way to practically build in enough safegaurds, unless the price of crude was so high and the penalty for accidents so punishing that nobody would dare lose a drop coming from the ground ;-)

LJ
 
Last edited:

bensonga

Well-known member
I agree with much of what you've noted LJ. While I don't know the history of the Texas City refinery, I have worked for BP here in Alaska since the mid-80s and know that most of the Prudhoe infield pipelines that suffered severe corrosion problems (resulting in the leaks) were on the eastern side of the field formerly operated by ARCO (BP operated the western side of the field). Unfortunately, when BP became the sole operator of Prudhoe in 2000/2001, oil prices were very low and the pressures to keep costs down were intense, so I guess checking for pipeline corrosion on the formerly ARCO operated lines didn't get the attention it deserved (in hindsight). Since 2007, BP has spent alot of money on pipeline and facility renewal here at Prudhoe....despite the fact that production from Prudhoe is down to about 350 thousand bpd (from about 1.5 million bpd at it's peak). It's all downhill from here on out unfortunately.

The margin for error (whether human error or equipment failure) is so small when it comes to operations like those in the Gulf and the consequences of failure can be so great.....but it's really discouraging for those of us who work in the industry and care about doing it right to see catastrophic failures like this one.

Gary
 
Last edited:

jlm

Workshop Member
hopefully, an outcome of this incident will be to considerably raise the standard of belief for claims of safety for many industries.
funny how so many of the major disasters involve energy production: Valdez, coal mines, 3-mile island, (there is a still a huge underground oil spill in Queens, larger than the Valdez, that has been pushed under the rug) and always the technologies had claimed they were safe. In spite of this record, our government continues to sell out real safety for the fast big money.
 

LJL

New member
To be fair, these problems are not unique to just our government. While I cannot speak to the nuclear or coal mining industries, the oil industry has some of the more stringently enforced safety and pollution regulations of any industry. As Ben mentioned, these sort of disasters are really tragic when they happen, and it does pain some of us that are in or came from the "oil patch", when we know what may have been under control and what may not have been. The actual record of oil spills and fines for clean-up for spills in the Gulf is public knowledge. Most of the spills are a few tens of barrels of oil, or maybe a few hundred, and are usually quickly contained and cleaned up. This sort of wellhead explosion and sinking of a rig that held the record for drilling the deepest wells in the Gulf, and by a company (BP) that have really been trying to improve many aspects of operations worldwide, is a huge black-eye for them, and folks will argue forever who or what may have been to blame. Fact is, this is a very dangerous, complex, and costly operation (finding and getting oil and gas from some of the deepest reaches on the planet right now). As long as our demand for it remains high, regardless where it comes from, these sorts of things are destined to happen, and we just need to figure ways to deal with things faster and more effectively. There will be plenty of blame assigned, but right now we have a major disaster to get under control that will impact the lives and businesses of many folks for a long time, as well as the environment. Hurricanes can and do cause as much or more disaster, and we have learned to deal with that as best we can so far. Big difference here is the impact of the oil will linger much longer than the tidal surges and wind damage from storms.

As has been noted, it is a constant balancing act among costs, risks, prices, demands, and the ever present human element, be it the worker, the manager, the inspector, the regulator or whomever else has a role to play. I am not trying to defend this situation, as it is a disaster, and maybe could have been prevented, averted or lessened had things been done differently, but they were not, and now we have to deal with it. Going forward, you can be assured there will be some new regulations and changes, some of which may be needed and good. If you look at the major oil well disaster that happened in the North Sea many years ago, it caused many new regulations to go into place and they are carefully watched. One was the requirement for dual blow-out preventers to be used on all drilling like this. That may have actually helped in the present BP case, but if there was something else wrong, such as the cementing of the wellhead, two, four, or ten BOP would not matter if the rupture came below where they would engage. Anyway, more information than folks probably care about, but this is a good example of just how much we put at risk in some of these industries to service our needs for other things.

LJ
 

bensonga

Well-known member
Well said everyone.

A realistic assessment of the risks and consequences (which seems to have been down played by BP in it's environmental impact review before drilling this well) and very stringent environmental and safety regulations are critical for as long as we continue to produce and consume oil, gas, coal and nuclear energy etc. I'm always amazed at the folks who say we need less regulation and government, seemingly without regard to the consequences if industries like these were lightly regulated. I work extensively with the HSE (Health, Safety and Enviroment) folks at BP up here in Alaska and I do think they take their responsibilities seriously. The phrase often used is that complying with these regulations is the foundation for our "license to operate". Without that, no amount of oil and gas development is (or should be) possible.

To me, this really reinforces the paramount importance of conservation and using energy as if it was the most valuable commodity we have....that's why personally, I'm in favor of higher energy taxes (including a carbon tax). Seems the most effective way to convince people of the importance of anything (and hence encourage them to use it more wisely) is to make it more expensive. The additional energy taxes could go a long way towards funding alternative energy developments so we can reduce our dependence on carbon based fuels.

Sorry....getting off topic.

Gary
 

LJL

New member
Well said, Gary, and please accept my apologies for calling you "Ben" a couple times....your handle, "bensonga" just keeps fooling this old fool ;-)

Without delving more into the political ramifications, this entire energy conservation issue spreads across nearly everything. Using carbon fuels more efficiently might be easier if we had vehicles that would perform that way, and even if the types of carbon fuels were changed. For example, a barrel of crude oil can provide 20% more diesel fuel than gasoline, and some of the new super efficient clean diesel engines can produce an added 20-40% greater efficiency, more torque, lower maintenance, etc., than gasoline engines right now, but our collective "headset" about diesel is that it is for trucks, it is dirty, etc......all older world thinking that continues to spill into today's laws and stuff. Not a solution, but surely a way to greater efficiency, at least to help us get further along the path to newer technologies. So, if we should have a carbon tax to encourage us to use less, we also need greater efficiencies and transportation option to support that so folks are not punished more than is fair. (Gary, your brother may have way too many and inefficient toys, but most of those could be made even more practical....but there is no regulation or incentive for anybody to move in that direction...yet there is a lot of the "don't tread on my choices" bull puckey. Most of our resources are finite, but we have long enjoyed their abundance with little regard to their true costs and risks.

Let's hope lots of folks hear the "wake-up" call from all of this.

LJ
 

bensonga

Well-known member
First quarter profits for BP: $6.65 Billion. Profits after expenses.
Spend baby spend.
-Marc
Yes, at current prices, they are making alot of money, no doubt about it. I saw a number of $6.08 bn after tax on $74.4 bn in revenues per the BP 1Q results income statements.

http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_int...downloads/B/bp_first_quarter_2010_results.pdf

There is no doubt that BP can afford to spend $$$ on safety and environmental compliance etc. At $80 bbl....they've got the money. I just wonder if the technology and operational process/procedures are up to the task of 100% error free operations in places like the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico. I don't know if any amount of money spent can guarantee that an explosion and oil spill like this will never happen again.

Gary
 
Last edited:

gandolfi

Subscriber Member
The sooner we wake up and realize our lifestyle is screwing the planet, the better.

Cheers,

Gandolfi.
 

bensonga

Well-known member
Well said, Gary, and please accept my apologies for calling you "Ben" a couple times....your handle, "bensonga" just keeps fooling this old fool ;-)
No problem. :) That was my nickname when I was a much younger fellow.....so I'm quite used to "Ben".

.....and some of the new super efficient clean diesel engines can produce an added 20-40% greater efficiency, more torque, lower maintenance, etc., than gasoline engines right now, but our collective "headset" about diesel is that it is for trucks, it is dirty, etc......all older world thinking that continues to spill into today's laws and stuff.
I owned a 2002 VW Jetta turbo diesel sedan for about 4 years and really appreciated the 40+ mpg and the abundance of torque. Unfortunately, I had so many electrical problems with that car I finally gave up and went back to a Honda. The newest clean diesel cars are much quieter than the 2002 model I owned and I wouldn't hesitate to buy another one, if I could count on the rest of the car being as reliable as the engine.

Let's hope lots of folks hear the "wake-up" call from all of this.
Agreed, a real wake-up call...both for the oil companies who have thought their advanced technologies and operational practices precluded accidents like this from happening again, the citizens and governments who need to support and require more oversight and regulations and every one of us as energy consumers who need to use less carbon based forms of energy (whether produced here in America or overseas) so we don't continue degrading the environment and atmosphere.

A transition to a more sustainable form of energy isn't going to be quick, easy or cheap but we've got to do it. Is there the political will in this country or will we continue taking the easy road until it's too late? I wish I was more optimistic about that.....but the politics don't look good. Maybe this event will help change that outlook.

In the meantime, I think this article paints a pretty good picture of the reality of our current situation. We have got to find ways to reduce the demand for oil.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/weekinreview/02jad.html?ref=us

Gary
 
Last edited:

bensonga

Well-known member
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/opinion/02margonelli.html

Within BP, "Beyond Petroleum" was all about the company's commitment to new investments in solar, wind and bio-fuels and to being the first major oil company that acknowledged global warming is caused by CO2 emissions from burning carbon fuels (unlike ExxonMobil). BP was also one of the first oil companies to support cap and trade regulations.

I had never thought of BP's re-branding as "Beyond Petroleum" in the way Lisa describes it here....but knowing the psyche of the American consumer, this makes perfect sense in hindsight (which I'm sure the marketing folks had already figured out). We want to keep on keeping on, without the guilt, let alone actually making any changes or sacrifices in our lifestyle.

Clearly....that is not enough. As Lisa says, the real problem with oil spills is the oil (and by implication, our insatiable demand for it).

http://www.oilonthebrain.com/

Gary
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top